Trouble in the Balkans...again

Sand

The BBC are reporting on another flareup of ethnic tension in Kosovo.

The UN have pulled out, surprise surprise, whilst NATO are sending in more troops to try and keep the two groups apart. The UN however have promised to issue a strongly worded condemnation of the violence and a polite request for it to end.

How long will NATO be in Kosovo? It could be anything up to 50 years if not longer if this hatred is still here, and this is even before the issues of whether Kosovo should be returned to Serbian rule, partioned on ethnic lines of given independance comes up. Years on Kosovo is still under occupation and the UN can veto any ruling by the elected representives. The issue of Kosovos future will have to be kept on the long finger for a very, very long time - Serbs are reacting to the attacks on their ethnic brethern by attacking Mosques in Serbia proper so it is almost like the good old days. Serbians still have difficulty accepting that their army or paramilitaries committed warcrimes or atrocities in the conflict it seems, and view the hague trials as a western plot to humiliate them.

Kosovo ruled by the UN and garrisoned by NATO troops may be the long term status quo rather than the interim. All the other options seem equally bad or unrealistic.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand
The BBC are reporting on another flareup of ethnic tension in Kosovo.
The UN have pulled out, surprise surprise, whilst NATO are sending in more troops to try and keep the two groups apart.

Surprise surprise you couldn't help but put in a dig on the UN there.
Being that the UN are merely administrators and the peacekeeping forces are NATO....
Funny I was waiting for that back when the UN failed to protect Aristide from a coup.

BattleBoar

The NATO forces should stay out. If the blue helmets want to go in and try to keep peace, so be it, but no nation should be doing this type of work. If the UN can't or won't handle it, as harsh as it may seem, it's a civil war...let the chips fall where they may.

mike65

Originally posted by BattleBoar
The NATO forces should stay out. If the blue helmets want to go in and try to keep peace, so be it, but no nation should be doing this type of work. If the UN can't or won't handle it, as harsh as it may seem, it's a civil war...let the chips fall where they may.

The UN could do the job but NATO can do it better
I'd say. Thier political masters are less squimish. Also NATO is'nt a nation. As for letting the chips fall where they may well thats hardly an acceptable policy for europeans in europe I'd say.

Mike.

vorbis

christ Battleboar, i wouldn't want to be your neighbour. I might be getting robbed but thats life according to you. Why is intervention in this case bad? These two sides have extreme hatred for each other. Leaving them alone is only going to result in massacres.

BlitzKrieg

...u sure the UN pulled out? Thats wierd I just got told they are still in there...Funny thing ye see if UN pulled out I would have been told since my father is part of the UN there and i just got an email from him describing how he with co-workers have been trying to help with some of the damage...

BattleBoar

Originally posted by vorbis
christ Battleboar, i wouldn't want to be your neighbour. I might be getting robbed but thats life according to you. Why is intervention in this case bad? These two sides have extreme hatred for each other. Leaving them alone is only going to result in massacres.

I realise that, and it is a difficult position to take sometimes, but it's founded in the belief that intervention into internal national problems, in the end, will cause more damage than good, to both the country you're trying to help and the country doing the intervening (or countries in the case of NATO). Of course the US as the leader gets the blame laid squarely on it's shoulders and I maintain that it just isn't the US/NATO's place to stick it's military nose into internal issues. That doesn't mean you don't exhaust all other methods, diplomatic and economic, to achieve your goals of bringing peace (ie.sanctions, censure, economic carrots, etc...), it just means that unless the military force involved has blue helmets, there shouldn't be a military intervention at all. Having NATO troops permanently stationed there to prevent them from killing each other is not a long term solution. They have to want peace first.

Sparks

Originally posted by BattleBoar
I realise that, and it is a difficult position to take sometimes, but it's founded in the belief that intervention into internal national problems, in the end, will cause more damage than good, to both the country you're trying to help and the country doing the intervening (or countries in the case of NATO).

I seem to recall hearing this general sentiment before.... oh, yes. The US envoy to the UNSC during the Rwanda genocide. :rolleyes:

Atreides

Originally posted by Sand
The BBC are reporting on another flareup of ethnic tension in Kosovo.

