Protesters staged large demonstrations in Western capitals 10 years ago to urge governments to intervene to stop Serb forces killing civilians in Kosovo.
Despite having no United Nations mandate, NATO went to war for the first time and bombed Serbia for 11 weeks to stop what it called the Yugoslav army’s disproportionate use of force in its offensive against separatist ethnic Albanian guerrillas.
“We have a moral duty,” said then NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana as bombers took off on March 24, 1999 to “bring an end to the humanitarian catastrophe”.
The intervention helped launch a doctrine of international “Responsibility to Protect” civilians in conflicts. Advocates of “R2P” proposed humanitarian intervention in Myanmar in 2007 and military force in Zimbabwe in 2008.
But it never happened and the likelihood of this doctrine being adopted universally now in a UN declaration is slim, as was shown by the Gaza war that began two months ago.
On Dec. 27, Israeli bombers went into action over Gaza. As reports of civilian deaths grew, protesters staged rallies in Western capitals to demand leaders act to end the offensive against Islamist Hamas militants in the Palestinian enclave.
Critics accused Israel of using “disproportionate” force, just as many said Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic had done.
But intervention in Gaza was impossible politically and militarily unimaginable. Unlike Serbia, Israel is not seen in the West as a rogue state and widescale ethnic cleansing was not under way in Gaza.
Solana visited the enclave on Friday as foreign policy chief of the European Union, which seeks to foster peace in the Middle East through “soft power” — diplomacy and aid, not intervention of the kind he advocated as head of the NATO alliance.
NATO never embraced the “responsibility to protect” concept, arguing that Kosovo, which most allies have subsequently recognised as an independent state, was a unique case that should not set a precedent.
Soft power may eventually mean encouraging talks with Hamas — which is now shunned by the West. In an open letter published this week, a group of former foreign ministers urged a change in that policy, saying peace depends on talking to the militants.
But with rockets from Gaza again being fired daily into Israel, the prospect of a breakthrough soon seems bleak as right-wing prime minister designate Benjamin Netanyahu tries to form a government.
Viewing war damage in Gaza on Friday, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store spoke of “senseless destruction.” He blamed Hamas for starting the conflict, but said Israel’s response “goes beyond what international law allows.”
Serb forces in the 1998-99 Kosovo war ignored the idea of “proportionality” on the battlefield. They were sure no army would willingly tie its own hands in the face of insurgency. They mortared, burned and raided “guerrilla” villages to drive
off civilians and deprive the rebels of cover.
On Thursday, the U.N. tribunal in The Hague sentenced two Serbian generals to 22 years in jail for war crimes in Kosovo. Serbia handed them over under Western pressure.
Israel openly assured its soldiers during the Gaza offensive that they would not face such prosecution. Discussing tactics for a future conflict, one senior Israeli general also dismissed “proportionality” as a deterrent.
“We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction,” said Northern Command chief Gadi Eisenkot.
“This isn’t a suggestion. This is a plan that has been authorised,” he told daily Yedioth Ahronoth ast October.
Defending Israel’s action in Gaza, President Shimon Peres reminded NATO chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer that NATO’s own bombing of Serbia killed “hundreds of civilians”.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert mocked the idea that he should ask soldiers to fight an evenly-matched battle in which a few hundred might be killed simply to win international approval for a war in which Hamas was fighting in heavily populated areas.
But scholars of international law say proportionality does not mean a “fair fight” or balanced death toll, let alone making sure no civilian dies. It requires belligerents to use weapons that distinguish civilians from military targets and combatants.
According to Gaza figures — which Israel says are suspect– some 600 of 1,300 Palestinians killed in Gaza were civilians. Of 13 Israelis killed during the 22-day war, 10 were soldiers.
Human Rights Watch, the U.N. Human Rights Council, Amnesty International, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Israeli rights group B’Tselem have called for investigations.

Trackback
31 comments so far
Previous | 2 | 1 | Next
Those who equate the actions of Israel to Serbia are terribly misinformed.
Israel allowed itself to be hit by rockets. It gave the whole world the opportunity to see what happened when Israel showed restraint.
And then when Israel could hold back no more, it took the least military action possible. And it ceased it’s attacks once it was obvious that Hamas no longer had any will to fight. And now Gaza remains quiet and peaceful.
