In light of the other thread, you might be thinking of 1995. 1999 was a bit more like Iraq II, but more members participated since the genocide wasn’t just a thing Dick Cheney made up.
NATO these days spends a lot of time just negotiating with itself to actually set up any defences, so these stories about the UN calling up NATO and saying “please bomb here”, and then NATO just going “okay”, are kind of alien to me.
S/RES/1199 doesn’t authorize any kind of enforcement. It makes demands of a ceasefire, endorses observers, and threatens to “consider further action”, but doesn’t actually give any mandate for anything.
It was NATO itself, operating under a UN mandate.
NATO also had a mission in Iraq.
In light of the other thread, you might be thinking of 1995. 1999 was a bit more like Iraq II, but more members participated since the genocide wasn’t just a thing Dick Cheney made up.
NATO these days spends a lot of time just negotiating with itself to actually set up any defences, so these stories about the UN calling up NATO and saying “please bomb here”, and then NATO just going “okay”, are kind of alien to me.
What UN mandate? They explicitly didn’t have one, because China and Russia would block it.
NATO was enforcing S/RES/1199, which demanded the end of action which affected civilians and end military action.
S/RES/1199 doesn’t authorize any kind of enforcement. It makes demands of a ceasefire, endorses observers, and threatens to “consider further action”, but doesn’t actually give any mandate for anything.