|
LESSONS AND TEACHINGS OF
THE KOSOVO CONFLICT
|
Peruvian Instituteof Polemology
(I.P.P.)
Back to Editorial
E.VELIT G.
In the first time from its foundation, in 1949, NATO attacks to a country
that has not made any aggression beyond its frontiers and undertakes against
it a huge military campaign that has not been seen from the Second World
War.
When General Secretary of the NATO, Javier Solana, and the outstanding
militant of the Spanish Socialist Party, Felipe Gonzáles –though
ironic–, pointed out that to attack Yugoslavia was a "moral duty" to NATO,
they found a favorable echo in Germany, Italy, France and Great Britain
Prime Ministers, for strange coincidence all them noted leaders of the
social european democracy, that accepted with the Washington's "hawks"
that military via was the only way to solve the Kosovo impasse and the
aerial bombings of Yugoslavian cities would finish with the Milosevic's
authoritarian regime. In few words, a decision that violated flagrantly
the Fundamental Document of the UN, which pointed out that "not any country
member can adopt coercive procedures without the Security Council's authorization";
at the same time it puts on trial the effectiveness of the systems of collective
security that were always UN cornerstone.
Another teaching can be seen out of the easiness with NATO deployed
its military potential against Yugoslavia, showing the world that in international
conflict cases that suits their interests, the U.S. and the NATO can deceive
what the UN compels in its Fundamental Document. To made this, Washington
do worry about separating the NATO of the UN Security Council influence
area so this way they could have free hands to organize their military
operatives.
Latin America and the Third World in general, observe
with great concern the NATO's expansionary policy. President Clinton has
already manifested openly the necessity to create in Latin America a Defensive
Alliance, he says that it would be "an element of stability in the region"
suggesting the NATO to be the military force to guarantee security.
The North american' weapons sales policy to Latin America and The Caribbean
is part of this expansionary project. The stopping of the North american
weapons sales embargo in the region, facilitates the U.S. weapons industry
stimulate an arms career in the hemisphere, perturbing peace, military
balance and the regional economic development. The case of Argentina, qualified
"strategic ally" by U.S., is equal to a bridge for the NATO in our continent.
The North american project is to get the large number of strategic allies
extra-NATO in the region. That's another lesson to learn.
The countries members of the GRUPO DE RÍO manifested their rejection
to the attacks against Serbia, regretting the use of force against the
UN postulates.
Mexico, a country of great tradition in the field of International
Law, in a letter directed to the General Secretary of the UN pointed out
that the use of force takes to more violence and it hardly drives to a
solution. Mexico government –it continues– esteems that it is only "inside
the UN where a pacific and negotiated solution for the conflict should
be found out".
The peculiar Colombia's teaches us, we Latin Americans, to begin to
take our plans in front of the threat that NATO expansionary policy means.
We wonder: Why the international press is talking about Colombia could
be the Latin America's Kosovo. We know about the peace conversations between
President Pastrana and guerrilla. But some commentators of the region sustain
the possibility of an escalate of bombings to Colombia in the same Kosovo's
style, this in case the peace conversations fail. Bogota's El Tiempo sustains
that it is not crazy to think of an eventual intervention of Washington
in the forests that serves like territory to the guerrilla, having on pretext
the communist guerrilla's victory or the massive displacement of populations
that escape from the violence. Referring about Kosovo El Tiempo says: weire
going toward the Europe's Vietnam, though this time Kosovo can end up into
a NATO protectorate.
What does USA seeks to teach
with its military force?
In the last times the north american military power has been put into
activity in 2 occasions; in the Iraq and Kosovo cases.
Although in both cases U.S. could not talk about non objectables victories,
we can not ignore that in the political centers of decision of Washington
the self-complacency of having terrified the world with their attack capacity
has been lived up. This is what is called the U.S. armed diplomacy.
This irrational violence of the north american and NATO forces, also
stimulate the growth of the religious fundamentalisms and the extreme nationalism
as responses to the violations made by the NATO and USA military forces,
running the risk of uncontrollable terrorists actions.
The interventions against Iraq and Yugoslavia, passing over the UN
spreads shades and doubts about the genuineness of the NATO in their task
of collective security. The NATO expansionary policy, which already has
19 members, and the implementation of its new strategic concept of "action
outside of area", ratified in the last meeting held in Washington, takes
us to conclude that the also NATO threatens security, sovereignty and
political stability of the whole Latin American continent, besides it puts
the world on the edge of a new world war.
The hundred of thousands of citizen kosovars who walk away from their
homes, do it more because of the fear to the NATO bombings than for the
serbian troops advance. That is the best prove that the military intervention
of the NATO increased the problem and that the strategy of Washington in
Kosovo was plagued of errors. The Washington Post qualified to Albrigt,
State Secretary, as "the responsible for the coming calamity"
Moscow reacted vigorously in the face of the abuse. The Premier Primakov,
who was travelling to Washington returned to his country, the President
Yeltsin said that the attack was "an act of unjustified aggression". Igor
Ivanov, Russia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, said that the aggression
was an intent from U.S. part "to rule the world military and economically".
Definitively the NATO and U.S. have failed in their strategy against
Yugoslavia. Contrarily to what they looked for they have strengthened the
President Milosevic, destabilized to the neighboring countries for the
massive arrival of kosovars refugees, destroyed the advanced in the peace
conversations and they have aggravate the situation of the albanian kosovars.
The NATO and U.S. are in a dead end. They don't know what to do. Or
to launch a total war against Yugoslavia for that they need – according
to experts– a minimum of 200 thousand soldiers to be able to wrest Kosovo
from the Yugoslavian Federation, or otherwise to negotiate the peace, for
that in the last days some conditions have been outlining.
Military Russians' sources inform of pressure of the Army Forces so
that Moscow goes in aid of Belgrade in spite of the insistence of President
Yeltsin about not wanting to be involved militarily in the conflict.
U.S. and NATO measure the graveness of international conflicts according
to their interests. They condemn Yugoslavia but they tolerate and support
bloody dictatorships as that in Turkey, Indonesia and Thailand.
The NATO must not enter to Latin America. The next government that
soon will arise in Argentina should cancel its military relationship and
its condition of strategic partner of U.S.. The collective system of security
of Latin America does not need powerful military forces as the NATO. The
enemies of the continent are: the poverty, unemployment, non salubrity,
illiteracy and social injustice. In these matters NATO has not any role
to play.
IPP Editorial. May 1999.
Back to Editorial
Apartado Postal 2284, Lima 1, Perú
E-mail: ip_polemologia@latinmail.com
[Home]
[Editorial] [Pronouncement]
[Publications] [Articles]