Kosovo: International Specialist

 
These notes come from a meeting of the United Nations Security Council on March 24, 1999–the day that NATO bombing of Yugoslavia began. NATO’s campaign had not been approved by the Security Council.

Guiding Questions:
  • Russia and other countries disagreed with NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia. Do you think NATO’s campaign was justified? Why or why not?
  • Do you think the United Nations should have the sole responsibility to authorize intervention? Why or why not?

Mr. Lavrov (Russian Federation): The Russian Federation is profoundly outraged at the use by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of military force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [...] 

Attempts to justify the NATO strikes with arguments about preventing a humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo are completely untenable [not able to be maintained or defended against attack or objection]. Not only are these attempts in no way based on the Charter or other generally recognized rules of international law, but the unilateral use of force will lead precisely to a situation with truly devastating humanitarian consequences. [...]

NATO’s decision to use military force is particularly unacceptable from any point of view because the potential of political and diplomatic methods to yield a settlement in Kosovo has certainly not been exhausted. [...]

The Russian Federation vehemently demands the immediate cessation of this illegal military action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [...]

Mr. Burleigh (United States of America): The current situation in Kosovo is of grave concern to all of us. We and our allies have begun military action only with the greatest reluctance. But we believe that such action is necessary to respond to Belgrade’s brutal persecution of Kosovar Albanians, violations of international law, excessive and indiscriminate use of force, refusal to negotiate to resolve the issue peacefully and recent military build-up in Kosovo — all of which foreshadow a humanitarian catastrophe of immense proportions. 

For months, Serb actions have led to escalating explosions of violence. It is imperative that the international community take quick measures to avoid humanitarian suffering and widespread destruction [...]

Our preference has been to achieve our objectives in the Balkans through peaceful means. [...] These efforts led to talks in Rambouillet and Paris, which produced a fair, just and balanced agreement. The Kosovar Albanians signed that agreement, but Belgrade rejected all efforts to achieve a peaceful resolution. [...]

Mr. Fowler (Canada): The international community is facing a situation in which a Government at the heart of Europe is flouting the most fundamental rights of its citizens. [...] 

Unfortunately, the intensive and exhaustive diplomatic efforts of the international community did not succeed. The looming humanitarian disaster caused by President Milosevic’s refusal to accept any peaceful compromise leaves the international community with very few options. Every day, the situation worsens and it is the civilian population — principally women and children — that suffers. [...] The continuing oppression in Kosovo by the Government in Belgrade, [...] have left NATO with no choice but to take action. [...]

Mr. Türk (Slovenia): [...] Slovenia regrets that the developments in Kosovo have brought the international community to the point at which all diplomatic means have been exhausted and military action in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has become inevitable. The constant endeavours of the international community to achieve a diplomatic solution to the crisis and to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe of even greater extent have yielded no results. In view of this tragic moment for the peoples in that part of Europe, we would like to emphasize that the tragedy is the result and consequence of the erroneous policy of the Belgrade Government alone. 

The current situation was not inevitable. A diplomatic solution was not impossible. [...]

Unfortunately, the efforts of the international community were in vain, since the Belgrade Government was not ready to agree to a political solution of the crisis. [...] 

Mr. Buallay (Bahrain): Our delegation regrets the recent developments in Kosovo, which have finally led to the use of military force against the forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We have long called for a peaceful settlement of the Kosovo crisis through serious and constructive dialogue between the parties to the conflict. [...] 

The policy of “ethnic cleansing” and the denial of the fundamental rights of the Kosovar Albanians can bring only destruction and instability to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [...]

Mr. Jagne (Gambia): The situation in Kosovo, in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, is a cause of great concern to my delegation. [...]

As far as my delegation is concerned, we cannot remain indifferent to the plight of the murdered people of Kosovo.[...]

It is the responsibility of any Government to protect its citizens. We speak with great regret of the fact that the international community had to take the action it took today. Of course, regional arrangements have responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in their areas. The Security Council, however, has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, as clearly stated in the Charter of the United Nations. 

It must be noted, though, that at times the exigencies [an urgent need or demand] of a situation demand, and warrant, decisive and immediate action. We find that the present situation in Kosovo deserves such a treatment. The action started today by the international community could have been avoided, for the action could still be prevented. We therefore call on those with whom the responsibility lies to take the necessary action to prevent a continuation of this action before it is too late.

Mr. van Walsum (Netherlands): We have participated in and assumed responsibility for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) decision because there was no other solution. As for the Netherlands, this decision was not taken lightly; it was taken with conviction. Responsibility for the NATO action lies squarely with President Milosevic. [...]

Mr. Enio Cordeiro (Brazil): [...] In conformity with its unflinching commitment to the pacific settlement of disputes, the Brazilian Government regrets that the escalation of tensions has resulted in recourse to military action.

