Download file to see previous pages...
NATO intervened justifying the war as humanitarian wars (Zajmi 2004). The Yugoslav forces agreeing to exit from Kosovo. The KLA disbanded immediately after this.
Various groups emerged to help Kosovo to solve their disputes. These groups included the NATO, the UN and the OSCE. Our focus however is NATO. There always exists some level of suspicion when it comes to intention of interveners. They emphasized on the continuous use of diplomatic, political and economic means to end conflict. Despite the debate by the UN and contact group, NATO was more ready to consider military means to resolve crisis. That is why their reason for intervention was being doubted. In fact, despite the lack of UN mandate, NATO became a key actor in the crisis. They start planning for a wider range of military options in Kasovo. At first, the national Atlantic council (NAC) stated that they had legitimate interest in developments in Kasovo due to the impact on their stability of the whole region. Then in May 1998, NATO’s foreign minister told the military authority to prepare to dispatch alliance forces to Albania believing that the mere threat of air strikes on a few days would get them to a negotiating table. The tactics consisted of focus on getting agreements for the early stages of the operations and refraining from discussion of long term options. That is the threat of airstrikes in a few days could not allow Milosevic to comply (Siani 2003).
NATO issued an activation warning thus increasing its preparedness to tackle the problem in Kosovo (Jokić 2003). Almost 250000 Albanians had been displaced out in the woods and without the basic needs. This was considering that the season of coldness that is the winter was approaching. After two weeks, threats intensified resulting in NATO to take appropriate measures. They were ready to begin
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Moreover, multinational drives to promote human rights stimulate a debate that hints that the idea of sovereignty is changing. This is the scenario as I examine the role of NATO and the United Nations in the conflict in Kosovo as they tried to address the violations of human rights and crimes against humanity.
This is because of the international conventions and regulations that bind various nations and spell out some accepted codes of existence.In most cases,when these codes are broken,leading to all kinds of humanitarian crisis in individual countries,the resultant consequence has been for the international world to intervene
Humanitarian Intervention-The Responsibility to Protect Development Name: Code: Collage: Date: Introduction Humanitarian intervention incorporates the use of armed military forces by a State against another state with the aim of protecting the life and liberty of citizens under humanitarian crisis who are unwilling or unable to free or protect themselves.
The conflict in Kosovo is one in which the international community got involved for preservation of the first leg of human security. Josif Tito granted limited autonomy to the Yugoslav province of Kosovo between 1960s and 1970s so that the antagonistic relationship between two communities that had separate existence in one region i.e.
Stakeholders will differ on the definition of what constitutes humanitarian intervention and what goes beyond the purpose and be more appropriately labelled as meddling in another country's internal affairs. There are further complications as to what constitutes a legitimate state or nation, and which governing force represents the true will of the people of a locality or region.
Every war is a new war. Every war creates new situations. Every day of the war is a new experience for the fighting forces. The circumstances leading to the war are varied. The politicians guiding the war, and the generals conducting the war and the soldiers fighting the war, do their jobs.
While NATO had varied impetuses for the action in Kosovo, as well as strengthening its integrity and shielding neighboring nations from an influx of immigrants, humanitarian intentions were amongst the apprehensions legitimizing involvement. (MOCKAITIS, 2004, p86) With