Behind the Afghan Fraud

Behind the Afghan Fraud

By Conn Hallinan, April 8, 2010 --- http://www.fpif.org/articles/behind_the_afghan_fraud

All frauds have a purpose, mostly to relieve the unwary of their wealth, though occasionally to launch some foreign adventure. The 1965 Tonkin Gulf hoax that escalated the Vietnam War comes to mind.

So, what was the design behind "Operation Moshtarak," or the "Battle of Marjah," in Afghanistan's Helmand Province, the largest U.S. and NATO military operation in Afghanistan since the 2003 invasion?

Marjah was billed as a "fortress," a "city of 80,000" and the Taliban's "stronghold," packed with as many as 1,000 "hard-core fighters." But as Gareth Porter of the Inter Press Service revealed, Marjah isn't even a city, but a district of scattered villages. As the days went by — and civilian deaths passed military casualties — the number of "hard-core fighters" declined. In the end, the "battle" turned into a skirmish. "Hardly a single gun was captured by NATO forces," tribal elder and former police chief Abdul Rahman Jan told Time.

Dealing with Drugs

Marjah was also billed as the linchpin of the militants' logistical and opium-smuggling network, and the area indeed has significant poppy cultivation. Butaccording to Julian Mercille of University College Dublin, an expert on U.S. foreign policy, the Taliban get only 4 percent of the trade. Local farmers reap about 21 percent of the $3.4 billion yearly commerce, according to Mercille, while 75 percent of the trade is captured by government officials, the police, local and regional brokers, and traffickers. In short, our allies get the lion's share of profits from the drug trade.

In any case, the word "linchpin" soon dropped off the radar screen. It soon became obvious that Operation Moshtarak would not touch the drug trade because itwould alienate local farmers, thus sabotaging the goal of winning the "hearts and minds" of residents.

In some ways, the most interesting part of the Marjah operation was a gathering that took place shortly after the "fighting" was over. President Barack Obamacalled a meeting March 12 in the White House to ask his senior staff and advisors if the "success" of Moshtarak would allow the United States to open negotiations with the Taliban. According to Porter, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates opposed talks until after a similar operation, aimed at Kandahar, is completed this summer.

The Kandahar offensive is being pumped up as a "blow at the Taliban's heartland" and the "fulcrum" of the Afghan war. Kandahar is where the Taliban got its start and, at 600,000, is Afghanistan's second-largest city. Whether a military operation will have any more impact than the attack on Marjah is highly unlikely. As in Marjah, the Taliban will simply decamp to another area of the country or blend in with the local population.

However, the White House gathering suggests that the administration may be searching for a way out before the 2012 elections. With the economic crisis at home continuing, and the bill for the war passing $200 billion, Afghanistan is looking more and more like a long tunnel with no light at the end.

Certainly our allies seem to have concluded that the Americans are on an exit path.

Talking with the Taliban

The Hamid Karzai government and the United Nations have opened talks with some of the Taliban and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Islamic Party. Pakistan —correctly concluding it was being cut out of the peace talks — swept up 14 senior Taliban officials,  including the organization's number-two man, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.

The Pakistanis claim they're simply aiding the U.S. war effort. But the former head of the UN mission to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, bitterly denounced the arrests as nothing more than effort to derail the ongoing negotiations.

If Islamabad has a say, the Taliban will have a presence in whatever peace agreement emerges, a fact that has distressed India. Not only is it likely that India will lose much of its influence with the Karzai government — and see more than a billion dollars in aid spent for naught — but its traditional enemy, Pakistan, will almost certainly regain much of its former influence with Kabul.

The push by the United States to find a political solution is partly driven by therapidly eroding NATO presence. The Canadians are sticking by their pledge to be out by 2011, and when the Netherlands tried to raise the possibility of Dutch troops remaining, the Dutch elected a new government. The British Labor Party, behind in the polls but catching up to the Tories, wants to rid itself of the Afghan albatross before upcoming elections.

The United States is also discovering that the Afghanis play a mean game of chess.

Geopolitical Chessboard

The Obama administration recently demanded that the Karzai government reinstate an independent electoral commission and end corruption — in particular, by dumping the president's larcenous half-brother Ahmed Wali Karzai, who runs Kandahar like a feudal fiefdom. Karzai responded by flying off to Tehran to embrace the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and meet with Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Given that the United States is trying to isolate Iran in the region, Karzai's Iran visit wasn't a happy moment for those on the Potomac.

Yet Iran has influence over the Northern Alliance, which will need persuading to accept the Taliban into a coalition. Rather than isolating Iran, Karzai has made it central to the peace agreement that the United States and NATO want.

For the past five years, the United States has been wooing India as a bulwark against China. But because Washington needs Islamabad to broker a peace, the Americans agreed to send it F-16 fighter-bombers, helicopter gun ships, and reconnaissance drones.  A better-armed Pakistan, however, hardly goes down well in New Delhi, particularly because the Indians see their former influence in Kabul on the wane.

As a result, India promptly went off and met with the Russians. Ever sympathetic, Moscow offered New Delhi a bargain-basement price on an aircraft carrier and threw in a passel of MIG-29s. That dealt a blow to another aim of U.S. diplomacy: keeping Russia out of South Asia.

The same week as Pakistan's foreign minister was in Washington asking for a laundry list of goodies in exchange for "helping out" in Afghanistan, Karzai jetted off to Beijing to talk about aid and investments. So much for the plan to keep China out of Central Asia.

This is beginning to look like checker-players in Washington versus the chess masters in Kabul.

Finessing Withdrawal

There seems to be a developing consensus, both inside and outside Afghanistan, that the war must wind down. If this consensus becomes firmer, then the Karzai government's upcoming peace jirga, set for late April or early May, takes on greater importance.

While Washington appears to be divided over how, when, and with whom to negotiate, "withdrawing" doesn't mean that the United States won't leave bases behind or end its efforts to penetrate Central Asia. The White House recently announced an agreement with Kyrgyzstan to set up a U.S. "counter-terrorism center" near the Chinese border.

The danger at this juncture is seeing the outcome as a zero-sum game: If Pakistan gains, India loses; if the United States withdraws, the Taliban win; if Iran is helpful it will encourage nuclear proliferation.

Ultimately, Afghans must decide the future of Afghanistan. What they want and how they get it isn't the business of Washington, Brussels, New Delhi, Tehran, or Islamabad. The current war, the latest endeavor in the "graveyard of empires," has claimed far more Afghan lives than those of the invaders. As U.S. Afghan commander Stanley McChrystal told The New York Times, "We have shot an astounding number of people."

Indeed, we have.

