NATO in Kosovo: Establishing Security or Purporting State Power? Christina Bloemen University of Montana UMCUR April 11, 2014

Definitions Structural Realism: a strong state does what it can while weaker states do what they must Neoliberal Institutionalism: Peace can be achieved through unified acts in international organizations to combat conflict

Structural Realism: The United States manipulated international institutions (ex. UN, NATO) to assert its political and military status in a previously communist region

Neoliberal Institutionalism: The intervention in Kosovo demonstrates the strong will of the international community to prevent mass violations of human rights and to build respect for the autonomy of fledgling nations through multilateral action.

United Nations Authorization Dates of Conflict Location of Conflict Mission United Nations Authorization March- June 1999 Kosovo Bombing campaign of Serbian army forces occupying Kosovo Yes 2001-2003 Macedonia Disarm Albanian rebels and provide peace keeping forces for strengthening stability No August 2001 Afghanistan Coalition launches August 2003 NATO takes over International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) N/A June 2004 Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority transfers power to Iraqi Interim Government June 2005 Sudan Support African union Mission (airlift & training) 2009 Libya Instituted no-fly zone over Libya (UN Res. 1973) 2012 Syria Consideration for Syria under Article 4, OPCW briefed NATO-Russia council

NATO Authorization/Operation Dates of Conflict Location of Conflict U.S. Mission NATO Authorization/Operation 1999 Kosovo Major airstrikes in conjunction with NATO Yes 2001 Macedonia Disarmament of Macedonian rebels Afghanistan Air and land attacks oust Taliban government 2003 Iraq Invasion, anti-insurgency war, new government established No 2009 Libya Strikes against government air force 2008-Present Pakistan Drone strikes and special forces raids Yes* 2013 Syria Proposed support (no action was taken)

Rhetorical Tests Clinton (Kosovo) “These atrocities are happening at the doorstep of NATO […] They are happening to people who embrace peace and promise to lay down their own arms […]” –Kosovo

Bush (Macedonia, Iraq, Afghanistan) “Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace. And a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.” -Iraq

Obama (Libya, Syria) “The question now is what the United States of America and the international community is prepared to do about it, because what happened to those people, to those children, is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security” -Syria

Data Analysis Through the data given, the U.S. has only intervened once without any international approval or support (14% of the time) In addresses by presidents, the most focused explanations were about international cooperation

Conclusion The U.S. (in concern to international interventions) most often acts in international, coordinated interventions There is an increasing trend of respecting the wishes and mandates of the UN Security Council and other international institutions

Acknowledgments Many thanks to Prof. Karen Adams and the Political Science department for providing the opportunity to further discuss and explore my interests in the field of international interventions and security dilemmas