WEEKLY SELECTION-UN Rejects Russian Plea for End to Attack on Yugoslavia

By Farhan Haq Reprint | | Print |

UNITED NATIONS, Mar 27 1999 (IPS) - The UN Security Council voted 12-3 Friday, Mar 26, to reject a Russian plea to end the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) air strikes on Yugoslavia.

Of the 15 Council members, only Namibia joined Russia and China – two permanenet members of the Council – in demanding “an immediate cessation of the use of force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” and a return to diplomatic talks.

The other three permanent members of the Council – Britain, France and the United States – had the support of NATO members such as the Netherlands and Canada, and Muslim states like Malaysia and Bahrain, in voting against the draft.

The Security Council resolution needed the approval of at least nine countries and, by not receiving a negative vote from any permanent member, the Russian draft failed on both counts.

For some UN members, the Council’s decisive vote was an implicit show of support for the strikes on Yugoslavia, which began Wednesday as an effort to force Belgrade to halt its crackdown on the ethnic Albanian majority of the Serbian province of Kosovo.

US Ambassador Peter Burleigh, delighted at the level of support for NATO’s actions, argued that the military alliance had acted properly, even though it did not gain explicit approval from the Security Council.

“NATO’s actions are completely justified,” Burleigh said. “They are necessary to stop the violence” unleashed by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic’s troops on the separatist movement in Kosovo.

He declared that “by rejecting a peace settlement…Belgrade chose the path of war.”

Yet Russian Ambassador Sergey Lavrov insisted that the debate before the Council was not over the acceptance of Belgrade’s actions but rather “law and lawlessness” in the use of force by NATO without the Council’s explicit authority.

“Our worst fears are being fulfilled now,” Lavrov said as a third night of NATO attacks on Yugoslavia began Friday.

He contended that the NATO action was illegal and had spread the “virus of lawlessness” in international affairs by placing the might of a few nations – rather than the United Nations – in a central role.

Russia’s case was based on the idea that, in accordance with Chapters Seven and Eight of the UN Charter, the Security Council must take the primary role in authorising any use of force, whether by UN forces or by groups of nations.

That view was supported in part by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who cautioned earlier that “the Council should be involved in any decision to resort to the use of force”.

Some UN diplomats believed that there was a case for the use of force, particularly because the Council issued three resolutions in the past year – all of which invoked Chapter Seven which justifies the use of force – in demanding that Belgrade cease its attacks on Kosovo.

The “massive military offensive by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia” violated those resolutions, argued Slovenian Ambassador Danilo Turk.

He added that the Council has in the past allowed regional groups to use military means to address crises in which the United Nations is not involved, and argued, “The Security Council has the primary, but not exclusive, responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security.”

The divided vote in the Council laid bare a fundamental problem: Neither Yugoslavia’s opponents nor its sometimes allies can push through either an approval or a rejection of the NATO strikes.

Britain, France and the United States – all key NATO members – could veto any criticism of the strikes, while the other two Council permanent members, China and Russia, opposed any measure that would justify them.

For some countries, the deadlock in the Council had paved the way for NATO to act, to prevent a worsening bloodbath in Kosovo. Canadian Ambassador Robert Fowler argued that “thousands have died and may hundreds of thousands remain homeless” in Kosovo, a situation which he said could not be allowed to continue.

Many Muslim countries in particular were divided on the issue. Some diplomats were concerned about any precedent for unilateral action while supporting the initiative to protect Kosovo’s large Muslim population.

Yet other delegations have been just as worried about the principles being set by NATO’s actions.

“The Security Council has just lost, through this shameful vote, a historic opportunity,” Cuban Ambassador Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla said. “We are living in a shameful time, during a breach of international legality.”

Rodriguez said if the Security Council could not stand up to the NATO air strikes, UN rules always would be subject to “capricious interpretations and gross manipulation.”