KOSOVO CRISIS (2)

KOSOVO CRISIS (2)

**********

http://www.globalissues.org/article/130/bombing-has-been-opposite-to-the-stated-goals

Bombing has been opposite to the stated goals

• by Anup Shah

It was claimed that with a bombing campaign, the Kosovars would be protected from Milosevic and it would be timely enough to prevent a massacre that was supposed to be around the corner.

• Yet, even from the start of the campaign, critics have pointed out that bombing would be incompatible with humanitarian concerns.
• Since then, we have actually seen that the bombing has not helped, and if anything, has made the long term situation even worse, from a serious situation to a humanitarian catastrophe.
• It prompted Milosevic to start intensifying his atrocities on the Kosovars, rather than reducing it as NATO had claimed it would.
• This increased appalling crackdown in turn led to a huge influx of refugees in neighboring countries, which were reaching their limit in ability to cope.
• Some European countries are also reacting negatively to the cost of the Kosovo crisis and the large number of refugees who are mainly headed into Europe which in itself is causing tensions.

Aid groups had been forced out of Kosovo due to the increased conflict but humanitarian relief was still being sent with many groups trying to respond to calls of relief aid in the open, cold refugee camps on the Kosovo borders with Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro. The effects on children this conflict has had and the traumas they face is another very disturbing aspect. So too has been the systematic rape that the Serb forces used during the conflict. As Human Rights Watch research shows, "rape and other forms of sexual violence were used in Kosovo in 1999 as weapons of war and instruments of systematic ethnic cleansing."

As NATO bombing reached more densely populated civilian areas of Serbia, such as Belgrade, Serbian civilian casualties increased, especially when weapons such as cluster bombs had been used. Many Serbs rallied under Milosevic (including previously opposing democratic activists). The stability in the region deteriorated as the various neighboring regions started to feel the strain of the mass exodus of people -- which also hasn't helped peace for the long run.

In the first month of bombing alone, there has been more destruction by NATO than by the Nazi German occupation of 1941 to 1944 in Yugoslavia.

However, as this report from NewsWeek reveals, about 11 months after the bombing stopped, most of the claims of surgical military strikes were wrong and raises questions about what was bombed (civilian targets):

"According to a suppressed Air Force report obtained by NEWSWEEK, the number of targets verifiably destroyed was a tiny fraction of those claimed: 14 tanks, not 120; 18 armored personnel carriers, not 220; 20 artillery pieces, not 450. Out of the 744 "confirmed" strikes by NATO pilots during the war, the Air Force investigators, who spent weeks combing Kosovo by helicopter and by foot, found evidence of just 58." -- From "The Kosovo Cover-up" by John Barry And Evan Thomas, May 15, 2000.

So, as well as the NATO strategy having so far been completely contrary to the stated goals of President Clinton, the NATO strategy has in some ways actually helped Milosevic in his campaigns, by:

• reducing or destroying any democratic opposition to Milisovic in Serbia (as many activists have been silenced, or even rallied to the call of Milosevic against NATO).
• destroying much of Kosovo through bombing to the point that it would take such a long time to rebuild that there is not much immediate likelihood that many displaced Kosovars would want to return -- which is what Milosevic wanted.
• giving excuses to Milosevic
• for an increased crackdown on Serbian opposition media as well, such as the famous Belgrade B92 radio station
• to crack down on any Ethnic Muslim Albanian saying that they are terrorists and with no ground troops from NATO from the beginning the Serb crackdown has been ruthless and unfortunately very effective.

As this article suggests, more people have been killed on average per day since NATO began strikes on March 24, than since when Serbia and the KLA went to war in February 1998.

In many countries in Europe, including in some NATO nations, opposition to the bombing had steadily increased during the campaign.

By the beginning of May, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees had already run out of money due to sufficient funds not being made available by many European governments. It is interesting to note that the UN has been portrayed ineffective many times by the US and some European countries (and others). The effect has been that the yearly contributions that each nation must make has been cut back from some crucial countries such as the US, UK etc and then they are the first to complain at how ineffective they are. For nations such as US and UK, the UN is also an obstacle for their foreign policies, as we have seen throughout this web site and the UN is constantly by-passed and undermined to achieve their own agendas. Reducing funds and payments is one way to keep the UN down, so to speak.

*****************

Effects of Bombing on the Environment

• by Anup Shah

As well as a huge humanitarian toll on the people of Kosovo, the environment of this 13th richest biodiversity resource in the world was also feared at risk as well as the entire Balkan region and other regions of Europe.

Sub-sections:

1. Chemical Warfare By Nato -- Illegal Use Of Depleted Uranium, Again
2. Chemical Threat
3. Long Term Effects Hard To Ascertain

Chemical Warfare By Nato -- Illegal Use Of Depleted Uranium, Again

Once again, there was illegal use of depleted uranium (DU) by the US and UK. It was also used in the Gulf War.

Note that in 1996 the United Nations Human Rights Tribunal called upon states to "to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium;" (You can see the UN resolution at their web site from this link. See also this link for additional information.)

The following are good accounts and information about DU:

• This report is an on-line radio talk about the effects of DU being used. You may need to download the Real Audio player to listen to this.
• "Not such conventional weapons" by Christine Abdelkrim-Delanne, from Le Monde Diplomatique is short, but also provides a detailed account about depleted uranium.)
• The World Health Organization has an informative fact sheet about Depleted Uranium, where they point out that DU has both chemical and radiological toxicity with the two important target organs being the kidneys and the lungs. While they indicate that some impacts of DU at smaller doses may not be as bad as first thought, at higher dosage, there are possible risks of lung cancer and kidney damage, for example.

March 2000, about 9 months after the bombing ended, finally NATO admitted to the UN that it used depleted uranium. NATO said they dropped 10 tonnes of depleted uranium in shells. However, NATO is still holding back critical data on how depleted Uranium was used, while being urged by the UN to clean up its uranium debris in Kosovo, as reported by the Guardian.

As early as July 1999, environmentalists warned that KFOR troops and civilians may suffer from the effects of depleted Uranium, resulting in similar effects as the Gulf War Syndrome. In fact, since the Gulf War 1991, there have been similar concerns.

Towards the end of 2000, it was revealed that Depleted Uranium was also used in other areas of the Balkans. Various European nations are now concerned (in many, it has become an uproar) about the effects on their soldiers, especially when six Italian soldiers died from Leukaemia, which is linked to radiation exposure (and observed amongst survirors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as this article points out). Only the United States and the United Kingdom's defence departments claim that there is no risk, while further evidence is increasing against their claims. While it has caused an uproar in the European mainstream, the U.S media in comparison hardly mentions anything.

However, it should be noted that even though there is discussion on this issue, the discourse of the wider issues of the bombing itself remains unquestioned by the mainstream. The effects on those who have to live near bombed checmical factories and polluted rivers that have resulted from this NATO bombing remains unquestioned. Of course, concern for one's own soldiers is valid, but so to is of other people.

