>At what level of atrocities will the NATO bombings and intervention be
>justified?
This is the wrong question to ask. If intervention would INCREASE the level of atrocities, then intervention can't be justified.
>Or do we just get to play the ex post game of blaming NATO for "forcing"
>Milosevic to speed up his timetable of cultural genocide and ethnic
>clensing? Refugees have been streaming out of Kosovo for weeks, even months,
>so even the argument that this is was internal conflict was made a hash of
>when Serbs began driving refugees across the border. Note that 500,000
>Kosovans is over one-third of the ethnic Albania population of Kosovo.
The point is not that atrocities were not committed before the bombing, the point is that the bombing has accelerated them. Why isn't this a valid argument against the bombing? If the options are:
a) refrain from bombing and accept that atrocities will continue to be committed
or
b) bomb Serbia and remove domestic obstacles to the Serbs who are carrying out the atrocities, thereby accelerating the rate at which atrocities are committed
why is choosing b) preferable to a)? Especially if your are primarily concerned with the plight of the ethnic Albanians?
The only type of intervention that seems to have any chance of stopping the atrocities is occupation of the region by ground troops. And I'd be more inclined to support this option than limiting intervention to a bombing campaign because that might actually stop the atrocities, at least in the short term.
>Brett Knowlton raised the idea that a diplomatic or negotiated settlement
>was possible with a regime involved in this kind of murder and cultural
>destruction. The idea that Milosevic was emotionally torn between granting
>autonomy to Kosovo and committing mass evictions and murder is just not
>credible. As to whether the motives of NATO are humanitarian, I don't know
>or care, but the ends being fought for are moral and humanitarian regardless
>of motives. And given the level of atrocities in Kosovo, it is hard to
>argue bombing could conceivably make things worse.
The burden of proof in on you to show that diplomatic channels have been exhausted. It IS credible that Milosevic would be amenable to a negotiated cease fire. Do you think he WANTS Belgrade to be bombed? Sure, he'd rather be bombed than have NATO troops occupying Kosovo, that much is clear, but perhaps there are other terms he might agree to.
Incidentally, similar things have been said of Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War. Even he was willing to negotiate, but we gave him an ultimatim instead - WE (meaning the US) were the ones who ruled out a significant number of diplomatic options which may have prevented the Gulf War, and its my understanding that we've done the same in the Kosovo situation.
Finally, I seriously doubt your characterization that the motives of NATO are humanitarian. It might be true that NATO is fighting the good fight, but not because of any good intentions. That much should be clear to everyone. And this is important because it gets to the question of what kind of a settlement NATO will work towards in the region once the fighting has stopped. Its quite possible that NATO will set up the KLA in Kosovo, and the KLA will promptly begin its own wave of repression and terror, with full NATO support (or not - I can see this as a possible, not a guaranteed, outcome).
As I said before, I also would like to see the atrocities stop, and I would like to see some measure of peace come to the former Yugoslavia, but I think bombing hinders, rather than furthers those goals.
Brett