The UN have pulled out, surprise surprise, whilst NATO are sending in more troops to try and keep the two groups apart. The UN however have promised to issue a strongly worded condemnation of the violence and a polite request for it to end.

Sorry but wasn't Kosovo a Nato thing from the start, I mean its not like the UN where the ones bombing the **** out of the country, why should they (and therefore we) take responsibility for kosovo, its nato's Problem.

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
The BBC are reporting on another flareup of ethnic tension in Kosovo.

The UN have pulled out, surprise surprise, whilst NATO are sending in more troops to try and keep the two groups apart. The UN however have promised to issue a strongly worded condemnation of the violence and a polite request for it to end.

No surprise there, really.
What you want to do Sand, is look up Clinton's Presidential Policy Directive 25. Basicly, it means that the US will oppose any UN action that does not benefit the US, using it's UNSC veto with abandon if needs be. Which is why we had the genocide in Rwanda, among other rather nasty incidents.
So when you say "the UN is pulling out", you're correct. You're just omitting the reason for that withdrawl, and also the whole "you let us off the ICC jurisdiction list or we won't extend UN peacekeeping in Kosovo" threat that the US gave the UN & ICC less than a year ago.

Sand

...u sure the UN pulled out? Thats wierd I just got told they are still in there...Funny thing ye see if UN pulled out I would have been told since my father is part of the UN there and i just got an email from him describing how he with co-workers have been trying to help with some of the damage...

Youll want to get on to the BBC then and get them to correct their story.

Having NATO troops permanently stationed there to prevent them from killing each other is not a long term solution. They have to want peace first.

Unfortunately theres no reason for the ethnic albanians to want peace. They outnumber the serbs in the province 10-1. Given a free hand they can easily wipe out the entire population. To make all that "Never again" and weeping over the holocaust be more than the Pharisees preaching at the temple that means that the international community has to intervene - however that intervention may take effect.

On the other hand, if were going to take a hands off stance, or say that were concerned but powerless - then lets stop pretending to ourselves and level that Autzwitz memorial to make way for another supermarket.

If NATO ( or other international) troops have to be stationed there for 500 years then its a small price to pay in comparison to allowing another slaughter.

Sorry but wasn't Kosovo a Nato thing from the start, I mean its not like the UN where the ones bombing the **** out of the country, why should they (and therefore we) take responsibility for kosovo, its nato's Problem.

The UN have taken administrative control to the point where they can veto any decision the kosovars make for themselves if the UN decide its not appropriate. NATO provides the troops on the ground/ security.

What you want to do Sand, is look up Clinton's Presidential Policy Directive 25. Basicly, it means that the US will oppose any UN action that does not benefit the US, using it's UNSC veto with abandon if needs be. Which is why we had the genocide in Rwanda, among other rather nasty incidents.

I followed your link. Its an alleged document. I dont see where it says it will use the veto to oppose anything thats not in US interests, but I do see where it says the US needs to be more selective in its support for UN peacekeeping missons, which is fair enough. Its definition of US interests is rather broad and extremely agreeable for most Id have imagined - establishment of democracy, preventing wars spilling over, preventing dangerous instability so on and so forth. Nothing terrible there?

So when you say "the UN is pulling out", you're correct. You're just omitting the reason for that withdrawal, and also the whole "you let us off the ICC jurisdiction list or we won't extend UN peacekeeping in Kosovo" threat that the US gave the UN & ICC less than a year ago.

The reason for the withdrawal is that when the **** hits the fan the UN arent up to the task and need to call in more forceful allies. NATO in this case. This isnt even about expanding the UN prescence and the US saying no, the UN just scarpered. Just like they did when they were bombed in Baghdad. Just like they did when the Serbs showed up at Srebinica. Their area of apparent expertise is administering post war situations - if this hate is still there then how effective have they been?

Sparks

Originally posted by Sand
I followed your link. Its an alleged document.

The link is an alleged document (alleged because it's not been confirmed - and since PPD 25 is a classified document, that's not a huge surprise).
PPD 25 itself, however, isn't an alleged document.
(And there are other references to it, that was just the first one I put up there).

