>From the Tablet - a International Catholic weekly
submitted by Phil Marchant




THE TABLET 3/10 April 1999


Is this a just war?: 2
Nato's lethal error


BRUCE KENT



The case for Nato intervention is here rejected by the president of the British branch of Pax Christi. He does not believe that the cause of justice can be served like this. There are alternative policies which should be followed.



"JUST WAR" principles do little to reflect the power, promise and peacemaking of the Gospel, but at least they represent a traditional lowest common denominator by which most Christians can judge the morality of military action. The bombing of Serbia by Nato fails several "just war" tests.
Lawful authority, for instance. After the first night of the current bombing campaign, General Wesley Clark, who is in charge of the operation, explained on television that the aim was "to further the demands of the international community".
In fact the international community has had no opportunity to express itself. The Nato countries now engaged in bombing have never sought consent from the international community in the shape of the United Nations, nor has the UN even been consulted. Yet all these Nato countries are individual signatories to the United Nations Charter, which forbids military action by one state against another without specific Security Council authorisation.
Collectively they also bound themselves, when Nato was founded, to respect the jurisdiction and authority of the United Nations. Article 7 of the Nato foundation treaty of 1949 says: "The treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way, the rights and obligations under the Charter of the parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security." Individually and collectively, the Nato countries have bound themselves to uphold the jurisdiction of the United Nations.
The United Nations, fragile and underfunded, is all that we have by way of global governance. On a pitiful budget, which amounts to less than one-thirtieth of global military spending, the UN, especially through its different agencies, has a splendid track record of effective humanitarian concern, ranging from care for refugees to the protection of children. We diminish the UN at our peril when we ignore its jurisdiction. Do we really want the UN to suffer the fate of the League of Nations?
We know that the United Nations was founded on the basis of a political structure, the sovereign State, which in many ways no longer fits the reality of today's world. The wars of today are largely civil wars, waged by those who want autonomy or independence. The UN Charter badly needs reform so that such groups can find a legitimate place on the international stage. It may well be that developing law and Charter reform will, sooner rather than later, allow military intervention for humanitarian reasons. Many of us called for just such a Security Council intervention as the Rwanda massacres threatened, but in that case the principal initiators of the Serbian bombing were not prepared to take action.

In the current case, what is left of Yugoslavia has every right to defend itself against outside attack under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and to appeal for protection to the Security Council. It may well decide to take the Nato powers to the International Court of Justice.  Another "just war" principle is that war should always be a last resort.  The media in Britain have worked overtime to repeat the speeches of ministers who claim that there is no alternative to bombing. Last week Tony Blair and William Hague told the nation that the options were either to bomb Serbia or to leave the people of Kosovo to their fate.  Why should we believe them? Have the Quakers, the War Resisters International(or Pax Christi International, all of whom have honourable records of humanitarian work in Kosovo, been asked for their suggestions? From such sources, and others in the peace and human rights field, numerous practical proposals have been made. In order to advance deadlocked negotiations, perhaps the World Conference of Religions for Peace could be funded and authorised to approach Belgrade as honest brokers. Perhaps Archbishop Carey and Cardinal Hume might immediately visit Serbia to discuss possible compromises with Orthodox church leaders. In Kosovo, parts of that Church have played a positive role up to now.
The sticking point in previous negotiations appears to have been the deployment of Nato troops in Kosovo. Why did they have to be Nato troops? Are not other troops with peace-keeping training available'?  There does not seem to be much awareness of the significance to the Serbs of German warplanes in the skies over Belgrade and even, potentially, of German soldiers on the territory of their sovereign state. The Serbs cannot forget the Second World War, or the part that Germany has played in the unraveling of Yugoslavia.
Moreover, a promise of asylum and care could and should be made to all those who are now refugees, at least if they manage to get across the border. soldiers who refuse to carry out orders and escape from the country on conscientious grounds could be offered generous resettlement and financial rewards. War criminals should be indicted as such even in absentia, though unfortunately, largely because of the intransigence of the United States, we still lack a functioning permanent world criminal court. Meanwhile let us have no more nonsense about bombing as the last resort. The man equipped only with a hammer sees every problem as a nail.
Yet another "just war" principle is that there should be a reasonable chance of success. Success in doing what? The objectives are entirely confused. The Western aim is supposed to be to protect civilians in Kosovo. Since the bombing started, far more civilians have been killed there and far more have been driven out of their homes. Was this Serbian reaction in Kosovo not perfectly predictable? The bombing is meant to break the wilt of Slobodan Milosevic and bring him back to the negotiating table. What is supposed to be the value of commitments extracted under duress?
What we do know is that independent voices in Serbia have been silenced, Serbian nationalism tremendously stimulated, and Milosevic's position made stronger. Macedonia is feeling the political tremors. Albania, in anarchy only a year ago, is waiting for a plum to fall into its lap. The British ambassador's residence in Athens has been ransacked. People are queuing up in Russia to fight on the side of the Serbs, and collaboration between Russia and Nato has collapsed. The first frosts of a new Cold War are already on the ground. It will become much colder if Nato ground troops are committed to a war in Kosovo. Those of the "something must be done" school of thought are beginning, late in the day, to wake up to the consequences of imprudence and illegality.  A final comment relates to the notion of just intentions. Christians who go to war for justice and to protect the innocent have surely to be seen to be consistent. Yet, less than 1,000 miles to the east, another group, at least 30 million strong, also struggles for autonomy. Their villages have been razed. Civilians have been shot and tortured. Their language and culture are suppressed. Those who speak out for them in their parliament are put in prison. Those who adhere to their military faction are described as terrorists with whom there can be no negotiations.
Their oppressors, however, belong to Nato.
In that situation we arm the oppressors. The London television station belonging to the oppressed is closed down and their refugee centres in Haringey and Hackney are harassed by the police. Bomb Turkey because they won't give autonomy to the Kurds? That's a different story altogether.


Let us have no more nonsense about bombing as the last resort. The man with a hammer sees every problem as a nail