One of the reason may be that the most of the nations which make up NATO are also members of the United Nations but do not want to be bound by the rules of the United Nations and have taken upon themselves to POLICE THE WORLD with their own rules and regulations. A situation which I think does not bid well for the World. It means that nineteen or less nations of the world, WHICH CONTROL MOST OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, can at anytime they wish force their will upon who ever does not march to their bidding. It is a very, very dangerous situation. Somehow we must return to the rule of 185 members of the United Nations Organization. Our Government wants others to abide by the UN Mandates but they continue to ignore or refuse to abide by their own membership commitment to the United Nations.

A letter from a friend , J. Chalupa, a refugee from former Communist Czechoslovakia in 1952, having spent 1 year in a German Concentration camp during World War2, and who has recently written and had published a book on the "ABCD's Of Politics" and knowing the situation in the Balkans pretty well writes, "The main criticism of our involvement in the Kosovo mess has been that our government has failed to give a good reason for such involvement...The reason why such a good reason has not been articulated is that no such good reason exists, and therefore it cannot be given. The reason for the absence of a good reason is because the wrongs perpetrated in Kosovo are not a result of malice and ill will (although our government along with the media is demonizing one side and idealizing the other) they are the results of the clash of two good and justifiable principles: the right to defend the integrity of ones' country and the right of self determination by a minority in this same country.

To make this abstract principle more real. Let us create a fictitious paralell situation in our American Circumstances. Let us pretend that the Hispanic have attained in Los Angeles and surroundings a majority which enables them to use the local self-government to introduce their language, religion and institutions into dominate positions to such an extent that the remaining English speaking minority would feel (or be) oppressed. It would appeal to the California government, which would come to the conclusion that all these changes have an undeclared, but obvious goal: separate the territory occupied by the Hispanic from California and integrate it into Mexico. Therefore the California government would abolish the self government ("autonomy") of Los Angeles and other Hispanic areas. and reverse their decisions (for intance, probitions of homosexuality, of abortion, of commerce on Cahtolic holidays, etc).The Hispanic majority would react by defending their rights, it would close the Los Angeles airport, support dock strikes, and when California would move in with their state militia, support the guerrillas fighting openly for separation from California with the goal of merging with Mexico. Conflicts would escalate until California would conclude that, in order to preserve its integrity, it most reduce the Hispanic majority by expulsion, resettlement, evacuation, in other words by "ethnic cleansing" (Let us realize that at this point this has been considered a necessity in many cases: during the war in Vietnam, Americans planned and executed resettlement of villages, during it war for statehood, the Israelis expelled millions of Palestinians, the end of WW2 was marked by forced transfer to Germany of ethnic Germans from several countries)

In an operation of this type, mutually escalating brutalities, human rights violations, inhuman cruelties, even group executions are inevitable and the weaker side suffers most. At this stage, the conflict ceases to be a clash between armed forces: entire populations become involved, participate and suffer. The same would happen with our fictitious conflict in California, until an association of South American states started bombing California's police quarters, militia barracks, armories, to stop such violations. Then the United States would have to step in and world wide conflagration could follow.

The parallel of this fiction with the situation in Kosovo is obvious. The Serbs are desperately fighting for the integrity of their state. The Albanians are firm in their insistence of the right of self determination. Both sides have moral argument on their respective side in which they believe. As individuals, we can and do take sides in this clash of principles, mostly on sentimental grounds: who could not reject violation of human rights and condone the suffering of its victims, and at the same time not acknowledge the tenacity of those who fight for the integrity of the country.But can a superpower do this? Its decisions have world wide reverberations. If it comes down on the right to defend territorial integrity, it will trigger increased oppression of minorities everywhere. If it comes down on the side of self determination, it will encourage irredenta among minorities. And there are many of them. Hungarians in Slovakia and Romania, Romanians in the Ukraine, Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Iraq, Christians in the Sudan, Moslems in India, Basks in Spain, Irish in North Ireland. Sundry tribal wars in Africa.

Is there a solution? Theoretically, there is - it consist in bringing together the boarders of states with the territories occupied by the sundry nations. The implementation of this principle by peaceful means (not excluding various kinds of pressure) is a matter of statecraft: its too obvious modes are the movement of the borders to adjust to the national territory, or the movement of minorities to the territory of their respective nation states. This principle would give a clear guideline for setting a comprehensible goal and identifying commensurate means of international policy. At present, it is distressing and confusing that entering into a war with a small country is justified as an act of compassion by a man who has twice vetoed a law restricting partial birth abortion and who presides over a nation with one million two hundred thousand deprivations of life of preborn humans annually, and the war (intrusion of ground troops into a foreign country) is conducted in the name of humanitarian principles by a group of states who are using the United Nation and private organizations to force depopulation polices on the rest of the world. The public feels this inconsistency, and although it is unable to formulate its reason, if feels uneasy and remains unconvinced in spite of the media propaganda offensive.