Daniel Rosen, New York, NY USA

In the name of liberty, democracy, self determination of peoples, and global peace, NATO dictated the condition of a peace in Kosovo. NATO is by principle always under the command of an American officer. President Clinton tried to deliver self determination for the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo without taking into account the legitimate fear of the Serbian minority who was before NATO bombing and is still now afraid to be killed by the KLA. Self determination of one people may come at the expense of self determination and security of another ethnic group. There is a danger to leave the monopoly for judgment in one of those delicate questions into the hands of one power, however well intentioned it may be.

The arrogance that America displayed toward the Russians in the Kosovo affair give us a warning that an unchecked power can lead to disaster: war, killing of innocents by collateral damages (estimated being at least 1500 during NATO bombing), and spoliation of ethnic rights of a minority. In Rambouillet, NATO tried to impose a de facto independent Kosovo without regards for the Serbians, and without consulting Russia. Russia has historically seen itself as a protector of the Orthodox Slavs in general and the Serbs in particular. Despite Russia’s economic weakness, this former superpower may still prevent the exodus of an additional 1750,000 Serbs from Kosovo, and may encourage the return of the 75,000 who already left when the Serbian troops withdrew from Kosovo. However, this can happen only if Russia is allowed to be responsible of the security of the Serbian populated areas, with the authority to outlaw and dismantle the KLA, at least in this area.

A balance between different superpowers is necessary in order to assure that the interest of all ethnic groups is taken into account, even if all those powers share the same ideal than America for an international order. Otherwise, under the cover of selfless humanitarian assistance it would be easier for the main superpower to find excuses for military intervention in order to expand its zone of influence. There is also a legitimate fear that America or NATO could use the same reasoning they used in Kosovo to turn against Israel in favor of the Palestinians or even the Golan’s Druzes.

Most of the political parties elected this June 1999 for the European parliament, underlined the current military weakness of the European union, and campaigned for a Europe independent militarily from the US. A common European military alliance or force will rend NATO obsolete. A militarily strong Europe will have the same reservation toward NATO than France had under De Gaulle in 1966 when it withdrew from NATO.

European Nations, with the exception of Germany, have been, under the leadership of France, resolutely pro-Arab. France, for example, has a sizable North African immigration and fears terrorism if it sides too closely with Israel. Competition between America and a strong European Union in the Middle East is good for Israel: without competition, America would have less need to support Israel as an ally. In the same way, a stronger Russia is important to keep the United States motivated to help Israel. Israel should encourage the strengthening of the European Union and Russia, and should decrease its economic dependence on the U.S. government.

Israel’s uneasiness to offer a balanced criticism of NATO bombing of Belgrade reflects the overwhelming dependence of Israel on the U.S. Israel should support the trend in Europe toward military independence and toward ultimately the abolition of NATO. NATO was created principally to balance the power of the former USSR in Europe. The current Russia is no longer a serious threat for Europe. However, there were also two more hidden purposes for NATO: to keep a strong America’s influence in Europe and to prevent the resurgence of a German bellicose superpower. However, Germany has now proven itself as an established Democratic country, and probably because of the Holocaust, is closer to the sensibility of Israel than any other major European state. It is now in the interest of Israel to have a strong and armed Germany, which as the most important economic leader of Europe can counterbalance France’s antagonism toward Israel. A strong Germany and a military strong Europe will reduce the excessive power of the U.S. This can be done while still keeping U.S. values of liberty, democracy, self determination of peoples, and global peace. It is in the interest of Israel and Europe that NATO be abolished.

Daniel Rosen, New York, NY USA

Should Israel fear a strong Germany and a strong Europe? Should Israel rejoice that the United States is now the main world superpower? Should Israel continue to fear that Russia is a potential threat? No. On the opposite, one has to fear that the idealism of an omnipotent America interfere with the interests of the Jews in Israel.

We have seen in the first part of this article that it is in the interest of Israel and Europe that NATO be abolished. But, it is also in the interest of the U.S. tho have a strong European Union, a powerful and democratic Russia and to abolish NATO. At the end of WWII, the U.S. was the only superpower with nuclear capacity. Because of their power, America could have achieved world domination. Instead she chose to reinforce a democratic Europe through the costly Marshall plan. This has proven to be the best investment for collective security for Europe and America. The U.S., should not fear to lose its current status as dominant superpower as long as it fosters democratic values in the rising powers. On the contrary, America should avoid becoming the only agent who will decide what is morally right for all other nations, when they deal with a principle of self-determination. America should not fear to have her power checked by others in those issues.

To achieve collective security, America should model its foreign policy on its own Constitution: the Founding Fathers, building on Montesquieu’s idea of separation of power took great care to balance the different powers among the leaders of the U.S.. Even a democratically elected president has to share his power with the two chambers of Congress, and the power of both the president and the congress is checked by an independent judicial system. The writers of the Constitution did not trust the judgement of only one elected body because it could lead to an abuse of power. By sharing its power with other really democratic countries or entities, the U.S. will foster collective security and democracy.

Instead, the arrogance of NATO during the Kosovo conflict may have grave repercussions in Russia; it strengthen the anti-democratic and anti-American forces in the Russian Parliament, who see NATO as a threat to Russia and as an imperialist tool used to expand the U.S. zone of influence. It will encourage nuclear buildup and military alliances against the U.S. between the currently weakly democratic Russia and the non-democratic China. American led NATO behavior in Kosovo also makes democratic reform in China and openness to the West more difficult. Transition from a dictatorship to democracy is delicate and may be reversible. We have seen with Hitler that a weak democracy can lead to the worst dictatorship. President Boris Yeltsin’s fragile health, and an overwhelming public opinion in Russia, Ukraine and China against NATO bombing of Belgrade are warnings that the U.S. should deal more tactfully with the Russian government or its potential successors.

The humiliation of Russia by the U.S. during the Kosovo conflict was one of the most serious diplomatic errors since the end of the cold war. It is not too late to repair this error if America gives a real role to the Russian troops in Kosovo, and commits itself to strengthening a militarily independent European Union, fosters a democratic and economically sound Russia, and commits itself to the abolition of NATO.