NATO is playing the key role in Yugoslavia, leaving the U.N. on the sidelines, where Russia and China would use their veto power. In serious crises, NATO is clearly much more effective than the U.N., which has far more support in the rest of the world. The Pope is similarly non-aligned.

Dan Wilhelmi has called my attention to an editorial in Mexico's state-run news agency Notimex (3/31/99), accusing NATO of violating international law with its airstrikes on Yugoslavia; since NATO, with a predominant contingent of U.S. forces, lacked the approval of the U.N. Security Council, they were unequivocal interventionism and inadmissible, said the editorial. The airstrikes violated the principle of international law and should be condemned. The action undermined peace efforts made by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and other U.N. member states. "Today it is Yugoslavia ... tomorrow what?" The editorial charged that NATO was a potential comprehensive threat, serving its own interests. Mexico's respects the principles of self-determination in the internal affairs of all states.

This is the Yugoslav and Russian argument. It could be used by any new Hitler and disregards the anti-genocide convention. Mexico fears that Pancho Villa-style chaos could trigger intervention by the United States. Moreover, the U.N. gives the lesser powers a tribune from which to use their oratory and assert their existence. The Mexican position is common in the nonaligned countries, and has been pushed hard by India, which is always thinking of Kashmir.

Ronald Hilton - 04/01/99