Tresy Kilbourne wrote ...
>on 11/25/99 3:53 PM, Siviour Craig at [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>> This is the reason offered by NATO, but it is patently a lie. This can   be
>> deduced because other nations are oppressing their citizens and NATO
>> did/does nothing. If NATO were really interested in preventing humanitarian
>> disaster, then it would intervene in all places where humanitarian disaster
>> occurs.
>That's a silly non sequitur.
>
>Major premise: If you, Siviour Craig, were really interested in preventing
>humanitarian disaster, then you would intervene in all places where
>humanitarian disaster occurs.
>
>Minor premise: You don't intervene in all places where humanitarian disaster
>occurs.
>
>Conclusion: You are not interested in preventing humanitarian disaster.

I'm sure that this issue has been dealt with before here, but anyway ...

The premise that NATO intervened in Yugoslavia so as to prevent a
humanitarian disaster can be rebutted on a number of fronts:

1) If the U.S./NATO was truly interested in preventing atrocities, they
would not have commenced bombing.  The commencement of the U.S./NATO
bombing campaign coincided with a sharp increase in reports of acts of
violence in Kosovo.  UNHCR reported zero refugees up until the time of the
U.S./NATO bombing - this changed dramatically within hours of the bombing.
Further, as Soren and others have noted, General Wesley Clark said that the
consequences of the commencement of U.S./NATO bombing in Yugoslavia were
entirely predictable.  When an act is acknowledged as being a potential
cause of atrocities, one who is truly interested in pursuing humanitarian
interests would not engage in that act.  There's a simple ethical point
here: you are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions.
 The U.S./NATO are responsible for the predictable consequences of their
bombing campaign, namely the increase in atrocities in Kosovo.

2) If the U.S./NATO was truly interested in preventing atrocities, then
they would not support nations that carry out atrocities.  Unfortunately,
this is not the case.  The U.S. has a long history of supporting
governments that commit atrocities, particularly against their own people.
Ongoing support for the Turkish government whose military slaughters its
Kurdish population.  Support for Saddam Hussein during the 80's while he
was experimenting with biological weapons against his own.  Strong support
for Suharto throughout the invasion and genocide in East Timor.  Support
for the governments of El Salvador, Honduras with their death squads.  The
list goes on.  This is not mere tolerance.  This is a pattern of active
participation in the ongoing killings of dissenters and others through the
sale and supply of weapons, military training and other methods.

3) If the U.S./NATO was truly interested in preventing atrocities, then
they would not carry out atrocities themselves.  Unfortunately, this is not
the case.  The most stark example is the continuation of sanctions against
Iraq, with thousands of children dying each month according to the UN - a
price which Madeline Albright considers worth paying.  That's not to
mention the regular bombing campaigns of the U.S./UK in the so-called "no
fly zones".  Further atrocities include the invasions of and bombings in
Panama, Grenada, Guatemala, South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos.  It's worth
noting that many of those atrocities were justified on arguments of
humanitarian intervention and support for freedom/democracy.

So, the U.S./NATO has a pattern of not only supporting those who commit
atrocities, but of committing atrocities themselves.  Further, in the case
of atrocities in Kosovo, the U.S./NATO was complicit, through their
acknowledgement of the predictable consequences of their actions, in the
sharp increase in atrocities following the commencement of bombings.

I believe that we can effectively rule out the desire to prevent a
humanitarian catastrophe as a reason for intervention in Yugoslavia.

Cheers,
Graham