There can be no doubt about the intent of NATO.
From the Nato website:
Origins of the North Atlantic Treaty
Negotiating the Atlantic Treaty
On the 6th July, 1948, the preliminary talks which led to the North Atlantic Treaty began in Washington between the State Department and the Ambassadors of Canada and of the Brussels Treaty Powers. It was agreed from the start that any treaty for common defence, linking countries from both sides of the Atlantic, should be within the framework of the United Nations' Charter. These talks ended on the 9th September, 1948, with a report to governments recommending inter alia that the proposed treaty should:
promote peace and security;
express determination of the Parties to resist aggression;
define the area in which it should be operative;
be based on self-help and mutual aid;
be more than military: that is, promote the stability and well being of the North Atlantic peoples;
provide machinery for implementation.
The report was duly considered by governments, and at the end of October the Consultative Council of the Brussels Treaty was able to announce 'complete agreement on the principle of a defensive pact for the North Atlantic and on the next steps to be taken in this direction'. The 'next steps' were the actual drafting of the North Atlantic Treaty which started in Washington on the 10th December, 1948, between representatives of the seven Powers.
So your evaluation doesn't make sense. Clearly, NATO is and was always intended to be a mutual defensive pact between member nations. NONE of those countries were attacked by Yugoslavia.
No where in the Charter or in the history of the formation of NATO can you find reference to anything other than mutual defense. There NOTHING about "attacking" anyone else. Indeed, the ONLY concept mentioned is that of DEFENSE of member nations. It is the intent and raison d'etre for the NATO alliance.
Scholz:
Most of the UNSC nations did want to intervene in Kosovo ... and unfortunately they did. The nations that attacked Yugoslavia were the same nations in the UN that wanted UN intervention.
Really? No kidding?
"Many of the UNSC nations did want to intervene in Iraq ... and unfortunately they did.
The nations that attacked Iraq were the same nations in the UN that wanted UN intervention."
Does this mean you also think the invasion of Iraq was illegal?
As I have said many, many times before, if they don't find evidence of WMD, it was absolutely illegal and Bush should step down. They've had Saddam for one month; I'll give them maybe 5 more to show something. After that..... I'll say it was absolutely illegal. But I am willing to give them time to squeeze Saddam.
Just as I say Clinton's use of American Forces in the NATO attack on Yugoslavia was illegal. I agree with the UN Secretary-General on that. I mean, he runs the organization; he ought to know, eh?
