>>1) Diplomatic channels were not exhausted
>
> --I beg to differ. Diplomatic channels were exhausted. They
> may reopen, however...
If you call giving someone an ultimatum a negotiation process, then perhaps you're correct. Plenty of options were left unexplored, such as a UN peacekeeping force, because NATO refused to consider them.
>>2) The bombing has prompted the Serbs to accelerate their atrocities
>>against the Kosovars
>
> --Say, rather, that NATO's claim that it might bomb
> was keeping the Serbs from accelerating their
> atrocities--and now the Milosevic government
> (not "Serbs", please: I'm sure most Serbs have
> little desire to burn the houses and slit the
> throats of people who live in Kosovo) feels
> unrestrained.
I disagree. The atrocities accelerated tremendously after the bombing began. This we know. We don't know what would have happened had we not used military force. It may have played out the same way, but I haven't seen any convincing proof of this. In any case it could hardly have been worse than what actually transpired.
And I believe the bombing did prompt the Serbian gov't to greater viciousness. The best way for the Serbian gov't to strengthen its position was/is to eject all the Kosovars as quickly as possible.
>>3) NATO's motivations are not humanitarian in nature, so that even if the
>>bombing campaign succeeds in the sense that Milosevic agrees to a NATO
>>protectorate in Kosovo, this may not be in the long term interest of the
>>Kosovars or the local Serb population (although it would stop the killing).
>
> --Piffle. NATO's motives (again, I don't like the
> collective noun) are mixed.
We've had this discussion before, without making much progress.
The US is running the show, for the most part, and our history of military intervention is bleak in humanitarian terms. The Clinton Administration up until now has been more of the same. Why should we think this would be any different?
It's possible that Clinton and Blair et al's aims coincide with with that of a purely humanitarian mission concerned cheifly with the well-being of the Kosovars. But the conduct of the NATO powers to this point is not sympathetic to such a view. The US is spending far more money on munitions than on helping the refugees, the people we have supposedly gone to war to save. Clinton pledged there would be no ground troops sent, letting Milo know that we were not serious about stopping the atrocities on the ground should he wish to carry them forward in the face of the bombing. And NATO spokemen have effectively said there is nothing they can do to stop the purges in Kosovo - the justification now is punishment, to make the Serbian people "pay the price" for the actions of their gov't.
>>4) The bombing has threatened the stability of the region and our relations
>>with Russia and China.
>
> --Important, and true.
Glad you agree.
>>5) NATO has flaunted international law, the set of guidelines and rules
>>which the international community has agreed should govern international
>>relations. In so doing, NATO is merely upholding the priciple of "might
>>makes right."
>
> --Which is that governments agree that each gets to slaughter
> its own citizens when it feels like it? I feel about
> international law like Gandhi felt about Western
> Civilization: that it would be a good idea.
I happen to agree with the principles of international law, and if the US abided by international law it might actually have teeth. So in that sense I agree with you.
But your attitude about foreign gov'ts is much too cavalier. Basically, my answer is yes, I do think that foreign countries can be quite repressive and still not merit intervention. This is because:
- Intervention destroys the principle of self-government - Weak standards of intervention allow powerful states an excuse to interfere with in the internal affairs of weaker states
You claim intervention is OK is citizens are being slaughtered. I won't disagree, but neither does international law. In cases of genocide, the international community has recognized the right of intervention.
But genocide is a heavy burden, and one which could not be met in Kosovo before the commencement of the bombing campaign.
>So why no mention of the big, important reason to think that NATO's actions
>are a big mistake? That NATO is causing massive death and destruction
>without having much of an effect on Milosevic's power, objectives, and
>goals?
I don't know, I thought the above points implied all that, but since you put it so forcefully, sure, I probably should have said something along those lines.
>That weapons are tools for changing an adversary's mind
I don't agree. Weapons should not be tools used to change minds, but for self-defense. A disagreement is not sufficient justification for violence.
Brett