NATO and Kosovo 1

Running head: NATO AND THE WAR IN KOSOVO

Evaluating NATO and its Aid to Kosovo

Sandra Freeland

Baker College

January 19, 2011

 NATO and Kosovo 2

Evaluating NATO and its Aid to Kosovo

It is the late 1990’s. Civil unrest is occurring in the Balkans. Outsiders are seeing what

appears to be ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Serbian forces. The United Nations, the

peacekeepers of the World, are trying to encourage a peaceful end to the suffering of the people

that live here. Major Powers, such as the United States and Britain, are calling for the removal of

Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic and an end to the crimes against humanity that are occurring

within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, OR else. The or else is an air attack that will be

completed by NATO forces under the directions of United States President Bill Clinton. The

goal is to end what is being called genocide of Muslims in this area in order to make it more

ethnically pure. Part of the goal is to protect the civilians that are living within this area. In this

paper the following will be covered: (a) the role of NATO and the UN in addressing human

rights violations during this time, (b) the objectivity used by these groups in their approach to the

Kosovo conflict, (c) the success of NATO and the UN in stopping human rights violations as

well as punishing the perpetrators of the conflict, and (d) the success of the UN in meeting the

expectations associated with its creation in regards to the conflict in Kosovo.

While political and civilian unrest was occurring within Yugoslavia, the United Nations

(UN), and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), watched and decided what role to

take. The UN, while objecting to the human rights violations that were occurring within Kosovo,

wanted to tackle the problem in a peaceful way. The goal was to not cause more unrest than was

already occurring within this volatile area (Lobel & Ratner, 2000). As part of NATO, the United

States President Bill Clinton called for a “this, or else” situation. He gave an ultimatum to the

Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic, to give up his leadership and pull out of Kosovo, or to be

removed by force (Kurdish Life, 1999). Milosevic refused to meet the demands of the United
 NATO and Kosovo 3

States lead NATO. After all, each nation has the right to sovereignty and the right to any acts

they deem necessary within their borders. NATO commenced an air attack on the Serbian

strongholds within Kosovo (Kurdish Life, 1999).

Looking at the actions of the United Nations and NATO, one can make a few

observations about the objectivity of each group to the situation that was occurring in the

Balkans. There was already a large amount of unrest occurring throughout the nation-states that

are located there (De Blij & Muller, 2006, p. 92). The approach of the UN was that of a

peacekeeping organization. This group wanted to organize diplomatic discussions in which

concessions could be argued for and against (United Nations, 2011). The United Nations, while

having handled other genocide occurrences with less than optimal success rates, was trying to be

objective in the approach to this horrible episode of crimes against humanity. The outlook was to

try and see both sides of the issue before enacting any repercussions. NATO, on the other hand,

was operating under its own political ideals and goals. Without an ounce of objectivity, NATO

stormed into Kosovo and began to use air strikes to bomb any and all Serbian strong holds

(Kurdish Life, 1999). President Clinton was calling the shots, and was giving no concession to

the reasoning behind Milosevic’s actions or any opportunity to discuss peaceful ways to bring an

end to the violence. NATO troops met little resistance from Serbian forces that were not well

equipped to take on military forces such as the size of those brought by NATO (Kurdish Life,

1999). NATO set a precedent by acting outside of international law and outside of UN

regulations dictating state sovereignty.

The objectivity of NATO may have been questionable, but the success of either group in

stopping human rights violations in Kosovo is not. Neither organization was a success at

minimizing the violations to the safety and security of citizens in Kosovo. If anything, NATO’s
 NATO and Kosovo 4

air attacks were actually a form of human rights violations Kurdish Life (1999). Many

unnecessary casualties were born of the imprecise drops of missiles and bombs. An air strike that

was to target a barrack that lied within 50 meters of a hospital wounded hospital patients instead

of Serbian forces. One such patient was a woman named Dragana Kristic. She received shrapnel

wounds to her neck while lying in her hospital bed. She was recovering from cancer surgery

(Kurdish Life, 1999). NATO troops claimed that they were fighting with precise missiles;

unfortunately for many the preciseness of the missiles was often questionable and proved to be

very unreliable. Dragana was not the only casualty. NATO forces set aim on a bridge that was

important to Serbian forces for transportation of supplies. The bridge was attacked during the

morning commute, killing passengers aboard a commuter train (Kurdish Life, 1999). These are

just some examples of the humanitarian crimes that NATO itself committed during their fight

against such attacks.

