View the h-diplo Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in h-diplo's May 1999 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in h-diplo's May 1999 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the h-diplo home page.
A reading of Appendix B of the Rambouillet Treaty ... at http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/ramb.htm ... shows that if the Yugoslavs had signed, they would have been surrendering *all* of Yugoslavia to NATO occupation, not just Kosovo. Although this has been reported elsewhere, it is an obvious point which is being ignored by Western/NATO media. Question 1: Is this interpretation of Appendix B correct, diplomatic scholars? This appears to have made our take-(and-sign-)it-or-leave-it ultimatum diplomacy clearly intolerable ... even for the many Serbians who hated Milosevic. When coupled with the Yugoslavian parliament's pre-bombing willingness to accept UN intervention, Clinton's/NATO's dictate-diplomacy does indeed seem to manifest the might-makes-right, naked aggression behavior so bitterly decried by Nobel Laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and many others. While Serbia may have knuckled under at the prospect of NATO bombing before, its very national survival was at stake this time, obviously. This seems to have been a treaty made for refusal. The Serbs were naturally prepared to end the war their way if a diplomatic solution could not be found, and the CIA had warned Clinton that "ethnic cleansing" would commence if it couldn't be. Clinton was also warned that bombing alone wouldn't be enough to stop it ... and we had no ground presence to protect the Kosovo people we were supposedly trying to protect. And anyone acquainted enough with history should know that bombing increases any war's savagery and can greatly increase the bombed's resistance and unity ... even if only to a certain point. Question 2: Wouldn't knowingly starting a war which would result in the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of people be considered a war crime? Some other points/questions: Wasn't Athens' defeat in the Peloponnesian Wars -- despite its own overwhelming commercial/budgetary, naval, etc. superiority over its adversaries -- ascribed to its "arrogance?" And hasn't even Rev. Jesse Jackson now cited President Clinton and his administration for arrogance? Incidentally, it now appears the Chinese will block any UN ending of the crisis. Given the excuse of our bombing of their embassy, the Chinese apparently want NATO completely defeated and/or discredited even if it does stage a successful invasion and "win." Lou Coatney -------------------------------------------------------- --Public reply to list: email@example.com --To unsubscribe send e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org with UNSUB H-DIPLO as the only text in the body of your message --To temporarily suspend your account: send e-mail to email@example.com with SET H-DIPLO NOMAIL as the only text in the body of your message. To reactivate your account, send e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org with SET H-DIPLO MAIL as the only text in the body of your message -- to receive a daily digest of events: send the following message to email@example.com: SET H-DIPLO DIGEST. To reverse this, send the the command SET H-DIPLO NODIGEST to the same address --Personal help from list moderators: firstname.lastname@example.org --Visit the H-Diplo web page at: http://h-net2.msu.edu/~diplo/