United States disregard for international law

The following are extracts from a revealing letter by a German MP, a 
member of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), to Chancellor Schroeder. 
The letter exposes underlying tensions and differences between the US and 
its European NATO allies, the US's total disregard for international law 
and its global ambitions. (The name of the author has been withheld. The 
letter is dated May 2, 2001.)

Last weekend I had the opportunity of attending, in the Slovak capital 
Bratislava, a joint conference organised by the US State Department and the 
American Enterprise Institute. The subject-matters were the Balkans and 
NATO expansion.

The conference was attended by important personalities, including numerous 
regional Prime Ministers, Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and Defence 
Ministers. Among the various important points discussed, some deserve being 
passed on:

1. The organisers demanded a speedy international recognition of an 
independent state of Kosovo by Allied nations.

2. The organisers declared the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be outside 
all international legal agreements, foremost the Helsinki Final Act.

3. European legal concepts were said to hinder the realisation of NATO 
deliberations. American legal concepts were more suitable, even for an 
application in Europe.

4. The reason for the war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was to 
correct an erroneous decision by General Eisenhower, dating back to World 
War II. There are strategic reasons for stationing American troops there.

5. The European Allies participated in the war against Yugoslavia as a way 
of overcoming, de facto, the dilemma which arose between the "New Strategic 
Concept" of the Alliance, adopted in April 1999, and the Europeans' 
inclination to obtain a prior mandate from the United Nations or the 
Organisation for European Security and Cooperation (OSCE).

6. Regardless of the subsequent legalistic interpretation by the Europeans, 
who argued that the war against Yugoslavia was an exception, that war did, 
of course, set a precedent which can be cited by everybody at all times.

7. In the context of the approaching NATO expansion the aim was to 
reconstitute the spatial extent that existed in the days of the Roman 
empire between the Baltic Ocean and Anatolia.

8. To achieve that, it was necessary to surround Poland in the North and 
South with democratic neighbouring countries, to secure the land bridge to 
Turkey via Romania and Bulgaria, and to permanently exclude Serbia from 
European development (probably with a view to securing a US military 
presence).

9. To the North of Poland the aim was to gain complete control over the 
exit to the Baltic Ocean from St Petersburg.

10. In every single case the right to self-determination is to have 
precedence over any other aspect or rules of international law.

11. There was no opposition to the statement that NATO's attack on the 
Yugoslav Federation had been contrary to any international rules and, 
foremost, any relevant aspects of international law.

After the very frank tenor which prevailed at the gathering, and 
considering the status of the participants, one cannot avoid an assessment 
of the statements made.

It appears that in pursuance of its global aims and purposes, the American 
side tries to consciously and determinedly eradicate the international 
legal order which has developed in the wake of two world wars last century.

Might is to have precedence over right. Wherever international law stands 
in the way, it is to be left by the wayside.

When the League of Nations was faced with a similar situation, World War II 
was not far away. A frame of mind which sees its own interests in such 
absolute terms cannot but be considered totalitarian.

* * *

Translated from German by Dr Vera Butler