People need to do some research on just what constitutes ‘genocide’ and ‘war crimes’. They need to actually look at Israel’s actions from an objective view. And they need to look at exactly why NATO intervened in Kosovo, and what crimes were committed by Serbia to justify the intervention.
Until they do that, protestors make a mockery of human rights with their anti-israel stance.
By politicising human rights terminology and using it when it does not apply, the terms are twisted until they mean nothing. And human rights as a whole suffers.
- Posted by hahaTo Emily
I agree with you in that having at least Gaza is better than what the Palestinians have been given by their brothers in previous decades. The Arabic countries never cared about the Palestinians, except when trying to put them out of the way. Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, as far as I know, nobody wanted them in their lands. And now they embrace their cause as if it had ever been theirs!
You talk about double standards…
People need to study History.
- Posted by brazwill someone please tell me what a proportionate response to terrorism is, and how it it figured? also, how does one distinguish between combatants and noncombatants when human shileds run to areas warned by israel of an impending bombardment? conditions are being imposed upon israel which no sovereign state in the eu, nato, or north america, would tolerate for itself.
- Posted by jdIt never would be the international peace and justice until Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush and Mr.Blair will be severely punished for their crimes in Yugoslavia.
- Posted by Iouli AndreevIt have to be the main political goal for every honest person in the world.
The doctrine would have applied if Kosovar leaderhsip rejected Serbia’s right to exist and claimed that all of Serbia + Kosovo is the only legitimate “Kosovo”. As Hamas claims about Israel…
- Posted by RSIsrael, unlike Serbia for Kosovo, recognizes the principle of Palestinian statehood, the details are more complex. It is Hamas in Gaza, unlike Kosovo for Serbia, that doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist.
Therefore, the comparison is completely wrong and misleading…
[...] via Reuters | Blogs . [...]
- Posted by Gaza shows Kosovo “doctrine” doesn’t apply « Kanan48’s BlogThirty years ago, the Israel state took part in my country, Guatemala, supporting the guatemalan army in our genocide, to crush the marxist insurgency. Here, died about 250,000 civilian people. Like others latinoamerican genocides, the guatemalan militaries responsibles of this mass killings are free, although the criminal prosecution has begun. Likewise, the jews military chiefs are sure of avoid the justice. USA is the main responsible for every barbaric actions, because its double standard and hipocresy. Otherwise, the latinoamerican and jews genocides were in jail, much time ago.
- Posted by Luis Rodolfo Cabrera JuárezIrene,
What are you talking about. The Serbs did nothing to protect the Jews during the WWII.
The Jews in the Balkans were saved by the Muslims, go figure. The Serbs fought the Nazis only when they saw that the Croats were getting the upper hand.
And WWII had nothing to do with 1999. From your logic we would still treat Germany as if Hitler was in power.
- Posted by RubenIf Arabs were serious about Palestine they would have recognized Kosovo. There is nothing more spineless than the Arab foreign policy.
- Posted by RubenAs Americans, we have not ever seen our country bomb a sovereign country, as we did Serbia - a friend of the USA and protector of the Jews and Roma during WWII. This is their “reward” for being Christian Orthodox and having their own economy. God help our country - we seem to be on the side of the Euro-dictators.
- Posted by IreneNATA was totally wrong in bombing Serbia. They did it because Serbia was leaning towards Russia. NATO (western world) never liked Russia and so they have come up with NATO. Yugoslavia was a unified country, but NATO did not want a strong country near their border. So they planned and instigated the Muslims to fight for a separate country. Saudi, Pakistan and other muslim countries sent their terrorist to help the Bosnian muslims. USA, UK supplied weapons and Saudi pumped in money. Just look at the number of Mosques which came up, which is a breeding ground for terrorist and hate towards religion.
- Posted by RajIf they are so concerned about democracy, why are they supporting Pakistan, which never had a real democracy. They are supporting Dictators. Why don’t they go and help Burmese people? Because Burma does not have oil. Or are they scared of China.
Why don’t they snap relations with Saudi, which has given refuge to Idi Amin ? Nicaragua was a favourite of USA inspite of Human rigths abuse. NATO is now above law and above UNO.