Chemical Threat

Contradictory statements from Clinton were made warning Milosevic not to use chemical weapons while NATO/US themselves were using depleted uranium weapons, bombing oil refineries and other factories that ended up spewing toxic clouds of lethal chemicals into the air. Furthermore, as John Pilger highlights, the U.S. has used chemical weapons in many prior conflicts as well.

Long Term Effects Hard To Ascertain

As it turns out, a UN agency that went to Kosovo and other areas of Yugoslavia, has said that the NATO air strikes have had a "devastating impact" on the environment. It says that it has also affected agriculture, industries, employment, essential services, land, air, rivers, lakes and underground waters as well as the food chain and public health has also been affected.

Interestingly enough, another UN report suggests that Yugoslavian claims of environmental catastrophe from the bombing have been rejected, although it is admitted that there are some severe local problems. An additional point is that there has been little data about the environment before the bombing so that the comparison is difficult to make.

Regardless, it is estimated that it could take billions of dollars worth of aid and up to ten years to restore the war-torn Balkan region.

Visit the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Balkans web site for more updated information and reports on the environmental effects of the region.

*****************

Hasty Decisions

• by Anup Shah

According to this media advisory, "New evidence has emerged confirming that the U.S. deliberately set out to thwart the Rambouillet peace talks in France in order to provide a 'trigger' for NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia." This has serious ramifications all over -- from the role of the media to the intentions of NATO.

A senior US State Department official has admitted that the US "set the bar too high" for the Serbs and that they needed some bombing and yet the mainstream media has ignored this.

It is also remarkable that NATO has achieved a peace treaty that is almost the same as what was proposed before the bombing began except that it has been very costly to human life and the environment. In fact, both NATO and Milosevic have actually given up some aspects of what the original Rambouillet accord demanded (not that the Rambouillet accord was very fair anyway, but it shows that even some of those demands were lost). Even the Ethnic Albanians have also lost out as the latest peace initiative and resolution does not discuss even the Kosovo Autonomy that the Rambouillet accord suggested. For a nicely summarized table of who gave up and gained what from this conflict, see this link. The mainstream media again has not really analyzed this.

There had been a number of attempts by the UN and OSCE to promote peace through diplomatic means, but the political will from key nations such as USA, UK, Russia, France, Germany had been lacking -- until now. In fact according to the Sunday Times, the CIA aided the Kosovo guerilla armybefore the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. And according to the following article, there have been a number of "humanitarian spies" leading up to the Kosovo military campaign. This therefore again raises more questions about how sincere and committed some of the NATO nations were when pursuing diplomacy.

Most peace processes are a long, complex process; one which has to carefully consider a variety of complex issues that affect each side involved. You can't just quickly enforce peace, expect it to last and then forget it, and then get out.

It appears as though NATO has not thought about a long term solution and just gone for something that looks like a result, perhaps without giving real peace options a chance.

With the 50th anniversary of NATO and people questioning the need for NATO, a seemingly quick resolution of the Kosovo crisis lends credence to the effectiveness of NATO in such scenarios. Because the long term rebuilding is taken on by the UN, they can easily be blamed if it is not happening ideally, and if rebuilding goes well, then that shows that NATOs actions were effective. NATO ends up in a win-win situation while the local population have lost out.

*****************

Humanitarian Hypocrisy

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hayden.htm

Professor Robert Hayden
Director, Center for Russian & East European Studies
University of Pittsburgh

In October 1998 NATO faced a dilemma:⁽¹⁾  while its member states were threatening air attacks⁽²⁾ against Yugoslavia in response to Yugoslav attacks on Kosovo Albanians, they also recognized that Kosovo is clearly within the sovereign territory of Yugoslavia. On March 24, 1999, NATO resolved this dilemma by committing the first unprovoked, opposed military aggression in Europe since Soviet troops invaded Hungary in 1956. The attacks were clearly contrary to international law and to the UN charter.⁽³⁾ The aggression took the form of intensive bombing of the Yugoslav "infrastructure," the first such massive use of air attacks in Europe since World War II. As of May 23, after 60 days of bombing, NATO had mounted 7,000 air attacks on more than 500 targets, with munitions alone costing about $20 million per day. While Yugoslav military casualty figures in the first 60 days of the attacks were estimated at being "in the hundreds," NATO had in that time killed as many as 1500 civilians.⁽⁴⁾ Further, in the third week of May NATO began to commit textbook war crimes, aimed at depriving the civilian population of Serbia of water and electrical power, and explicitly not aimed at military forces in Kosovo.⁽⁵⁾

Czech President Vaclav Havel has characterized NATO's war as one in which the alliance has "acted out of respect for human rights" and said that it is probably the first war that has been waged "in the name of principles and values." He also said that even though NATO acted with no authority from the UN Security Council, this violation of the UN Charter does not constitute an act of aggression or disrespect for international law, but "happened, on the contrary, out of respect for the law, for a law that ranks higher than the law which protects the sovereignty of states": human rights.⁽⁶⁾ Yet the war supposedly in defense of human rights has produced war crimes by NATO, and a civilian casualty rate that is at least three time higher than the casualty rate of the "intolerable" violations of human rights that NATO was supposedly acting to correct. This article argues that this perversion of humanitarianism is the logical result of NATO's action, and that humanitarian catastrophes are likely to be inevitable when the excuse of "humanitarian intervention" is used to justify aggression.

The Asserted Justifications for the NATO Attacks

"To Prevent a Humanitarian Disaster"

When he announced the NATO air attacks, on March 24, President Clinton said that he was doing so because Serbian forces were "moving from village to village, shelling civilians and torching their houses."⁽⁷⁾ Thus, NATO supposedly was attacking to "protect thousands of people in Kosovo from a mounting military offensive."⁽⁸⁾

It is clear, however, that the wide Serbian offensive against Kosovo Albanians began after NATO's attacks began. As the U.S. State Department itself admits, "In late March 1999, Serbian forces dramatically increased the scope and pace of their efforts, moving away from selective targeting of towns and regions suspected of KLA sympathies."⁽⁹⁾ In other words, Yugoslav forces, until NATO attacks on them commenced, were fighting a guerrilla force, in much the same way that American forces had fought in Vietnam.⁽¹⁰⁾

If NATO had indeed begun its attacks to "prevent a greater catastrophe"⁽¹¹⁾ than what the State Department acknowledges to have been "selective targeting" of places suspected of KLA activities, it clearly failed: the attacks provoked the wider Serbian offensive against ethnic Albanians. This result was hardly unpredictable, and was in fact predicted by military and CIA analysts, but these predictions were ignored. In addition, I had heard from administration sources, five days before NATO attacked, that while Clinton was committed to bombing Yugoslavia there was literally no plan for what to do next, except to predict that Miloševi would surrender.

