The crucial fact in relation to the 1998−1999 Kosovo War was that since there was no real humanitarian catastrophe before the NATO aggression starred on March 24th, 1999 against the FRY, it had to be created what exactly NATO did during the air-strike campaign of 78 days in order to justify its occupation of the province after the war followed by Kosovo's secession from Serbia in 2008.
In essence, there were prior to NATO's aggression on the FRY the problems of protection of human rights in Kosovo-Metochia, but certainly no to such extent as it was exaggerated by the Western mass media and policymakers at least no bigger than in many other corners of the world like in Colombia or Turkey's eastern part populated by ethnic Kurds.
In the absence of a not politically colored mechanism for deciding when a real humanitarian intervention is permissible, states have a possibility to espouse humanitarian motives just as a formal pretext to morally cover the pursuit of national self-interest as A. Hitler did with the Sudetenland.
States all the time apply principles of humanitarian intervention selectively following their own national interest but not real protection of human rights.
The selectivity of response is the argument that NATO's "Humanitarian" intervention in Kosovo in 1999 could not be driven by real humanitarian concerns as it has done nothing to address the very much larger humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur, a province in West Sudan.
There is no generally reached consensus on a set of moral principles about humanitarian intervention which should not be permitted in the face of disagreement about what constitutes extreme cases of the violation of human rights.
Humanitarian intervention is not workable as the outsiders cannot impose human rights especially by those who have the same problem in their homes.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-18/humanitarian-intervention-and-new-world-order-part-3
In essence, there were prior to NATO's aggression on the FRY the problems of protection of human rights in Kosovo-Metochia, but certainly no to such extent as it was exaggerated by the Western mass media and policymakers at least no bigger than in many other corners of the world like in Colombia or Turkey's eastern part populated by ethnic Kurds.
In the absence of a not politically colored mechanism for deciding when a real humanitarian intervention is permissible, states have a possibility to espouse humanitarian motives just as a formal pretext to morally cover the pursuit of national self-interest as A. Hitler did with the Sudetenland.
States all the time apply principles of humanitarian intervention selectively following their own national interest but not real protection of human rights.
The selectivity of response is the argument that NATO's "Humanitarian" intervention in Kosovo in 1999 could not be driven by real humanitarian concerns as it has done nothing to address the very much larger humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur, a province in West Sudan.
There is no generally reached consensus on a set of moral principles about humanitarian intervention which should not be permitted in the face of disagreement about what constitutes extreme cases of the violation of human rights.
Humanitarian intervention is not workable as the outsiders cannot impose human rights especially by those who have the same problem in their homes.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-18/humanitarian-intervention-and-new-world-order-part-3
No comments:
Post a Comment