Suchergebnisse

All Israeli governments since the beginning of the break-up of Yugoslavia have adopted a consistently pro-Serbian stand. Israeli public opinion has failed to respond to Serbian atrocities in a way comparable to the responses of many other countries. The author argues that an important part of the explanation of this remarkable state of affairs, which puts Israel at odds with most of the Western world & the Jewish diaspora, is to be found in Israel's history. Israel was set up at the price of turning the larger part of the native Palestinian population into expellees or refugees. Its continued existence as an ethnic, Jewish state is predicated on not admitting the exiled Palestinians back. Collective repression & denial of these facts help explain the unwillingness or inability of Israeli society & its political establishment to condemn the Serbs' war of expansion & "ethnic cleansing.". Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the current trends of the globalization of trade, capital flow, mass media, communication, transport, tourism, & economic migrations. However, there is the backlash to the globalizing processes, ie, cultural particularism, which has mobilized archaic traditions & triggered violent outbreaks of hostilities. Political scientist Francis Fukuyama has pointed out that, today, the key challenges to liberal democracy are a miscellany of particularisms: religious fundamentalism, extremist nationalism & racism, & Asian authoritarian paternalism. Samuel Huntington also warns about the dangers of ethnic & cultural particularism. Within such a framework, the phenomenon of "ethnic cleansing" is only an extreme form of the trend that has marked the 20th century -- cultural homogenization as a reaction to the problems of multiethnic & multicultural communities. The author is of the opinion that this development need not represent an obstacle to dialogue & communication among cultures. Adapted from the source document.

Historical precedents & a host of international documents -- from Daniel Webster's speech on the Caroline Affair of 1837 to the 1949 Geneva Convention & recent UN Security Council resolutions -- are perused to take a legal stand on the 1999 NATO intervention against Serbia to stop the Kosovo genocide. A distinction is made between humanitarian intervention, humanitarian relief action, & the right of a sovereign state to intervene abroad to protect the life of its citizens. It is opined that there is no international law granting states the right to take a military action on behalf of citizens of another state. However, a set of rules of action in exceptional circumstances sanctioning a military humanitarian intervention is established, outlining a scenario where such an intervention would be legal. It is pointed out that the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo met the criteria & satisfied the conditions necessary for a lawful humanitarian intervention, & the NATO military action should be viewed as such. Adapted from the source document.

The author analyzes the genesis & the scenarios of the Kosovo crisis resolution, as well as the possible political reverberations of the NATO military intervention. The premise is that the Kosovo crisis is only a continuation of the break-up of the former Yugoslavia; Kosovo has for centuries been a separate entity largely populated by Albanians; the policy of Serbian nationalism has permanently discriminated against the Albanian population; & prior to the recent air strikes against Yugoslavia, Serbia had systematically led an ethnic-cleansing campaign on Kosovo. Although the author recognizes that support for the NATO military action can hardly be found in the tenets of the UN Charter, he argues that it can nevertheless be justified by international law. He points out that NATO's military campaign enjoyed the broad support of the people of NATO member countries, but that it has made a rift in the European Left. The new Left was in the forefront of the action, while the old, dogmatic, & sectarian Left found itself in the ranks of its most vocal opponents. The author claims that Milosevic, with his overall politics, & particularly his policy on Kosovo, had propelled the West into an action from which it could not extricate itself. He concludes that the consequences of Belgrade's defeat will be (1) the collapse of Milosevic's regime (the beginning of his end); (2) the final incapacitation of Milosevic's politics to create new conflicts; (3) the protectorate over Kosovo & its autonomy, with a factual independence from Serbia; (4) the independence of Montenegro; (5) Reinforcing the Dayton policy in Bosnia & Herzegovina (eliminating centrifugal tendencies); (6) the organized participation of the West in the transitional processes in this region (the pact on the stability of southeast Europe); & (7) bolstering the democratic & weakening the undemocratic tendencies in the region. Adapted from the source document.