Mr. Dejammet (France): [...] In recent weeks we have witnessed, together with the inflexibility of the Belgrade authorities in negotiating a peace agreement, an increase in tension and confrontation, with the massing of a powerful offensive capacity by the Yugoslav army, inspiring fears that there will be a new upsurge of massacres in a community of 2 million people. We cannot abandon that community to violent repression. What is at stake today is peace, peace in Europe — but human rights are also at stake. [...]

Mr. Hasmy (Malaysia): [...] One thing should be clear: combating the so-called acts of terrorism in Kosovo does not in any way justify gross human rights violations or the failure to respect international norms and international humanitarian law. [...]

As a matter of principle, my delegation is not in favour of the use or threat of use of force to resolve any conflict situation, regardless of where it occurs. If the use of force is at all necessary, it should be a recourse of last resort, to be sanctioned by the Security Council, which has been vested with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. [...]

We are seriously concerned about the current situation on the ground when, with the withdrawal of international observers and the onset of military actions by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Yugoslav authorities are likely to unleash their preponderant military might upon the poorly armed Albanians in retaliation. If this happens, the humanitarian impact on the Kosovar civilian population will be enormous and tragic indeed. [....]

Mr. Andjaba (Namibia): [...] My delegation wishes to underscore that military action against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia may not be the solution. Furthermore, the implications of this action may go beyond the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, thereby posing a serious threat to peace and security in the region. 

Therefore, my delegation appeals for the immediate cessation of the ongoing military action and for the exhausting of all possible avenues for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. [...]

Mr. Dangue Réwaka (Gabon): [...] My Government is in principle opposed to the use of force to settle local or international disputes.

Mr. Petrella (Argentina): The attacks by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against Serb targets, which are taking place at this moment, are a source of great concern for Argentina. [...]

Sir Jeremy Greenstock (United Kingdom): President Milosevic has been engaged in repression of the Kosovo Albanians since he revoked Kosovo’s extensive autonomy almost 10 years ago. During all this time he has declined seriously to pursue a political solution to the problem of Kosovo, a problem that everyone knew would lead to increased tension and that he, as leader of his nation, held the responsibility for remedying. Instead, he has chosen to use brute aggression against a peaceful population. Where is the outrage at that? [...]

In a series of resolutions, [...] the Security Council has called on Belgrade to end actions against the civilian population and withdraw security forces responsible for repression, to cooperate with organizations engaged in humanitarian relief and to pursue a negotiated settlement. But Belgrade has rejected all of the Security Council’s demands, and continues to act in defiance of the expressed will of the Council. In these circumstances, when diplomacy has failed, do we react just with further words? [...]

We have taken this action with regret, in order to save lives. [...]

The action being taken is legal. It is justified as an exceptional measure to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. [...] 

Every means short of force has been tried to avert this situation. In these circumstances, and as an exceptional measure on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity, military intervention is legally justifiable. The force now proposed is directed exclusively to averting a humanitarian catastrophe, and is the minimum judged necessary for that purpose. [...]

The President: I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of China. 

Today, 24 March, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), with the United States in the lead, mobilized its airborne military forces and launched military strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, seriously exacerbating the situation in the Balkan region. This act amounts to a blatant violation of the United Nations Charter and of the accepted norms of international law. The Chinese Government strongly opposes this act. [...]

It has always been our position that under the Charter it is the Security Council that bears primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. And it is only the Security Council that can determine whether a given situation threatens international peace and security and can take appropriate action. We are firmly opposed to any act that violates this principle and that challenges the authority of the Security Council.

The Chinese Government vigorously calls for an immediate cessation of the military attacks by NATO against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [...]

Mr. Jovanovic [Serbian diplomat]: Today, the armed forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) committed a unilateral act of the most brutal and unprovoked aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a sovereign and independent State and a founding Member of the United Nations. [...] 

The decision to attack an independent country has been taken outside the Security Council, the sole body responsible, under the Charter of the United Nations, for maintaining international peace and security. This blatant aggression is a flagrant violation of the basic principles of the Charter of the United Nations [...]

The United States of America and NATO must assume full responsibility for all consequences of their act of open aggression, both foreseeable and unforeseeable. By committing the aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, NATO has trampled upon international law and the fundamental principles of international relations by endangering peace and security in the world in the most irresponsible and criminal way. [...]

I call on the members of the Security Council to act swiftly and in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to condemn this act of aggression and to take appropriate measures to stop it immediately and unambiguously so that all problems may be resolved by political means. [...] If the aggression is not stopped, the precedent of such unpunished aggression will, sooner or later, lead to aggression against a number of other, smaller and medium-sized countries. The real question is: Which country is next?

Source:

UN Security Council. Letter dated 24 March 1999 from the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/1999/320). S/PV.3988. 24 March 1999. https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/PRO/N99/852/09/PDF/N9985209.pdf?OpenElement.