What is going on?

The recent "Peace Deal"
Just recently, Friday, June 4th, the world heard that a peace deal had been reached over Kosovo, between U.S.-led NATO and the Serbs.  Then today it was said that the deal has been stopped.  No one really explained why.  On CNN I heard vaguely that it was because no one could agree on a timetable for removing Serb troops.  What kind of deal is that?  Ignoring a major part of a deal like that.  I remember in history class that when treaties are made, they seem to be followed, and they covered every contigency, like removing troops.  No one stopped the treaty that ended the American Revolution because they couldn't decide when to evacuate British troops.  No one stopped the treaties ending WWII because they couldn't decide when to remove German troops from Austria and Japanese troops from Iwo Jima.  It's true that there was a total victory in World War II, but there were still British troops in the US when the Americans won at Yorktown.  And it can be definitly argued that the bombing campaign has been at least partially succesful, if Milosevic will come to the table to negotiate.  So what's wrong???

The Press
I heard today on the radio that the Yugoslavs were complaining because we were bombing while talks were going on.  The US retorted that talks were over.  Who is telling the truth?  Who knows.  One of the main reason so many contrasting "facts" are presented is that the press figures too much in the peace process.  The treaties seem to be as much public relations ploys as peace negotiations.  It is nearly impossible to keep the press out of the process, which is very unfortunate.  But the press is only a minor player in this travesty.
 

International Law and Organizations
This recent treaty is just another example of non-compliance and weak organizations.  Remember the Dayton Peace Accords?  Who does?  They might have stopped war in Bosnia, if that was even then, but it seems like the conflict just moved.  The G8 countries can't even decide what to do!  How do we solve this problem together if we can't decide what to do?  And these recent war crimes indictments of Milosevic.  Numerous Yugoslavs have been indicted.  How many have been captured and tried?  Any?  Yes, the problem is capturing them.  Well, what good is an idictment without a criminal.  One of the bases of the American legal system is the Writ of Habeas Corpus, Latin for you shall have the body.  This means that you can't charge someone with a crime unless you actually hold them in custody.  It doesn't do any good to have a law (or a war crimes indictment) without being able to enforce it.  You might said it was a symbolic gesture, but it only means anything to the people who already don't like whoever they indicted.  I mean, if you indict Milosevic on war crimes without actually having him, the Serbs are probably not going to suddenly rise up and overthrow him.  So how do we get these war criminals?  Send in some Special Forces or Interpol, the international police force?  Which brings up another issue.

Jurisdiction
So, who should deal with all of this Kosovo stuff?  Kosovo is in Europe.  NATO does serve Europe, as well as the U.S. and Canada.  But what about the European Union or European Parliament?  Or the International Court of Justice?  Or even the European Court of Justice?  Why do none of these organizations deal with Kosovo?  Kosovo is more in their backyard than ours (us being NATO), especially the European Court of Justice and European Union.  Who knows why they don't act usefully, but I argue that these organizations ought to have done something to stop the Kosovo crisis (and the entire Balkan Conflict at a much earlier stage.)  I have not heard the EU, the ECJ, or the European Parliament do one single useful thing in Europe.  The UN obviously haven't, partially due to bureaucratic time-wasting and partially due to American lack of support.  The US wants NATO to run the whole show, because then the US can control everything, along with our allies in NATO.  But these other European and international organizations should have done it for us.  I argue that the reason everyone says the US is trying to be the World's Policeman is because no one else is doing anything.  We had to stop Iraq in Kuwait, the  North Vietnamese, the North Koreans, back to World War II.  Of course all of these points can be argued, and I did not say we should have stopped all of these various adversaries.  But still, these international organizations seem to be wasting time with useless diplomatic crap and not doing anything.  So why don't they?

So, what is to be done?
I don't know, and I don't pretend to know.  So I guess that ends my thoughts about this issue, so far.
Please, email me if you have anything to say, any reactions or comments.  Thanks.

To the home page