After the NATO attacks began and Serb forces began the massive expulsion of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, the goal of the NATO action supposedly switched to returning the refugees. However, the few reporters from Western media who were on the ground in Kosovo in April and May reported that Albanians were by then leaving mainly because of the NATO bombing.⁽¹²⁾ With each passing day, as NATO has increased the destruction of Kosovo, more Albanians have left, and there has been less for them to return to: while Serbs have burned Albanian houses, it is NATO that has destroyed the infrastructure of the place.

It is thus clear that NATO's actions have provoked a humanitarian disaster. The destruction of Serbia's infrastructure can only increase that disaster.

"We Exhausted Every Diplomatic Effort for a Settlement"

In a New York Times article on May 23,⁽¹³⁾ President Clinton announced that NATO had "exhausted every diplomatic effort for a settlement." He had said in his March 24 speech that ""Serbian leaders ... refused even to discuss key elements of the peace agreement" that the US and other countries had presented to them in Rambouillet, France.

It is certainly hypocritical for those who propose a "take it or leave it" deal to complain that the other side refused to negotiate, especially when the supposedly obstinate party actually offered a counterproposal.⁽¹⁴⁾ The Rambouillet documents, however, could not be acceptable to any state. The political and constitutional sections followed the logic laid out in my December 1998 article in this journal, and would have rendered Yugoslav and Serbian sovereignty in Kosovo fictive. The military implementation annex (Appendix B) was even more interesting. Under its provisions, NATO would have had "free and unrestricted access throughout the FRY" (para. 8); NATO personnel would be immune from all Yugoslav and Serbian legal processes and from "arrest, investigation or detention" (paras. 6, 7), but would be able to "detain" individuals and turn them over to unspecified "appropriate authorities" (para. 21). While it has been suggested by some NATO sources that this military implementation plan was patterned after that included in the Dayton agreement, the assertion is false: the agreement between NATO and the FRY in Annex 1A of the Dayton agreement only granted NATO "free transit ... through the territory of the FRY" and did not authorize NATO to "detain" anyone. Rambouillet, therefore, required that the Yugoslavs renounce sovereignty over a large part of their territory and submit to occupation of the entire country by NATO, which they were hardly likely to accept.

The Legality of the NATO Attacks

There is literally no question but that NATO's attack on Yugoslavia violates the United Nations charter: the NATO attacks were never authorized by the Security Council and could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered to have been in self-defense.⁽¹⁵⁾ Interestingly, some commentators who acknowledge this uncomfortable fact then argue that an exception to international law should perhaps be created for what Antonio Cassese calls "humanitarian countermeasures," when, according to Bruno Simma, "imperative political and moral considerations may appear to leave no choice but to act outside the law," or, as Vaclav Havel put it, to find a "higher law" to justify what international law defines, clearly, as aggression. This acknowledgement of NATO illegality even by those supporting NATO's actions is noteworthy.

A War Against Civilians

Every time NATO bombs a hospital, bus, market, town center, apartment building or refugee convoy, NATO spokesmen assert that NATO "never targets civilians" but that, while NATO's bombs are the most accurate in history, "collateral damage" is inevitable. However, NATO's attacks have been aimed against civilian targets since literally the first night of the bombing, when a tractor factory in the Belgrade suburb of Rakovica was destroyed by cruise missiles.⁽¹⁶⁾ Since then NATO targets have included roads, railroad tracks and bridges hundreds of miles from Kosovo, power plants, factories of many kinds, food processing and sugar processing plants, water pumping stations, cigarette factories, central heating plants for civilian apartment blocks, television studios, post offices, non-military government administrative buildings, ski resorts, government official residences, oil refineries, civilian airports, gas stations, and chemical plants. NATO's strategy is not to attack Yugoslavia's army directly, but rather to destroy Yugoslavia itself, in order to weaken the army. With this strategy it is military losses that are "collateral damage," because most of the attacks are aimed at civilian targets.⁽¹⁷⁾

Evidence that the attacks have targeted mainly civilians can be seen in casualty figures. As mentioned above, after 60 days of bombing and more than 7,000 attacks, Serb military losses were "in the hundreds," while civilian casualties were as high as 1500 killed and 6000 wounded. NATO claims that less than one percent of its bombs miss their targets, so if Serb civilian casualties outnumber military losses, the reason must be that NATO is targeting civilians more than it is the military.

This strategy is hardly secret. The Wall Street Journal reported on April 27 that NATO had decided to attack "political, rather than just military, targets in Serbia." On April 25, the Washington Times reported that NATO planned to hit "power generation plants and water systems, taking the war directly to civilians." NATO generals told the Philadelphia Inquirer on May 21 that "Just focussing on fielded forces is not enough ... . The people have to get to the point that their lights are turned off, their bridges are blocked so they can't get to work." Note that the purpose of destroying these bridges is not military; but this was clear when NATO destroyed the bridges in Novi Sad, 500 km. from Kosovo, installations which clearly did not make the "effective contribution to military action" in Kosovo that would have rendered them legitimate targets under Article 52 of Protocol I additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

That NATO planned from the start to hit civilian targets was made clear to me a few days before the attacks began by an employee of a U.S. intelligence organization who said that the CIA had been charged with preparing lists of Yugoslav economic assets and that, "basically, everything in the country is a target unless it's taken off the list." This was nothing new: as Michael Walzer notes, in the Gulf War in 1990, "the coalition decided (or the U. S. commanders decided) that the economic infrastructure of Iraqi society -- all of it -- was a legitimate military target," and that while similar strategic targeting had been common in World War II, what was new was the attempt to deprive the Iraqi population of clean water. However, Walzer notes drily, perhaps that "wasn't technically feasible in the 1940s."⁽¹⁸⁾

But it is technically feasible in the 1990s. On May 23, "fifteen NATO bombs hit water pumps ... in the northwestern town of Sremska Mitrovica for the second night in a row."⁽¹⁹⁾ Attacks on May 24 "slashed water reserves by damaging pumps and cutting electricity to the few pumps that were still operative."⁽²⁰⁾ Only 30 percent of Belgrade's 2 million people had running water, and the city was down to 10 percent of its water reserves.⁽²¹⁾ That these attacks were not aimed at military operations in Kosovo is clear from the remarks attributed by the Washington Post to a Pentagon official, who stated that the attacks had been limited to Serbia proper but that "NATO commanders are understood to be planning to extend the attacks to Kosovo."⁽²²⁾ A more clear example of NATO's targeting civilians in Serbia rather than soldiers in Kosovo would be hard to find.

