Skip to comments.Decision Point Approaches in Kosovo, NATO Chief Says
Posted on 10/10/2007 5:04:38 PM PDT by SandRat
| WASHINGTON, Oct. 10, 2007 With elections nearing and the question of independence uncertain, the next few months will be a telling time for people in the breakaway Serbian province of Kosovo, NATOs top military officer said at a Pentagon news conference today.
Craddock said Kosovos elections are scheduled for Nov. 17. Kosovars will elect 120 members of the national assembly. The parliament members will then elect a new president and prime minister. For the first time, voters also will directly elect mayors in the provinces 30 towns.
NATO leads the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. Its 16,000-member Kosovo Force provides security and stability. NATO soldiers moved in following a 78-day NATO air campaign that began in March 1999 in response to Serbian moves to expel the Albanian population of the area. Kosovo is 90 percent ethnic Albanian.
The vast majority of Kosovars want independence from Serbia. Former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, who served as a special United Nations negotiator in Kosovo, recommended the country become independent of Serbia a move the Serbs vigorously oppose.
I think right now I would tell you that in Kosovo there is uncertainty, Craddock said today. There's impatience (among the Kosovars), because they want a decision. I think that December will be a telling time, and I think that there is some angst right now in Kosovo, and impatience and uncertainty.
The decision in Kosovo is about employment and the economy, the general said. And it's about getting electricity every day, because that's a terrible situation right now, he said. There has been a drought in the province, and water is a concern. All these things are front-burner issues for Kosovars, and NATO will have to watch the process closely in December, Craddock said.
Craddock said NATOs Kosovo Force is extremely well-trained. National caveats that had limited how some countries forces could be used are now gone, Craddock said. NATO commanders in the province have the flexibility they need, and NATO officials have been making prudent and wide-ranging plans, he said.
Roughly 1,600 Texas National Guardsmen are part of the force in Kosovo. Theyre due to rotate home soon, to be replaced by a National Guard unit from New Jersey.
Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, USA
>Roughly 1,600 Texas National Guardsmen are part of the force in Kosovo.
Weren’t they supposed to be home by Christmas of that first year?
Wesley Clark is a War Criminal!
How is Wesley Clark a war criminal? And if he is a war criminal, is not every member of the armed forces of that time a war criminal? The war was authorized by NATO and the Congress, and conducted under the laws of war.
With this sort of attitude, Serbia makes few friends.
Yep! So said the Sperminator.
In direct violation of the NATO charter, don't forget!
We bombed the wrong side.
Will the remaining Christian Serbs be betrayed in this mindless attempt at appeasing the Jihadists?
In that war, there was no such thing as a right side.
(1) NATO actions constitute a violation of Chapter I, Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter which states: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." Chapter VII, Article 39 states: "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security...more
(2) The bombing of Yugoslavia is a violation of NATO's own charter which claims it is a defensive organization and is only committed to force if one of its members is attacked. No member of NATO was attacked. The relevant sections of NATO's basic purpose reads as follows: "It provides deterrence against any form of aggression against the territory of any NATO member state.
(3) The so-called Rambouillet "Agreement" (Serbia did not agree to it) is a violation of Articles 51 and 52 of the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Article 51 entitled "Coercion of a Representative of a State" declares: "The expression of a State's consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of it representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without legal effect. Article 52 entitled "Coercion of a State by the Threat or Use of Force"reads: "A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations."
(4) NATO's objectives in Kosovo are a violation of Clause IV of the Declaration of Principles Guiding Relations Between Participating States of the Helsinki Accords Final Act of 1975 which guarantees the territorial frontiers of the states of Europe. According to this agreement: "The participating states will respect the territorial integrity of each of the participating states. Accordingly, they will refrain from any action...against the territorial integrity, political independence, or the unity of any participating state..."
(5) If the sequel to the bombing is recogntion of Kosovo as an independent state, this will violate international law that prohibits recognition of provinces that unilaterally declare independence against the wishes of the federal authorities.
Clark bombed the Chinese embassy there and made them mad. The Mad Bomber of Bosnia.
Maybe that's one of the reasons he's an EX-general. Under Clinton even!! He talks like an airhead now!
Clark, yes! Every member of the armed services, No!
Both tribunals [Nurnberg, tokyo] stated in their judgments that to unleash a war of aggression "is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime. But both tribunals emphasized that only persons actually formulating or influencing governmental policy can be charged with "crimes against peace. For example, the Tokyo judgment declared that "the duty of an army is to be loyal. Hence, neither privates nor generals of an aggressor nation can be blamed if they "merely performed their military duty of fighting a war waged by their government, as long as they did not personally participate in the making of the policy of aggression.
I believe Wesley Clark participated in the policy of aggression!
I completely agree with you in terms the individual Wes Clark.
However, I would like to ask you a kind question. Specifically, why do you refer to Clark as the "Mad Bomber of Bosnia?" Would it not be more appropriate to refer to Clark as the "Mad Bomber of Kosovo?"
The reason why I pose this question is because I often see this posted elsewhere. This is in view of the fact that Kosovo is not located in Bosnia. Additionally, the conflicts are few years apart 1992-95, 1998-99.
If I'm missing something then please inform me.
Thanks and regards.
NATO did authorize the war in violation of its charter and the Republican majority US Congress failed by vote to authorize the Kosovo war.
In a largely symbolic vote, the House also withheld its support for Nato's strikes in a vote which dealt a sharp blow to President Bill Clinton's policies.
It refused to approve the bombing campaign when a Democrat motion failed on a 213-213 tie.
Twenty six Democrats broke ranks to oppose the motion which was itself backed by 31 Republicans.
I suggest that having NATO stay out of it would have been the right move.
What part of the nation are they guarding?
GABby, how embarrassing for you, you’ve just been officially bitch slapped.
 Hahn, Michael. "Conflict in Kosovo: A Constitutional War?", The Georgetown Law Journal, Jul 2001.
There was the argument that the war in the Balkans was spreading and that it threatened the security of Greece, which was a NATO member. It seemed pretty credible at the time, and the NATO Council authorized action. I think it was dubious, but it falls into the category of a legal, though dubious, war. Those who authorized it can be castigated, but those who prosecuted it are not war criminals, which is my point.
My own opinion is that there were no good guys in that war, but some guys were less bad than others.