------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date sent: Mon, 17 May 1999 11:33:04 -0700
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Sid Shniad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: WHO IS REPRESENTED BY NATO? By Osvaldo Croci and Brian K.
MacLean
The Sudbury Star Thursday, May 14 1999
WHO IS REPRESENTED BY NATO?
Osvaldo Croci and Brian K. MacLean
Reading the press releases flowing from NATO headquarters, it is hard to
ignore the frequency with which NATO claims to be waging war against
Yugoslavia on behalf of the "international community."
Constant references to the "international community" have a reason. NATO
leaders know that the only legal basis for NATO action is the claim that
when human rights are somehow judged to have been sufficiently violated
by a country, then the "international community" has the right to attack
that country with as much force as it deems necessary.
The shakiest part of this claim is the idea that NATO, a military
alliance of 19 countries in Europe and North America, represents an
"international community" having about 170 other countries from three
other continents, including an estimated 4.7 billion people in the
less-developed world.
Some of these other countries do support NATO bombing, though they are
not necessarily ones associated with liberal humanitarianism. By far
the strongest levels of support for NATO bombing come from Croatia and
Albania. The same is true for Malaysia, where Islam is the country's
official religion, and for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In the
Islamic countries of the Middle East, despite considerable dissension,
some have supported the bombing.
But the governments of a great many countries have quite clearly
expressed their opposition to NATO war-making, including some of the
most populous ones such as China (1.26 billion people), India (967
million), and Russia (147 million), all three of which possess nuclear
arsenals.
On May 8 China's position as a defender of Yugoslavia became clear to
all. China denounced NATO's missile attack on the Chinese Embassy in
Belgrade, in which three Chinese were killed and about twenty injured,
and called for an unconditional end to bombing. The embassy bombing
sparked massive demonstrations in numerous Chinese cities and even
demonstrations by Chinese outside of China, such as in Toronto on May 9,
when Chinese-Canadians joined Serbian-Canadians for an anti-NATO
demonstration of more than 1,500 people.
The U.S. called the bombing a regrettable accident, an explanation the
Chinese have yet to accept, presumably on the grounds that if you
respect a foreign power you make it your top priority to avoid bombing
its embassies by "mistake." Rather than offer to punish the culprits and
thereby accept some responsibility, Deputy U.S. Ambassador Burleigh
blamed it on Yugoslavia for having brought about NATO's bombing
campaign.
The Russians naturally viewed this as irresponsible finger-pointing:
expressing regret for your actions without accepting responsibility for
them does not constitute an apology. Russian Ambassador Lavrov rejected
Burleigh's claim, saying the big picture was that NATO's "military
adventurism" was threatening to "destroy the present world order."
Russian President Yeltsin repeated warnings of "very harsh consequences"
should the bombing continue, adding that "responsibility for those
consequences fully rests with those who masterminded this venture."
Opinion polls have shown Russian public support for NATO bombing at
about 2 percent.
>From India, the Foreign Minister claimed that the Chinese embassy
bombing was "proof that NATO was mistaken in trying to use force to bend
Yugoslavia to its will." He echoed views expressed weeks earlier by the
Indian Prime Minister: "We oppose the use of force as such actions
violate the sovereignty of a nation."
China, India, and Russia are respectively the world's first, second, and
sixth most populous countries. Indonesia -- the world's fourth most
populous country (210 million) and the world's largest Islamic country
-- has not been as vocal as these other population giants, but it has
called for a quick return to diplomacy. Brazil, the world's fifth most
populous country (168 million), has criticized NATO's bypassing of the
United Nations and has called for a negotiated solution, as has South
Africa (42 million), Africa's leading democracy, in a strong statement
issued on March 26 by the Foreign Affairs department.
Opposition to NATO's attack on Yugoslavia can also be found in NATO
countries. Polls have shown substantial opposition to NATO bombing of
Serb military installations from citizens in Germany and France; strong
opposition in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Italy; and fierce
opposition in Greece. And these are polls taken when Yugoslav targets
were what NATO now describes as "purely military targets" and those
polled had no idea that bombing missions would soon bring death to
hundreds of civilians and injury to thousands more.
Outside of NATO, two of the leading democratic allies of the U.S.,
NATO's dominant power, have been Japan and Israel. Japan, in a Ministry
of Foreign Affairs statement issued on April 27, deplored the
mistreatment of Kosovo civilians, and offered aid for refugees. The
statement, however, studiously avoided both direct support for the
bombing and direct criticism of the Yugoslav government. It emphasized
the role of the United Nations in representing the international
community to bring an end to hostilities, and made additional aid
contingent upon a peace agreement. The Japanese Prime Minister and the
Foreign Minister have wobbled and made some guarded remarks in support
of NATO, but now feel increasing pressure to recognize both Chinese
concerns and the growing anti-bombing sentiment expressed by Japan's
leading newspapers.
The official Israeli position has greatly resembled Japan's. Israel has
supplied aid and accepted refugees, but the first press release issued
by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not take sides and called
for a return to the negotiating table. Even after pressure was applied
by angry officials from the U.S. State Department, the Ministry only
issued a statement adding an expression of friendship with the U.S. and
NATO to a renewed call for "an end to suffering of the innocent" and the
"resumption of negotiations."
The evidence is clear. NATO leaders must stop pretending that world
opinion solidly supports NATO bombing. This is partly prudent
geo-politics in a post-Cold War world in which alignments have become
unstable and nuclear arsenals are acquiring renewed relevance.
It is also a matter of legality, as we are reminded by the complaint
lodged with the International War Crimes Tribunal by a group of Canadian
lawyers and law professors. The complaint documents NATO's violation of
the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Convention, the Nuremberg
Tribunal and its own Treaty, and it names our Prime Minister among those
to be tried for war crimes. It would not go unheeded in a world where,
for example, a Chinese-Indian-Russian alliance constituted the dominant
power.
--
Note: Population figures are estimates for 1997.
Authors: Dr. Osvaldo Croci teaches European and international politics
at Laurentian University. Dr. Brian K. MacLean is an economist at
Laurentian University specializing in international political economy.
[PEN-L:6938] (Fwd) WHO IS REPRESENTED BY NATO? By Osvaldo Croci and Brian K
ts99u-1.cc.umanitoba.ca [130.179.154.224] Mon, 17 May 1999 20:33:54 -0500
