>> Max, I wonder what you think would happen if Russia
>> drew up a similar
>> "peace plan" for Turkey and its Kurdish population?
>
>I don't think Russia is equivalent to the UN, the EU, or even
>Nato as a plausible guarantor of justice.
Why not? This statement requires support, otherwise it is simply ideological and meaningless. The history of Russian intervention is no worse than that of the NATO member countries. Also, its interesting that you compare Russian intervention to _UN_ intervention, which was never an option in the Kosovo situation. It was NATO that rejected UN involvement.
The better analogy would be to ask what if the Warsaw Pact, as opposed to Russia alone, intervened in Turkey in this way (I know that the Warsaw Pact no longer exists. But this is a thought experiment, the purpose of which is to create an analogy to the Kosovo situation only with some other country or bloc as the interventionists, to see if you would still adhere to the principle which you profess to uphold: namely that intervention is OK if it means putting an end to a humanitarian crisis. So bending the rules like this is allowed).
>> No negotiations, just an ultimatum: sign or be bombed.
>> After all, you can't negotiate with those butchers.
>
>Nor do I think this captures the present or past stance of Nato,
>e.g., swallow this whole or be bombed.
Max, this is absurd. This is EXACTLY the stance of NATO immediately before the bombing started. This is a question of fact, and you are simply wrong.
Shortly before the beginning of the bombing campaign, I saw/heard Richard Holbrooke (sp.?) state that Milo had been given an ultimatum in an interview on Nightline.
>> Offered these choices, what would the Turks do? What would the
>> *Americans* do? Would the Kurds be better off? Would
>> we dismiss concerns about sovereignty as a smokescreen to
>distract from
>> the human rights abuses?
>
>The Turks would obviously resist, and Nato would defend it since
>Turkey is in Nato, but that isn't particularly relevant. This is
>too fantastic a scenario to play out much further.
The real question is for you, Max. Woud _YOU_ support the Turks in resisting the Russian demands, or would you support the Russian efforts to send troops into eastern Turkey to stop the violence?
>As for the Kurds, I would be interested -- abstracting from your
>scenario -- in whether *they* thought they'd be better off. And
>no, I wouldn't care about sovereignty in the face of human rights
>abuses.
There is no easy answer to this question, just as the situation is complicated in the Kosovo case. It depends on who you ask. It seems the KLA wants to see NATO intervention. But Ibrahim Rugova is apparently opposed to it. I don't know what the relative numbers are of those supporting and opposed to the NATO campaign among the Albanians.
Similarly I can imagine an analogous case in our thought experiment. Perhaps the Kurdish guerrillas and a number of other Kurds fed up with Turkish oppression would welcome the Russians, although some other elements (loyalist Kurds, folks who want to be left alone) might not support it.
Examine both cases if you like - general support for Russian intervention among the Kurds, and general opposition. How would this change your opinion, if at all?
Brett