NATO’s Aggression and International Law

Unitarian Church of Fullerton

20 June 1999

Prefatory Remarks.

I. Why I am concerned and involved.

From nuclear physics to world rule of law.

Second home. I witnessed its disintegration.

Selfmanagement.

II. Normative approach.

1995 chapter on UN Peacekeeping activities.

III. Areas of Emphasis.

  1. Incessant coverage in the corporate media. [“After-the-fact”]

Military operations. Death and massive destruction.

Diplomatic power politics. Essentially projections of military power.

  1. Subdued coverage in the corporate media. “Unintended side effects”:
  1. Russia-China rapproachement.
  2. Samuel Huntington; Formation of regional organizations to defend against the U.S. and NATO.
  3. Opening for “ethnic cleansing” and humanitarian disaster.
  1. Neglected coverage,

1. Why Yugoslavia disintegrated.

History

Zagreb 1971.

Catholic Church

Smotra foklorika, medjunarodna.

U.S. Public Law IMF

2. Motivation. [Smaller pie, bigger slice for some.]

My emphasis. [“Prevention”]

2. International Law.

Law--just, legitimate, non-repressive law--is the fount of civilization.

3. Human Rights

Human rights is key, so that national boundaries become matters of administrative convenience, not matters or life or death, so that one need not worry about which side of a border one lives, that one’s rights will be respected on both sides of the border.

Need multiethnic, multicultural states, not “self-determination”.

It is impossible to draw boundaries such that ethnicities are completely separated, without “ethnic cleansing”.

Humans and their rights should not be degraded as a propaganda tool to justify war and violation of human rights.

IV. Morality and Principles.

Politicians tell us that we live in an era or deteriorating moral and ethical values, especially among the youth. [The Greeks made similar complaints.]

They wish to post the 10 (15?) Commandments in schools, with emphasis on “Thou shall not kill”.

Clinton [“the mad bomber in the White House”] preaches to kids that one shouldn’t resort to violence—and manages to do so with a straight face, the sign, I presume, of a consummate politician.

Churches are appropriate venues to discuss morality---and hypocrisy! [Do they bomb to make the world safe for hypocrisy?]

The Catholic Bishops support the “Just war” theory.

All wars are atrocities that produce innocent victims in copious numbers.

There has never been an innocent party to a war.

Atrocities may not be even, but accusations tend to be, and, as the cliché goes, truth is the first casualty of war in the propaganda campaigns that accompany wars.

Most significantly, there is an alternative-world rule of law and order!, but it requires commitment and time to establish world rule of law.

I am led to understand that we are separate churches because some feel that opposition to war in the abstract is a moral stance, but opposition to a particular war is political.

I have a similar position. The aggression against Yugoslavia is but a case-in-point. I advocate shifting from the “bucket brigade” mentality, responding after-the-fact to repeated conflagrations, to the “Fire Department” prevention, world rule of law, mentality.

Instead of taking sides, I advocate supporting principles, and developing institutions that honor and implement these principles. It is easier to agree on principles than on issues or sides.

V. Principled Approach

Basic Principles of Jurisprudence and Governance.(Agreement?)

  1. Non-repressive law depends primarily upon voluntary compliance.
  2. Voluntary compliance is enhanced by Legitimacy and Justice (at least perceived).
  3. Legitimacy and Justice are enhanced by:

a) Democratic formulation of law.

b) Constitutional constraints on powers of government and guarantees of liberties and rights.

c) Universal applicability.

d) Uniform enforcement.

e) Separation of powers and checks and balances.

Independent judiciary and prosecutor.

Grand jury.

f) Following accepted principles of jurisprudence (due process).

N.B. UN honors none of these principles.

(“World War II Victors’ Club”)

“Best lousy” organization in existance, despite abuses and delegitimization.

I.Comparisons.

A. ICC vs. ICT.

  1. UNESCO’s Human Rights delegation vs. NATO’s bombing.

NATO’s effect: Disastrous—created an opportunity for retaliatory ethnic cleansing (Serbs were “ethnically cleansed” first, from the Krajina).

Death and destruction. Economic devastation ($100 billion?) first affecting the most vulnerable (incubator babies, the elderly, children, the ill).

C. UN vs. NATO.

Ex post facto protection / Grand jury / Democratic Foundation / Non-bis-in idem / Universal Applicability / Democratic Selection of Judges / Right to Confront Accusers / Selective Enforcement Defense / Recusement / Due Process / Right to Public Trial / Jury Trial / Aggression Illegal / Consonant with UN Charter / Independent Prosecutor / Geographic Distribution of Judicial Appointments
ICC /  /  / [1] /  /  /  /  /  /  /  /  / 
ICT /  / [2] /  /  /  / [3] / [4] / [5] / [6][7] / [8] / [9] /  /  / [10] / 

IV. Effect upon International Law.

Bigger setback, perhaps, than collapse of the League of Nations.

Violates UN Charter.

Undermines ICJ and ICC.

Notes.

President of the ICT admits that the ICT is political. [Democracy Now, KPFK-FM 90.7 Los Angeles, F 25 June 99. Interview by Amy Goodman].

ICC: Voluntary jurisdiction. Could be made mandatory by a simple resolution of the Security Council.

ICT: Mandatory jurisdiction.

Problem with ICT is that “independent” prosecutor is not independent. FBI and NATO does its investigating. It is apparently not open to indictments of NATO aggressors, only of NATO’s victims.

Jamie Shea assured reporters that there would be no indictment of NATO criminals because of the close working relationship between NATO and the ICT. E.g., NATO pays most of the bills.

[1] Conference of plenipotentiaries convened in response to a Resolution of the General Assembly. 120 signatories, 6 negative votes,

[2] A judge reviews the indictment (Article 19.1).

[3] From list of nominees from states members (and permanent observers), Security Council forwards 28 to the General Assembly which chooses 14 out of the 28 (Article 13.2).

[4] (Article 22).

[5] No mention in Article 25. Appellate proceedings.

[6] The judges adopt the rules (Article 15).

[7] Left to the judges (Article 20.1).

[8] May be closed by the judges (Article 20.4). This contradicts Article 21.2 which only allows for trials to be closed for the protection of victims and witnesses.

[9] Conviction by vote of 2 out of 3 judges (Article 23.2).

[10] Appointed by the Security Council on nomination by the Secretary General (Article 16.2).