NATO War Crimes

Depriving a civilian population of water is a textbook example of a violation of international humanitarian law, specifically of Article 54 of Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. As Aryeh Neier has noted, the U.N. War Crimes Commission that investigated the Bosnian war concluded that attacking the civilian population was prima facie a war crime, and recommended that the commander of the Bosnian Serbs be indicted for attacking the civilian population.⁽²³⁾ There would seem to be no doubt that NATO commanders and, presumably, at least some NATO political leaders are guilty of war crimes on this count alone.

But this count is not alone. The level of damage done to clearly non-military infrastructural targets in Serbia would seem to render NATO military commanders and at least some NATO political leaders liable to the same charge that was made against Ratko Mladi and Radovan Karadi by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), "extensive destruction of property:" that they

individually and in concert with others planned, instigated, ordered or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of the extensive, wanton and unlawful destruction of ... property, not justified by military necessity or knew or had reason to know that subordinates were about to destroy or permit others to destroy ... property or had done so and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent this destruction or to punish the perpetrators thereof."⁽²⁴⁾

It is also likely that General Clark and NATO political leaders are liable for the charge of murder that was made against Yugoslav President Miloševi on May 27, 1999, for, at the least, the bombing of the studios of Radio Television Serbia (RTS) on April 22, 1999. There is no question but that the RTS studios were civilian targets: NATO spokesman Jamie Shea had stated as much in an April 12 1999 letter to the general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, noting that "television and radio towers are only struck if they are integrated into military facilities."⁽²⁵⁾ No one has suggested that RTS studios played any military role. Indeed, NATO spokesman David Willoughby had stated at NATO's news briefing on April 8 1999 that RTS would not be bombed if it broadcast Western news broadcasts for six hours per day, which indicates clearly that there was no concern that the studios were integrated into the military. Bombing RTS was an intentional effort to widen the war to civilian targets,⁽²⁶⁾ which resulted in the deaths of at least sixteen civilians.

The culpability of NATO military and political leaders in the ICTY would seem particularly clear since the Prosecutor of the Tribunal had in fact warned NATO that it, too, is bound by the Geneva Conventions,⁽²⁷⁾ while Human Rights Watch had sent a letter to NATO's secretary general expressing concern about specific violations by NATO of international humanitarian law.⁽²⁸⁾ NATO, however, seems unlikely to be overly concerned. When questioned on May 16 about the possibility of NATO liability for war crimes before the ICTY, NATO spokesman Jamie Shea said that "NATO is the friend of the Tribunal ... NATO countries are those that have provided the finances to set up the Tribunal, we are among the majority financiers." He repeated the same message on May 17: NATO Countries "have established these tribunals... fund these tribunals and ... support on a daily basis their activities." No, he did not anticipate indictments against NATO leaders or military personnel.⁽²⁹⁾

The independence and impartiality of the ICTY was in any event utterly compromised by the indictment on May 27 of Yugoslav President Miloševi and four of his political associates. While there is little question that Miloševi is guilty of war crimes, "justice" that is not impartial cannot be seen as just. The failure of the Prosecutor to indict NATO or its clients would seem to confirm Jamie Shea's message that he who pays the prosecutor determines who is charged. It is particularly noteworthy that while the Prosecutor has been reported unable to indict Croatian generals for the 1995 ethnic cleansing of the Krajina because the U.S. government has refused to provide requested information,⁽³⁰⁾ she made well publicized visits to American and British officials to gather information with which to indict Miloševi. When a Prosecutor who is a citizen of one NATO country seeks assistance from the governments of other NATO countries in order to indict the President of the country that NATO is attacking, not even the pretence of prosecutorial independence remains.

Humanitarian Hypocrisy

The "humanitarian intervention" in Kosovo has produced flagrant violations of international law and the UN Charter by NATO countries, turned what had been a brutal repression of a brutal armed uprising into a humanitarian catastrophe, and produced the first massive bombings of a European country since World War II, bombings which have been targeted mainly at civilian targets and many of which are prima facie war crimes committed by NATO, the supposedly humanitarian interveners. At the same time, NATO's transformation of itself from a defensive alliance into the first proud aggressor in Europe⁽³¹⁾ since the Soviet Union's invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia has threatened to restart a cold war, this time between "the West" and pretty much the rest of the world. As I write, former Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, acting as Russia's intermediary in the diplomacy surrounding the Kosovo crisis, found it necessary to directly contradict President Clinton's published views on relations with Russia and to predict a new cold war in which Russia would be backed by other great powers, such as China and India.⁽³²⁾

The humanitarian catastrophe caused by actions like those of NATO in Yugoslavia seems inevitable, for several reasons. First, at the level of international law, every nation has the right to defend itself against aggression. At the level of practical politics, a nation that is attacked will try to resist the attacker. Winning the war thus requires defeating not only the army, but the nation: the civilian population. Thus the decision to attack a sovereign state is, logically, a decision to attack the civilian population of that state, not just the military. NATO's targeting of the civilian infrastructure of Serbia (and earlier, of Iraq), is thus logical, and the constant repetition that "NATO never targets civilians" is hypocritical, presumably meant to obscure the uncomfortable fact that humanitarian intervention requires the committing of war crimes.

Of course, one may argue that the civilian population is a legitimate target because the nation as a body is guilty. Indeed, Clinton's eager executioners in the New York Times⁽³³⁾ and The New Republic⁽³⁴⁾ have made such arguments, saying that, in Daniel Goldhagen's words, the Serbian nation "clearly consists of individuals with damaged faculties of moral judgment and has sunk into a moral abyss from which it is unlikely to emerge ... unaided."⁽³⁵⁾ This assertion ignores the inconvenient fact that Serbia's President Miloševi was never elected in a free and fair election; that there were massive anti-Miloševi demonstrations in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1996-97, while Richard Holbrooke continued to negotiate with Miloševi while telling the oppostion not to boycot rigged elections; or that many of the main targets of NATO bombing (the cities of Belgrade, Novi Sad, Kragujevac, aak and Niš) were centers of the democratic opposition to Miloševi, which had sought help from the West with no success through March 24 1999 although now, apparently, NATO's bombs will raise them from their moral abyss. Of course, when one advocates killing civilians it is surely comforting to suppose that they are not innocent.

The moral sleight-of-hand involved in humanitarian intervention is revealed by Havel, who finds the values of human rights to be powerful because people are willing to die for them.⁽³⁶⁾ He thus seems to echo Gandhi, who is reputed to have said that while there were many causes that he would willingly die for, there are none that he would kill for. NATO, however, is not willing to die for human rights, but rather to kill for them, which is, after all, what humanitarian intervention is all about -- and what Havel applauds.

