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

2. 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

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

4. 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.

5. 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
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

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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