In 2004, I took Poli-Sci 260 (“intro to global politics”) at UBC. We studied “humanitarian war”, and examined the 1999 Kosovo conflict as a case study. We learned about the doctrine called “the reponsibility to protect” (or R2P), described as a new, emerging norm in international politics. The doctrine supported the use military force to prevent civilian killings in other countries. Frequently described as being endorsed by the U.N, what’s rarely also mentioned is that to attack a country without U.N. Security Council authorization, is still a war crime. No such authorization was sought before this war.
The Kosovo Conflict was an air campaign by NATO countries (including Canada) against Yugoslavia, ostensibly a reaction to ethnic cleansing of tens of thousands of Kosovar Albanians by ethnic Serbs. However, NATO was only using claims of human rights abuses as a pretext for war. After the war, inspectors were unable to find the tens of thousands dead bodies alleged to exist in mass graves. It was later learned that the Racak massacre, critical to NATO’s propaganda efforts, was planted by Albanian militia. Of the ethnic cleansing that did occur, the overwhelming majority happened after the bombing began, when Yugoslavia invaded Kosovo in response to NATO’s attack. But ethnic cleansing that happened after a war started surely can’t be used to justify starting it.
To be sure, when studying a topic, it’s good to study all perspectives of a conflict, and it’s valid and useful to study legal justifications offered for war. It’s really inappropriate however, to teach a lecture hall filled with students, about the doctrine of R2P and the Kosovo context, and not bother to mention that NATO’s claims were totally bogus.
Poli 260 is a foundation course for poli-sci students, and a popular elective for many students. Making sure those students don’t leave university with delusions about world affairs and of Canada should be a high priority for us.