Finally, the most dangerous hypocrisy may be the rejection of international law for the arrogance of asserting that one respects higher laws. Presumably, those who disagree are simply less enlightened, or less moral. In regard to Kosovo, NATO asserted that it could not ask for Security Council approval because the Russians and the Chinese would not have given it -- thus implicitly saying that NATO is superior in morality to the Russians and the Chinese. And yet, imagine what would have happened had NATO ignored the seductions of its superb morality, and gone to the Security Council. Perhaps the Russians or the Chinese would have vetoed NATO's moral crusade, in which case, the Serbs would probably still be engaged in their selective targeting of towns and regions suspected of KLA sympathies. And hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians who are now refugees would still be in their homes. And thousands of now-dead Kosovo Albanians would still be alive. And thousands of Serb civilians would not be dead or wounded. And the stability of the Balkans would be much less threatened. And NATO relations with Russia would not be degraded, or those with China. What a humanitarian catastrophe all of that would have been.

NOTES

1. EECR vol. 7 no. 4 (Fall 1998), pp. 45-50.

2. NATO officials, western diplomats and journalists prefer to use the term "air strikes" instead of "attack," but this euphemism should be avoided: NATO is mounting aggressive military attacks. Further, while western journalists say that NATO has "pounded," "pummelled" and "hit" targets, these pugilistic terms obscure NATO's real actions, which blow up targets with large quantities of high explosives, some of which contain depleted uranium.

3. See Bruno Simma, "NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal Aspects." European Journal of International Law, April 1999 (World Wide web edition).

4. Figures on war activities, costs and losses from "The War So Far," The Times (London), World Wide Web edition, 23 May 1999.

5. See, e.g., "NATO Warplanes Jolt Yugoslav Power Grid," Washington Post, 25 May 1999: "The strikes have thus far been limited to electrical facilities in Serbia proper ... but NATO commanders are understood to be planning to extend the attacks to Kosovo."

6. V. Havel, "Kosovo and the End of the Nation-State," The New York Review, June 10, 1999, p. 6.

7. Clinton speech of 24 March 1999, as published in New York Times, 25 March 1999; hereafter Clinton, March speech.

8. Id.

9. U.S. Department of State, Erasing History: Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo (May 1999 [issued before May 12, 1999]), at 6; emphasis added.

10. See discussion of the rules of engagement for American forces in Vietnam in M. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (2d ed., 1992).

11. President Clinton, first statement on NATO attacks, March 24, 1999, New York Times, March 25, 1999.

12. See, e.g., "Dispatch From Kosovo: Serbs Steer Many Refugees Toward Home," Los Angeles Times (World Wide Web Edition), April 21, 1999; "Fleeing Kosovars Dread Dangers of NATO Above, Serbs Below," New York Times 4 May 1991, p. 1; "Kosovo's Ravaged Capital Staggers Back to Life," New York Times 5 May 1999, p. 1; "World: Europe: The Refugees Who Remained," BBC Online Network, May 18, 1999.

13. "A Just and Necessary War," New York Times, May 23 1999.

14. Available at http:\\jurist.law.pitt.edu/kosovo.htm#Rambouillet, as are the other Rambouillet documents.

15. Simma, op. cit., A. Cassese"Ex iniuria ius oritur : Are We Moving towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures in the world community?" European Journal of International Law, April 1999 (World Wide web edition).

16. I was informed of this destruction and its timing from highly reliable sources, who reported that the explosions blew the shutters off a house that I have lived in in Rakovica.

17. See New York Times, April 30, 1999, p. 1 for some examples. A list of infrastructure damage between March 24 and April 19 compiled by the European Movement in Serbia, a non-governmental group that was pro-Western before the war, was posted by MSNBC.COM on April 26. Pictures of many destroyed buildings may be found on www.beograd.com, among other sources.

18. Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, p. xx.

19. Washington Post on line: 24 May 1999.

20. Washington Post, May 25, 1999, p. A1.

21. New York Times, May 25, 1999, p. A1.

22. Washington Post, May 25 1999, p. A1..

23. A. Neier, War Crimes, pp. 168-169.

24. Indictment of Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, ICTY, July 1995.

25. Shea letter available at www.ifj.org/hrights/natoreply.html.

26. Wall Street Journal, April 27 1999.

27. CBCNews Online, May 5, 1999.

28. Human Rights Watch Letter to NATO Secretary General Javier Solana, May 13, 1999; available at www.hrw.org.

29. Shea comments at NATO press conference, 16 May 1999, www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990516b.htm; May 17 comments:

www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990517b.htm

30. New York Times, 21 March 1999.

31. NATO's new strategic concept, released during the organization's fiftieth anniversary ceremonies in April 1999, would permit it to operate outside of the territories of its members and in the absence of authorization by the UN Security Council -- in other words, to commit aggression, as it has in Yugoslavia. See The Alliance's Strategic Concept, www.nato.int/docu/pr/1999/p99-065e.html. At least one NATO leader has explicitly renounced the principle of non-interference: see speech by Tony Blair, April 22, 1999, at www.chicagotribune.com.

32. "Comment: Bombs Rule Out Talk of Peace," Washington Post, May 27, 1999, p. A13.

33. E.g., Anthony Lewis: killing civilians "is a price that has to be paid when a nation falls in behind a criminal leader" (New York Times, May 29, 1999, page A27). Earlier the Times' columnist Thomas Friedman had called for bombing Yugoslav water supplies, a textbook war crime, and for causing the kind of wanton destruction for which Karadi and Mladi had been indicted.

34. E.g. D. Goldhagen, "A New Serbia," The New Republic, May 17 1999, asserting that Yugoslavia should be invaded and occupied, ignoring completely the likelihood that such an action would result in the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands of Serbs but noting that the costs to NATO would be "substantial:" Allied soldiers would die; the war and the occupation would be expensive in dollar terms."

35. Id.

36. Havel, op cit., page 6.

*****************

KOSOVO CRISIS (1)

KOSOVO CRISIS (1)

**********

http://www.globalissues.org/article/128/did-nato-really-act-out-of-humanitarian-concerns

Did NATO really act out of Humanitarian Concerns?

• by Anup Shah

The history of "humanitarian" military intervention is replete with invocations of humanitarian intentions by strong powers or coalitions in order to conceal their own geopolitical interests -- from a Foreign Policy In Focus article titled, "Humanitarian Military Intervention" by Jules Lobel and Michael Ratner.

"[Our attack] has been counterproductive, and our destruction of civilian life has now become senseless and excessively brutal... The American-led force has expanded targets to inhabited areas and resorted to the use of anti-personnel cluster bombs. The result has been damage to hospitals, offices and residences of a half-dozen ambassadors, and the killing of innocent civilians... [Our] insistence on the use of cluster bombs, designed to kill or maim humans, is condemned almost universally and brings discredit to our nation."

