19
There was clearly some fudging in Solana’s statement. The claim that
NATO was not engaging in a war when it had the world’s largest fleet of
planes dropping bombs on a country’s infrastructure and military posts was
odd. Britain’s Tony Blair had less trouble than many of his colleagues on
this subject since he early on called the operation a war and used just war
language to explain it.. Secondly to claim that NATO was acting on behalf
of the international community’s demands was cavalierly dismissive of the
opposing views of China, India, Russia and Mexico, among others, who
represent a rather large portion of “the international community.” And the
statement that NATO was going to focus on disrupting violent attacks on
Kosovars was something they failed to do. The ending of violent attacks
only ended once the Yugoslavs gave up. Nevertheless Solana’s emphasis on
the humanitarian purpose of the intervention and the moral imperative
moving NATO’s participants is something that was voiced again and again
by every one of NATO’s nineteen members; and though in some cases that
imperative and sensibility were conjoined to other concerns of various
NATO countries that does not alter the fact that the humanitarian response
was genuine and a key factor.
Most NATO members sidestepped legal rationales and concentrated on
humanitarian ones; however, the UK, in addition to its Prime Minister’s
“just war” claim, and Belgium both offered legal arguments for their
participation. Belgium claimed that its involvement in the intervention
meant it was acting on the highest values of the international community,
safeguarding “the right to life, physical integrity and the prohibition of
torture.” Its actions were thus, it claimed before the ICJ, “consistent with
Convention