I dont see where it says it will use the veto to oppose anything thats not in US interests

Examine the actions of the US in the UNSC since PPD 25 was introduced, and you'll see how they're interpreting "the US needs to be more selective in its support for UN peacekeeping missons".

which is fair enough. Its definition of US interests is rather broad and extremely agreeable for most Id have imagined - establishment of democracy, preventing wars spilling over, preventing dangerous instability so on and so forth. Nothing terrible there?

Wrong. PPD 25 is why the US prevented UN intervention in the Rwanda genocide.

The reason for the withdrawal is that when the **** hits the fan the UN arent up to the task and need to call in more forceful allies.

Fertiliser. The people in the UN are the people in NATO.

the UN just scarpered. Just like they did when they were bombed in Baghdad. Just like they did when the Serbs showed up at Srebinica. Their area of apparent expertise is administering post war situations - if this hate is still there then how effective have they been?

So, skipping your highly misleading comments about the UN in baghdad ("Boss, we're being bombed and the US won't give us the requested troops to increase security!" "Well John, put the typing pool outdoors so that they can take the blast from the suicide bombers - we're not pullling out now!") and Srebinica (A ****-up whose responsibility lies with the dutch military forces rather than the UN in general), are you now saying that the UN is a failure because they can't prevent one human from hating another for an irrational reason?
Because if so, that's a mighty big tarring brush you have your hands on....

Victor

Eh, isn't KFOR (Kosovo FORce) a UN mandated mission, commanded by NATO? Like the UN mission in Kuwait was commanded by the USA? By comparision, SFOR (Bosnia) was led directly by the UN and MFOR (Macedonia) is a NATO operation authorised by the Macedonian government and not UN mandated (China vetoed it).

So if the "UN was withdrawing", it is likely that it was UN civiliians were withdrawing.

Originally posted byBattleBoar :
I realise that, and it is a difficult position to take sometimes, but it's founded in the belief that intervention into internal national problems, in the end, will cause more damage than good, to both the country you're trying to help and the country doing the intervening (or countries in the case of NATO).

Sometimes "feuding families" need someone to keep them from fighting, mediate and give them time and distance to settle their differences.

Of course the US as the leader gets the blame laid squarely on it's shoulders and I maintain that it just isn't the US/NATO's place to stick it's military nose into internal issues.

Eh, not 100% sure, but there are very few American soldiers left in the Balkans, European countries picked up the slack, when American soldiers were re-deployed to Iraq.

shotamoose

This page reproduces a White House briefing summarising PDD 25, which seems to accord with the version Sparks linked to: link

As far as I can see the longer paper doesn't explicitly say anything about vetoing UN operations, but it does say that when deciding whether to vote for a proposed new UN peace operation, the US will first consider whether "UN involvement advances U.S. interests". Which is not really the point of peacekeeping.

dathi1

The BBC are reporting on another flareup of ethnic tension in Kosovo.

Multiculturalism

Sand

The link is an alleged document (alleged because it's not been confirmed - and since PPD 25 is a classified document, that's not a huge surprise).

Okay, so there is a PPD 25 - and this is what it is alleged to contain. But no one really knows because its classifed. Hence, alleged?

Examine the actions of the US in the UNSC since PPD 25 was introduced, and you'll see how they're interpreting "the US needs to be more selective in its support for UN peacekeeping missons".

Wrong. PPD 25 is why the US prevented UN intervention in the Rwanda genocide.

Now weve moved from saying PPD 25 delcares the US will veto any peacekeeping thats not directly in its interests to saying PPD 25 is a classifed document which allegedly deals with the US policy on peacekeeping, which you are interpreting to mean the US will veto any peacekeeping deal thats not directly in its interests.

This is one of the major reasons Im not keen on letting someone else interpret for me.

are you now saying that the UN is a failure because they can't prevent one human from hating another for an irrational reason?

No the UN is a failure for many more reasons than that - you can search back through some of my old posts if you want to see what I think of the UN.

But this its forte ....this is the sort of "nation building" that its great at. And at the end of the day, its NATO thats keeping the situation calm, and NATO thats having to come in a rescue the situation when it goes bad.

Multiculturalism

Careful, questioning the accepted view that multiculturalism is desirable and an absolute good is racist!