The American intervention in Kosovo was a milestone in American politics and a radical departure from traditional American foreign policy. It was only the second time in American history and the first time in over a century that the United States attacked a sovereign foreign power that had committed no act of war against either herself or one of her allies. The last time the America had unilaterally attacked another nation for matters involving its own internal policies was in 1898, in the Spanish American War, when we attacked Spain over her harsh suppression of an independence movement in Cuba. That war drive was however fueled by much yellow journalism, an exaggeration of Spanish atrocities in Cuba, and the unsubstantiated charge that the Spanish were responsible for the explosion in Havana harbor that destroyed the American battleship, Maine. Without the latter incident war would have been unimaginable and even so President McKinley resisted the demand for war as long as it was politically feasible to do so.

By contrast Kosovo is not a colony but a province of Serbia an integral part of the nation. The concept of Kosovar independence is therefore radically different from the concept of Cuban independence, which Americans empathized with in light of our own experience as a nation. Neither is Kosovo in the Western hemisphere where implications of the Monroe Doctrine would influence American foreign policy. Nonetheless we intervened, we intervened in force, and this has radical consequences for American foreign policy. Let us examine some of these. Then we will examine all of this in the light of scripture.

By these actions America is stating that, with the demise of the cold war, and as the world's chief superpower, she is prepared to impose her will in a new world order, a kind of Pax Americana, not unlike the Pax Romana that ruled the Mediterranean world two millennia ago. Secondly, this action transmuted NATO from a defensive alliance during the cold war to a regional international government, willing to impose its will by force on any nation within its sphere of influence. NATO is now an international policeman willing to impose its will by force on any "sovereign" nation within its bounds whose policies and actions as a nation state do not meet with its approval. International law is being radically rewritten in blood! Why is this being done? What could have caused such a sea change in American foreign policy?

The demographics of Kosovo are such that ethnic Albanians have come to dominate the population and the Serbs have become a minority in the province. This has led the Albanians to desire independence from Serbia. This led to the founding of the KLA, the Kosovar Liberation Army, a typical guerrilla type, revolutionary independence movement. The KLA stated from the outset that it wanted full independence, that it had little hope of ever achieving that on its own, and that it hoped to provoke a crisis that would compel international intervention on its behalf. It has been wildly successful in employing that strategy. The KLA commenced a campaign of terror against the minority Serb population of Kosovo. Civilians were murdered, villages burned, and many Serbs compelled to flee to Serbia proper to escape the violence. The Serbs responded with a campaign to repress the KLA. This is in the Balkans with its age-old feuds and ethnic hatreds and both sides indulged in harsh and cruel measures. The Serbs, by far the stronger of the two, soon came to dominate the conflict. At the time of the NATO intervention it is estimated that a total of 2000 persons had died in the six months of the Kosovo civil war. Of these about 800 were Serb casualties of the KLA and about 1200 were Albanian casualties of Serb forces repressing the KLA. An estimated 500 Serb civilians lost their lives in NATO's bombing campaign against Serbia. Also, as a result of the escalation of the conflict from a Serb police action to the full-scale civil war precipitated by the NATO intervention, hundreds of thousands of Ethnic Albanians fled Kosovo.

Let us put all this in perspective. Two thousand persons die in a civil war in a sovereign nation that has committed no act of war against the United States. The United States believes it has a moral imperative to intervene, not as a peacemaker or as an arbitrator, but on behalf of one party in the conflict. Christ taught that we have to first take the beam out of our own eye before we are concerned about the splinter in someone else's eye. The United States kills well over 40,000 persons on the nation's highways every year. A significant  number (majority?) of these cases have drugs or alcohol as a factor. As a nation we are extremely tolerant of alcohol abuse by operators of motor vehicles. People continue to drink and drive under the influence after repeated arrests. Might some other nation have a moral imperative to compel us to do more to stop this deadly practice? Might they be justified in using force to compel us to stop this slaughter on the nation's highways? Who would decide? And what about the abortion holocaust in our midst? What about our "ethnic cleansing" of unwanted children? Annually over one million unborn children are legally murdered in the nation's abortion mills. Would some other nation have a moral imperative to compel us to stop the shedding of so much innocent blood? Would they be justified in initiating a bombing campaign on America until we desist from our immoral war on the unborn? Should we not take Christ's advice? Should we not address the moral evils in our own nation before hypocritically tackling the moral ills in other nations?

Finally, we have to ask the question what is the basis for the United State's authority to intervene in the internal affairs of another sovereign nation? Is there any basis in international law for such interventions? More importantly, is there any basis in the scriptures for such activities? God is the one who has both instituted nations and instituted civil government. What does God say in his word about these matters? First of all we can say that God has clearly established nations. This is a logical inference derived from the scriptures. First of all, it appears that God established nations in his division of the earth in Genesis 10. The earth was divided into nations according to the various clans of the three sons of Noah.

By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations…These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations…These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations. These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.  Genesis 10:5,20,31-32

Secondly, God established Israel as a nation at Sinai and gave them the land of Canaan as a possession. Thirdly, God deals with nations as nations, sending national blessings and national judgments according to the dispensations of his providence. God clearly has established nationhood and governs the world accordingly. We can also say that nowhere in scripture do we see any intimation that God has given one nation authority over another. Israel's neighbors routinely indulged in human sacrifice and other ungodly abominations. However, there is absolutely no hint in scripture that Israel had any authority to intervene in those nations and to use force to compel them to stop. Israel was repeatedly warned not to adopt such practices herself, but never instructed that she was responsible to see that other nations also desisted from such abominations.

There are two things that have to be considered here. The first is authority and the second is jurisdiction. The Bible says, "vengeance is mine, I will repay". God, as the sovereign Lord of the universe, will himself deal with sinners and their sins. God has partially delegated this power to the civil magistrate, as Paul teaches in Romans 13. Only civil magistrates have the power of the sword to inflict God's wrath on sin. However, God has set limits on even their authority. They cannot punish all sins. Some sins God will deal with himself, such as the thoughts and intents of the heart. Some sins, such as the typical sins of children, God has reserved to the authority of parents. Other sins, especially in faith and doctrine, God has reserved for the elders of the church to deal with. And all these authorities are limited in their jurisdiction. Parents have no authority to punish the children of other families. Neither do church elders have authority to discipline members of other communions. Similarly civil magistrates are limited in their jurisdiction. In short the government of the United States has no authority to punish the sins of citizens of another nation that were committed in that nation. The American government simply has no jurisdiction in Serbia!

Americans had better rethink their support for such "moral crusades" as we conducted in Kosovo. Are Americans prepared for the day when the shoe will be on the other foot and other nations impose their definition of morality on them? Are Americans prepared to overthrow historic concepts of international law with its recognition of national sovereignty? If so that will indeed be a new world order. It will not however be a more scriptural one.