Attacking your allies: it’s just not done

Yugoslavia wasn't NATO but UN. But clintoon violated many international agreements and started and illegal war. "While NATO did not have the backing of the United Nations Security Council to use force in Yugoslavia, nor claims an armed attack occurred against another state, its advocates contend that its actions were consistent with the United Nations Charter. Additionally, as NATO is a supranational organization itself (and not a member state of the United Nations), NATO itself is not subject to limitations which would apply to members of the UN.[citation needed] The principal issue however remains whether the member states of NATO, the U.S. and the European powers, violated the UN Charter by attacking a fellow UN member state in the absence of an attack or a threat of imminent attack on them and in the absence of UN Security Council authorization." Plus, "NATO's charter It has been argued that NATO's actions were in violation of the charter of NATO itself. Proponents of this viewpoint argue that Article 5 of NATO's charter restricts NATO's use of force to situations where a NATO member has been attacked. Critics of this theory argue that the purpose of Article 5 is to require all NATO members to respond when any NATO member is attacked, not to restrict the circumstances under which NATO will choose to use force. NATO itself justified the actions in Kosovo under its Article 4, which states: The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened. Because the NATO actions in Kosovo were taken after consultation with all members, were approved by a NATO vote, and were undertaken by several NATO members, NATO contends that its actions were in accordance with its charter. However, opponents of NATO's involvement contend that the situation in Serbia and Yugoslavia posed no threat to any of the NATO members." Rambouillet Agreement From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The Rambouillet Agreement is the name of a proposed peace agreement between then-Yugoslavia and a delegation representing the ethnic-Albanian majority population of Kosovo. It was drafted by NATO and named for Chateau Rambouillet, where it was initially proposed. The significance of the agreement lies in the fact that Yugoslavia refused to accept it, which NATO used as justification to start the Kosovo War. The proposed agreement contained provisions for Kosovo's autonomy that went further than the Serb government wanted to go. Another controversial point was the secret Appendix B that among others stated that: NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations. After the war the International Independent Inquiry on Kosovo led by Richard Goldstone investigated the Appendix issue and concluded that it had by accident been copied from other peacekeeping agreements like that for Bosnia. However, the British Lord Gilbert, defence minister of state said in an inquiry by a House committee "I think the terms put to Milošević at Rambouillet were absolutely intolerable; how could he possibly accept them; it was quite deliberate". The full text of the Rambouillet Agreement can be found at the State Department. The Serbian Parliament respondedon March 23, 1999 to the agreement with a sharp criticism. Though it agreed that Kosovo should be given autonomy, it stated that it would prefer the incursion of the United Nations over that of NATO, accusing the "separatist-terrorist delegation of ethnic Albanians" of: "[avoiding] direct talks as it did not give up its separatist goals: to use autonomy as a means for establishing a 'state within a state'; to secure occupation of Serbia through the implementation of the political agreement; to create an ethnically pure Kosovo-Metohija under the pretext of protecting human rights and democracy; and to secure the secession of Kosovo-Metohija from Serbia with the help of their patrons and through an international protectorate and referendum." The Rambouillet Agreement was important for the debate about Kosovo War. However, the whole agreement (including the piece quoted above) was not revealed to the public until several months had passed after the beginning of the war and mainstream media reporters seldom if ever were aware of its contents. However, the agreement was leaked onto the Internet about the time when the war started and many non-mainstream reporters and NGO activists were referring to it in their commentaries on war.

Yugoslavia wasn't NATO but UN.

Um. I'm going to assume that you mean hat Yugoslavia was not a member of NATO but a member state of the UN.

But clintoon violated many international agreements and started and illegal war.

Name one international agreement that Clinton violated by attacking Yugoslavia that Bush did not violate by attacking Iraq.

I'm not taking sides with Clinton over Bush, but just pleading against all odds for some sort of morally and logically consistent criteria.

NATO itself is not subject to limitations which would apply to members of the UN.[citation needed]

Aside from the lack of paragraph breaks, it's poor form to quote Wikipedia -- or any source -- without citing it.

>>So now, just because a Democrat reaffirms a key principle of the Bush doctrine, we’re going to disavow it?

Nobody is saying any such thing. If you read the OP you would know that I argue it is perfectly possible that the West might have to go in to Pakistan without the government’s support. We might have to go to war with Pakistan. There are any number of things that might happen.

What is grossly irresponsible is for a credible candidate for President to go round saying things that make this more likely. Undermining Musharraf’s authority is exactly such a thing.

It is far better to quietly and effectively take out al-Qaeda operatives with the co-operation of the Pakistani government than to create a situation where the pro-Western government might fall, and we might find ourselves in a regime change situation. This is a country with three times the population of Iraq and Afghanistan combined and with nuclear weapons. You want to put a Taleban lookalike in power there? You want to have to engineer regime change?

Since Obama’s speech, Musharraf had to postpone his trip to Kabul to speek to the Loya Jirga about joint operations to take more effective control of tribal regions. Well-sourced media outlets suggested he was close to declaring a state of emergency. This would have brought an end to his (apparent) agreement with Benazir Bhutto to form a pro-Western modernising alliance against the Islamists.

Obama’s speech was specifically condemned by both government and opposition figures in Pakistan as describing a situation which would be likely to push Pakistan into the Islamist camp.

Do I think that Obama’s speech was the only, or even the main, factor which destabilised Musharraf’s government this week? No, of course not? Was it mind-bogglingly irresponsible and incredibly badly timed? Oh yeah!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.