es between UN peace-keeping forces and other armed forces:•UN peacekeepers cannot take sides in a conflict.•Countries in conflict must agree to the presence of peace-keepers.•UN peace-keepers are generally lightly armed and cannot use force unless attacked (Peace-keeping: An Overview, 1-2). Under ideal circumstances, these methods would maintain peace and at worst, prevent any conflict before it escalated beyond control. However, as demonstrated with the former Yugoslavia, social unrest grew to epic proportions following the death of dictator, General Josip Broz [Tito] in 1980. Under his rule, Albanians gained control over their own affairs for the first time since the Balkans fell to the Ottoman Empire in the Battle of Kosovo in 1389 (Austin, CBC News Online, 2). Tito's successor, Slobodan Milosevic, came to power in 1989 and "built his power on an appeal to Serb nationalism" (Austin, CBC News Online, 2). Following a civil war-like clash in 1995 among religious social groups, peace was restored within Yugoslavia. However, Albanians, generally a peaceful people, were excluded from autonomy movements states like the ones Macedonia and Croatia were experiencing. Kosovo, with a 90 per cent Albanian population, pushed for autonomy against the will of the Milosovic government. The result was ethnic cleansing with the hope to "annex Kosovo to neighbouring Albania" (Austin, CBC News Online, 2). Discrepancies with this NATO course of action and UN plans include: bypassing the United Nations Security Council and thereby overriding any solutions they may have agreed upon. Attacking Yugoslav military forces while NATO forces remain unprovoked is in direct discord of both UN and NATO protocol. The NATO peace-keepers have become a side, their roles in Kosovo have elevated beyond merely taking one [a side]. And should an invasion occur, the numbers of troops will not have been cleared by all governments involved....
