From: agha@cs.uiuc.edu (Gul Agha) Subject: Re: PLEASE! SHOW UP IN WASHINGTON DC FOR BOSNIA (MAY 15th) In-Reply-To: prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu's message of Thu, 13 May 1993 15:55:41 GMT Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL <1sreod$73k@venus.haverford.edu> Lines: 51 In article prabhak@giga.cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes: I guess that it was not acceptable because Germany *also* chose a path of aggression simultaneously that put the interests of other countries in peril. I wonder whether US or other countries would have risked themselves if only Jews were persecuted and Hitler had no imperialist ambitions. (I am no student of history and I am just asking questions.) I don't think they would have. After all the U.S. was one of the countries that turned away Jewish refugees when there was still time to get them out. (Considered and rejected at the Cabinet level then..) ... Under what conditions should US interfere in foregin countries, is an abstraction one must clarify before resorting to acrimonious accusations of religious bigotry and such. As I understand it, International law provides the right of any country to intervene to prevent genocide. I think once the World Court has ruled that genocide is being committed... If a Human Rights Czar is appointed at the U.N., we could have international monitors recording events and responses of local officials and develop an objective basis. This could be backed by adjudication at the International Court of Justice and enforcement through a Rapid Deployment Force under the U.N. Secretary General's command. I would like to see the U.N. directly impose ICJ rulings whenever feasible (without the possibility of vetos at the UN Security Council.. much as the President can't veto a U.S. Supreme Court ruling). The U.S. is now supporting the effort to appoint the HR Czar -- the third world opposition is led by three countries, China, Iran and Pakistan (What company is Pakistan keeping!). The U.S. is also reconsidering its opposition to the U.N. force initially envisaged in the Charter (although under the control of the Security Council). The UN SC is quite a flawed body. Rogue governments like the PRC have even threatened their veto in the last few months to block the move to place U.N. troops in Bosnia under Chapter 7 instead of 11 (if I have the numbers straight) where they could have moved from being a monitoring to an enforcement force without requiring further SC action. (The PRC even continues to threaten using its veto on U.N. action despite the ICJ ruling. The current set-up requires the SC to enforce ICJ rulings..). Peace, Gul Agha