It appears that the recent "purpose-of-existence" crisis experienced by NATO has now been successfully resolved, at least in the short-term, by the aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY).

Now there is a further justification for the good work of the political and military bureaucrats in Brussels--they are conducting a "humanitarian action".

By exploiting an internal ethnic conflict in a sovereign country, and by actively supporting a secessionist (some call it terrorist) movement, the alliance's strategy of asserting its influence in regions of interest is becoming clearer.

The member countries of NATO have thus given themselves the right to solve international problems by use of force, outside the framework of the United Nations. This is an extremely dangerous and volatile path, for it could lead to a catastrophic escalation of the conflict.

The new role, that of a world gendarme (or thug, whichever way one looks at it), is the last contribution of the West to humanity in this millennium. Good reason for rejoicing all around.

God save us from such a fervent humanism.

The phrase "international community" in NATO vernacular means all those who support its goals. To what community do those who disagree with its policies belong?

The words "human rights" and "democracy" are (again) being used as a mouthwash and pretext for whatever actions the alliance sees fit. I guess that the destruction of factories, bridges, cities and civilians is also part of NATO's ongoing effort to make this world a more humane place.

The manipulation of the refugees from Kosovo and their plight, the stories of atrocities, rapes, random killings, are being amplified by the Western propaganda machine to present the viewers with the good-guys versus bad-guys picture and to give legitimacy to something illegitimate in the first place.

Yet the Kosovo exodus started after the bombing campaign began, not before. Some even cast doubts as to who is responsible for it, and to what degree.

In all of the rhetoric, the NATO member countries are deliberately forgetting to cast a look into their own backyards, something which would probably give them less authority on preaching about high moral issues.

There are many reasons why those responsible for this aggression should be brought to justice, even though one doubts very much that there are international courts which could be deemed as being unbiased.

The breaches of international law in respect to the use of threats of force against a sovereign country, to accept a peace agreement which would effectively see it occupied, and the subsequent actual use of force against a sovereign country; the criminal damages inflicted on the country's economy, industry, and civilians; and the human misery caused could well be the basis for a prosecution of those political leaders in the West who badly needed a "humanitarian intervention" to pursue their own goals.

It just happens that FRY happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.... Could Russia be the subject of the next humanitarian intervention?

MJ

Australia