Kay's article brought up some interesting points regarding NATO's role in the war in Kosovo.
I found it particularly interesting that NATO's act of war in Kosovo violated a basic principle of inernational law as codified in the United Nations. The Charter of the UN states that only the Security Council can authorize the use of force for the kind of humanitarian campaign that NATO waged. Not only that, the members of NATO were going against even the core principles of their own institution, stating that member states must "refrain from the use of force in any manner i nconsistent with the purpose of the UN."
I think Emily makes a good point about how the NATO does not appear to have a purpose in today's world. Especially, I question the NATO's principle of "collective defense". I feel that collective defense is a rather outdated policy where the world is becoming increasingly multi-polar. As Emily, I question the purpose of NATO as an institution. However, I wonder why NATO is expanding to an even greater extent, with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. I wonder, who exactly are NATO members defending themselve against?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
And that is exactly the point-- what is a Cold War security alliance still doing here more than 15 years after the Cold War ended?
Post a Comment