Just as NATO was unsuccessful in preventing human rights violations without causing

more of the same, so was the UN unsuccessful in their preventative measures, or lack thereof.

The members of the UN, such as Russia, talked constantly about the unethical attack of the

Balkans area by the US lead NATO (Kurdish Life, 1999). But talk is all that it amounted too.

With the US in the lead supported by Britain, there were not any other nations-states with strong

enough forces to go against the movement of NATO. By standing idly by with only words of

opposition to hold on to, the UN watched this reverse humanitarian rights attacks occur.

The success of the UN and NATO in punishing the perpetrators of these attacks went as

well as the efforts to end the humanitarian rights violations; not well at all. When NATO forces

pulled out, the KLA, or Kosovo Libertarian Army, was in control (Greenberg, 1999). This

control was only seized by force, but Slobodan Milosevic was still in office and ruler Serbia.
 NATO and Kosovo 5

Serbian troops had many casualties, but the cause of this strife, the leader of Serbia, was still in

his position of power (Hunt, 2004, p. 379). Now his problem became the attacks that the KLA

was performing against Serbs. Instead of uniting Kosovo and pursuing autonomy, the KLA went

on the attack for revenge against Serbians and the crimes they committed during the ethnic

cleansing that occurred. Serbians were now calling for help from NATO and the UN in

protecting them against KLA forces (Lobel & Ratner, 2000), (Kurdish Life, 1999). The tables

had been turned. In 2001, Slobodan Milosevic was ousted in his position and was handed over to

face trial for war crimes (Hunt, 2004, p. 379).

Though the UN was unsuccessful in its efforts to avoid a war in the Balkans, the question

still remains: did the UN meet the expectations of its creation following the Second World War?

The United Nations was organized and developed to promote peace and security throughout the

world on a global level. This organization also offers humanitarian aid and promotes friendly

interaction between neighboring nation-states (United Nations, 2011). While not successful in

preventing human rights violations by either the “good” side or the “bad” side in Kosovo, the

UN did try and promote peacekeeping solutions within the country of Yugoslavia and between

the Serbians and the people of Kosovo. The UN did recognize that there were issues between

these states and tried to provide support without interference for the conflicts that were occurring

in the Balkans (Kurdish Life, 1999). The problem arose when two large powers in the world, the

United States and Britain, decided that they would take a stand against what they perceived as

ethnic cleansing occurring in the region. It does not hurt their agenda that Kosovo and Serbia are

located in an area that is strategic to Easter European countries access to the Mediterranean Sea.

Too bad that these states could not have taken a similar stand in the genocide that occurred in

Rwanda in 1994.
 NATO and Kosovo 6

In conclusion, while NATO and the UN should have had similar roles during the conflict

in Kosovo, the reality is that these organizations were on two differing sides. The UN tried to

peacefully end the conflicts in this region, while NATO, under the command of President Bill

Clinton and with support from Britain, showed the world that it should be leery of the agendas of

a NATO backed by the US. Just as there was a difference in roles, so was the objectivity of the

UN and NATO. The UN acted as objectively as it could, while NATO was following an agenda

that was given by President Clinton and his allies. Neither organization was successful in

stopping human rights violations. The air strikes actually perpetrated the civilian casualties in

this already devastated area. Punishment of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic cannot even be

contributed to either group. While NATO acted purely against what it stood for, the UN did act

according to the expectations that were assigned to it at the time of its creation.
 NATO and Kosovo 7

References

De Blij, H. J., & Muller, P. O. (2006). Geography: Realms, Regions, and Concepts (12th Ed.).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Greenberg, R. D. (1999). Keys to Stability in the Balkans. Foreign Policy in Focus, 4(33).

Hunt, M. J. (2004). The World Transformed: 1945 to the Present. Boston, MA: Bedford/St.

Martin's.

Lobel, J., & Ratner, M. (2000). Humanitarian Military Intervention. Foreign Policy in Focus,

5(1).

United Nations. (2011). UN at a Glance. Retrieved January 15, 2011, from United Nations Web

site: http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml

“American primitive” (1999). Kurdish Life, Spring 1999: 1+. Info Trac World History

Collection. Retrieved January 15, 2011, from:

http://find.galegroup.com.bakerezproxy.palnet.info/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-

Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T002&prodId=SPJ.SP26&docId=A132001196&sour

ce=gale&srcprod=SP26&userGroupName=lom_falconbaker&version=1.0