> Sadly, some on the left are angrier about NATO's bombing
> than they are about the Serbian forces' atrocities, even though
> Milosevic's men have killed more in one Kosovan village than
> have all the airstrikes.
I'm sick of this accusation. Somehow being opposed to the bombing means being unconcerned for the Kosovars. The fact that Milosevic has killed more people than NATO bombers doesn't mean much, especially since the two are closely linked - i.e., the bombing has probably enabled Milosevic to kill greater numbers of Albanians. It certainly hasn't saved any.
> Those who want an immediate NATO
> cease-fire owe the world an explanation of how they propose
> to stop and reverse the massive ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, in
> light of Milosevic's history as a serial ethnic cleanser and
> promise-breaker.
Those supporting military action bear the burden of proof, not the other way around. This is elementary. Those who are opposed to the bombing are the people who deserve an explanation of why this escalation and extra violence will be beneficial for the people of the region (Serb, Albanian, Croat, whoever).
> Real internationalists can hardly use the dubious rights of
> "national sovereignty" to oppose action to stop massacres.
When did national sovereignty become a "dubious right?" Fine, rights of national sovereignty may be trumped by the rights of oppressed minorities, but this is not a subject to be taken lightly. Just because people are being treated poorly doesn't mean we automatically get to drop bombs. Again, people supporting military intervention in the internal affairs of another country are obligated to demonstrate that the bounds of international human decency have been overstepped by the offending country.
Secondly, unless they apply this standard to ALL similar instances of repression, they should be afforded no credibility whatsoever, as this argument simply becomes a rationalization for intervention for other reasons, in which case those other reasons need to be clearly enumerated and explained.
> Ideally, there should have been a UN Security Council vote
> endorsing military action, but China and Russia had made it
> plain that no matter what barbarities Milosevic committed
> they would veto any such resolution.
So if we don't agree with the international consensus, we'll just do our own thing. Wonderful principle.
Fine, the UN isn't a very democratic institution. No argument here. But neither is NATO. If there really were a democratic international decision making body which decided to use force to stop Milosevic, I would feel much better about intervention. But that isn't the case.
> Soon NATO will be faced with two alternatives: stop the
> bombing and "negotiate," or commit ground troops. The
> bombing should stop only when Belgrade agrees to pull out or
> is pushed out of Kosovo, if necessary by ground troops.
And what is the reason for this stipulation, exactly? Why should the Serbs have to withdraw from Kosovo? What if a cease-fire could be reached where the Serbs maintained a military presence in Kosovo (almost certainly allowing for a foreign peacekeeping force as well)? Maybe that's the ONLY way to get a cease-fire. Maybe it wouldn't work, but what is the rational for dismissing it out of hand? This is lunacy. This is shockingly irresponsible.
> In reality,
> Serbia cannot have democracy and Kosovo.
I have to wonder what is meant here by the word "democracy." The situation is really summed up by this simple statement: people who hate each other have a hard time living in the same neighborhood. The Albanians want to expel the Serbs, the Serbs want to expel the Albanians. The Serbs just have the upper hand right now. The best that can be hoped for right now is to stop the violence and bring a measure of stability to the area. Real democracy is a pipedream, and won't be achieved in the near future under ANY scenario.
Brett