— Jimmy Carter, May 27, 1999

The NATO bombings were justified on the grounds of "humanitarian" concerns. Other false assumptions and even what could be considered as hypocritical arguments were used to justify the necessity of the aggression (this last link has a good account on the legal ramifications of the crisis given NATO's illegal actions, as well as a look into the humanitarian actions, thus suggesting some hypocrisy). Yet, the mainstream media accepted this without much analysis, or scrutiny.

Double standards seem to be apparent again. There are many other regions around the world where even hundreds of thousands of people have been killed or displaced yet we see passivity from the US there, but not here. (I mention the US here as they are the most influential country and have had the ability to similarly "intervene" in other countries where similar atrocities are being committed -- even if it is a country seen as an ally, like Indonesia, Turkey, pre-1990 Iraq, etc.)

There are numerous countries that have been involved in, or contributed to, similar, or even worse atrocities. In some nations these violations are still occurring, or have occurred in the recent past. However, most of these have been largely, perhaps even hypocritically, ignored compared to the Kosovo crisis, while also presenting a strong case for "humanitarian intervention". They include:

Algeria Chechnya/Russia Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo Ethiopia India/Pakistan Indonesia/East Timor

Israel Rwanda Spain/Basque Region Tibet/China Turkey United Kingdom/Northern Ireland United States and many more.

While Serbia was being bombed by NATO there was not much support of the fleeing refugees in Kosovo. The destruction of civilian infrastructure by NATO bombing, which violated international law was also not humanitarian. (Just a few months later, worse atrocities were taking place, in East Timor. Yet, none of the rhetoric about a new order and a new humanitarian cause has been invoked by the major leaders. Even in NATO member Turkey's own land, terrible atrocities still occur without any intense complaints from other NATO members.)

So what would the message be to all those nations who are cracking down in some way their own people or neighbors? That they will face NATO attacks and bombardment? Probably not. Perhaps something more like, if they step out of line with US/NATO interests, then they will face bombardment and destruction, otherwise they can continue as normal because US/NATO do not care what they do in their own back yard.

Shortly after the Kosovo crisis ended, the Clinton Administration came out with the "Clinton doctrine". This doctrine basically stated that the United States would forcefully intervene to prevent human rights abuses when it can do so without suffering substantial casualties, without the authority of the UN Security Council.

"Tony Blair is a young man I like very much," Mr Mandela said. "But I am resentful about the type of thing that America and Britain are doing. They want now to be the policemen of the world and I'm sorry that Britain has joined the US in this regard.

"It's a totally wrong attitude. They must persuade those countries like China or Russia who threaten to veto their decisions at the UN. They must sit down and talk to them. They can't just ignore them and start their own actions."

— Mandela accuses ‘policeman’ Britain, An interview with the Guardian, April 5, 2000.

This is a pretty serious precedent for a powerful country to set as it in effect undermines international law and treaty obligations. The US has in the past been extremely selective in the determination of where humanitarian intervention (or even just concern) is needed. Allies of the US have often been gross human rights violators, but those abuses have been conveniently ignored by the US to be able to pursue its national interests (i.e. economic liberalization of other nations, ensuring resources that the US needs remain as cheap as practically possible and so on). In some regions, the US continues to provide arms to allies that use them to commit gross violations of human rights (and that in effect, helps the US pursue its national interests. After all, why else would they knowingly support human rights violators?).

"Without the authority of the UN Security Council" basically implies another step to undermine the UN. It should be noted that the UN does have its flaws which need to be addressed (for example, the U.N. Security Council, plus the idea of 5 permanent (nuclear) members of the Council, is not exactly very democratic). However, it also is the main international body set up to promote universal human rights.

The US was key in helping set it up shortly after the second World War. Various UN treaties and charters, one of which is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US has signed, form parts of international law which all member states are bound to. So, to "prevent human rights abuses" by by-passing the United Nations suggests that the definition of human rights which the US wishes to uphold is different to what they helped create and sign. It also suggests that the US has other motives when it will choose to intervene.

See Humanitarian Military Intervention, Vol 5, Number 1, 2000 from Foreign Policy in Focus, for additional information. As it suggests, the US "should not employ military force for alleged humanitarian reasons without the explicit approval of the Security Council" and "should end military support of nations committing serious human rights violations" as well as "strengthen its own participation in international human rights agreements".

*************************************

Mainstream Media Representation

• by Anup Shah
• 
  

According to a media advisory from media watchdog, Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), "New evidence has emerged confirming that the U.S. deliberately set out to thwart the Rambouillet peace talks in France in order to provide a 'trigger' for NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia." This has serious ramifications -- from the role of the media to the intentions of NATO.

A senior US State Department official has admitted that the US "deliberately set the bar higher than the Serbs could accept" and that they needed some bombing and yet the mainstream media has ignored this.

Of all the mass graves and other massacre sites that the western media used to drum up support for the NATO campaign, subsequent investigations by various western institutions found none of them. See this article titled Where Are All the Bodies Buried? by Michael Parenti. Also, see Doubts on a Massacre: Media Ignore Questions About Incident That Sparked Kosovo War from FAIR.

It is also remarkable that NATO has achieved a peace treaty that is almost the same as what was proposed before the bombing began except that it has been very costly to human life and the environment. In fact, both NATO and Milosevic have actually given up some aspects of what the original Rambouillet accord demanded (not that the Rambouillet accord was very fair anyway, but it shows that even some of those demands were lost). Even the Ethnic Albanians have also lost out as the latest peace initiative and resolution does not discuss even the Kosovo Autonomy that the Rambouillet accord suggested. For a nicely summarized table of who gave up and gained what from this conflict, see this link. The mainstream media again has not really analysed this -- yet.

Mainstream media representation of the crisis was very one-sided, just as it apparently was in 1992 during the Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia conflict's media coverage. Serbs also cracked down on media reporting, enforcing much censorship and had its own propaganda machine in place, often coming out with claims that could not be substantiated. However, a propaganda model  (1) was also in place in Western nations to help the NATO war machine.

The Kosovo Liberation Army was dismissed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as "no more than terrorists"

— John Pilger, Morality? Don't make me laugh, The Guardian, April 20, 1999

In the Kosovo Crisis we saw many mainstream media reports all mention how the Ethnic Albanians had agreed to a proposed peace plan by NATO and how the Serbs refuse point-blank to accept these. The aggression by Milosevic and Serbian forces were horrendous and no one can deny that. However, both sides were involved in war crimes. The KLA had also been involved in some aggression. It had even killed other Ethnic Albanians who oppose the violent opposition (as the Ethnic, Muslim, Albanians initially started a huge non-violent movement based on co-operation. This aspect did not received much coverage from the west's mainstream media).

