NATO Action in Kosovo is Illegal

Conservatives watching the antics of the Clinton presidency are never surprised to find them violating the Constitution of the United States. The undeclared war in Yugoslavia is no exception. The president's participation violates Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war.

What does surprise is that Mr. Clinton and his NATO cohorts have been so ready to ignore the UN Charter and the North Atlantic Treaty. As internationalists they usually revere these instruments far more than they do any domestic laws. The attack on Yugoslavia violates the principles of both agreements.

NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was formed as a "Chapter VIII regional arrangement" of the United Nations. The UN Charter specifically does not authorize the UN or its regional subsidiaries "to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state..." In Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, the founding member nations agreed to defend each other against attack from other nations. Article 1 binds them to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations." That would include, of course, the UN Charter prohibition of intervention in a nation's domestic affairs.

As tragic as the situation inside Yugoslavia may be, it is clearly an internal Yugoslavian matter. It is the latest manifestation of an enmity that goes back hundreds of years. No international aggression occurred until NATO indulged in its bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. While this wouldn't be the first time the UN had savaged a country while interfering with its domestic concerns (remember Katanga), it is a new role for NATO. That shouldn't be too much of a shock, considering that NATO has been looking for some reason to continue its existence since the end of the cold war.

The standard answer to the legal objections against the NATO attack is essentially that the suffering of the people of Kosovo is too important to let mere legalities stand in the way of helping them. Consider that the refugee problem was triggered by the bombing campaign; that NATO has killed many civilians in Kosovo and other Serbian areas with their bombs; and that the strong Serb opposition to their leader Milosevic has evaporated since the attack by outside forces. Just how helpful has the attack really been?

The best thing that could happen to the Albanian Kosovars in the long run would be that they would resettle in neighboring Albania with their compatriots and coreligionists. Milosevic has not chosen a humane way to accomplish that, and certainly doesn't care what happens to the refugees, but he has gone a long way toward making it an accomplished fact.

In spite of everyone's desire to help a suffering people, doing so just isn't more important than the rule of law. Exceptions to allow for interference in any country are precedents for doing the same to any other. Today Yugoslavia; tomorrow who knows?

Rep. Tom Campbell has introduced a pair of opposing resolutions in the House, designed to force the Congress to do its Constitutional duty regarding the declaration of war. H.J. Res. 44 says that "A state of war is declared to exist between the United States and the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." The opposing H. Con. Res. 82 invokes the War Powers Resolution and "directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from" the NATO action against Yugoslavia. The Congressman is trying to get the House to choose one or the other. Either one would bring the administration into compliance with the Constitution. I suggest that all of us contact our representatives with our recommendation of which resolution to support.