Sub-sections:

1. Claims Which Are Not Be Verified, Or Cannot Be Followed Up.
2. Media Ignores Many Root Causes
3. Selective Or Partial Media Analysis
4. Different Coverage And Portrayal In The Past
5. Media Ignores Nato's Violation Of International Law
6. How Does The Media Play A Role In This War?

Claims Which Are Not Be Verified, Or Cannot Be Followed Up.

"In sum, NATO leaders used vastly inflated estimates of murdered Kosovo Albanians as a pretext to intrude on the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, destroy much of its infrastructure and social production, badly damage its ecology, kill a substantial number of its citizens, and invade and occupy a large portion of its territory in what can only be termed a war of aggression."

— Michael Parenti, Where Are All the Bodies Buried?, ZMagazine, June 2000

The Serb media often came out with claims that could not be verified. However, NATO did too. And while the West's media treated Serb claims with appropriate suspicion, NATO claims were just taken without any research into how valid and truthful they may have been. It's as if it is unimaginable that NATO would have a propaganda model in place itself. And when some journalists did try and criticize NATOs actions, they were often accused of being pro-Milosoevic or something -- just because Milosevic may be wrong does not make NATO right.

The NATO bombing of the Serb TV stations was claimed to help stop Serb/Milosevic propaganda being delivered to the Serb people. Unfortunately it has also meant that NATO effects of bombing are also prevented from being reported effectively.

Most shockingly, despite all the rhetoric from some NATO countries like the US, and from the mainstream media, subsequent investigations into those mass graves after the bombing ended resulted in the UN finding none, as pointed out in this previous link by Michael Parenti. This raises questions on western mainstream media and journalists who just toed the official lines, without considering that "official" sources may themselves be part of another propaganda.

"On April 19, the [US] State Department states that up to 500,000 Kosovar Albanians were missing or feared dead. On May 16, [US] Defense Secretary William S. Cohen said that up to 100,000 Albanian men in Kosovo had vanished and may have been killed. ... On November 11 a New York Times article reported that after five months of investigation and exhumation of 195 most serious grave sites, reported to hold thousands of bodies, they had not found even a fraction of the reported 500,000 or 100,000 bodies. Their total count was 2,108 bodies throughout the province. They found no mass graves."

— Sara Flounders, Censored 2000; The News That Didn't Make The News, (Seven Stories, 2000), p. 43

This also goes for the Racak massacre, where 45 people were said to be killed. Subsequent investigations since the bombing ended didn't find such evidence, and yet this has often been said as the main event that convinced NATO to go to war. However, the US mainstream media ignored this.

There are of course questions and concerns about whether bodies from mass graves were in some way hidden, moved, destroyed etc, and there have been claims of such things. But they are claims only which are not all verified. For sure there are likely to have been graves and horrible murders, rape etc, as an unfortunate consequence of war, but one of the issues here is how the media repeated these claims in the leadup to the war, in essence, unwittingly or not, druming support for military reaction.

Media Ignores Many Root Causes

Yet, many issues surrounding the peace plans, NATO build up, political agendas, history of the entire area that has led to current tensions -- not just the Milosevic propaganda about the historical site in Kosovo thus rallying Serb troops to a cause to fight for, but the various events since World War II, for example -- etc. were ignored in these mainstream media reports and much critique or analysis of the process has not been part of this public debate.

The economic history of the region had also been ignored as a cause of the crisis. As has been criticized in many other parts of the world, here too, US/IMF loans and conditional policies had imposed harsh conditions on people throughout Yugoslavia, before Milosevic. It helped increase ethnic tensions as well.

Selective Or Partial Media Analysis

Many of the analysts who appeared on US news television programs to help justify the NATO bombings were retired military personnel. There was almost no analysis from any peace/humanitarian activists to provide a more balanced argument. This interesting report from FAIR provides some statistics on the slant of some major mainstream media coverage.

The media also ignored the fact that apparently the KLA said that they were betrayed by NATO.

Leading up to the bombing campaign, NATO tried to gather various delegations in France, near Paris to agree on what would later be known as the Rambouillet Accords. This was to be one of the last attempts at peace talks, else war would likely be the only alternative. The Kosvoar delegation was pressured to accept the agreement though it did not have explicit terms regarding independence, which the KLA had pressured the Kosovar delegates to ensure were in there (though NATO could not accomodate this.) For the Serbs, the agreement had provisions that would let NATO go anywhere in Yugoslavia as they pleased, which was regarded as military occupation, and so they could not accept this aspect. When the Kosovar group accepted, it then became presented as how the Serbs rejected peace, and Kosovars supported peace. They had agreed in condition that at a later date discussions of independence may be entertained.

The media portrayal of this issue didn't mention or analyze objectively the actual military and civilian provisions of the peace deal (which could perhaps help us understand why the Serbs refused to accept these). For example, the military provision talked about military control and unaccountability (almost literally doing what they want) of other unspecified nations on Serb territory. Any country, with a ruthless leader or not, would not accept such a deal, especially when the United Nations is not involved in this.

In addition, a BBC documentary on January 5, 2003 (titled "The Fall of Milosevic") revealed some important aspects to the negotiation process at Rambouillet. The documentary interviewed many NATO leaders and ministers involved at the time in the negotiations. In that documentary, the Italian Foreign Minister Dini revealed that the peace agreement that had been drawn up was the means to justify war; that NATO had to get the Kosovars to accept it so that the Serbs would be shown to be in the wrong. This suggested that the purpose of the accords had as much the idea to justify war, as there was to really discuss peace. That both Kosovars and Serbs had serious concerns with the accord did not seem to be a problem. That there was an 'agreement' was enough for the media to look at without analyzing it from these angles.

Yet, this was not a new revelation in 2003. In May 1999, a senior US State Department official had admitted that the US "set the bar too high" for the Serbs and that they needed some bombing and yet the mainstream media appeared to ignored this aspect.

And according to a FAIR media advisory in June 1999, "New evidence has emerged confirming that the U.S. deliberately set out to thwart the Rambouillet peace talks in France in order to provide a 'trigger' for NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia.". Furthermore, as FAIR concluded, "The revelation that American reporters knew about a U.S. strategy to create a pretext for NATO's war on Yugoslavia -- but did not report on it -- raises serious questions about the independence of mainstream news organizations."

The consequences by not raising awareness of such aspects in the mainstream could be seen in the coming months after those talks.

Different Coverage And Portrayal In The Past

"President Milosevic, is a man we can do business with, a man who recognizes the realities of life in former Yugoslavia."

— Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy, 1995. Quoted from this Guardian News report.

In fact, over a decade ago, the New York times did report on this region in a way that today would look like Milisovic propaganda. This link is from FAIR, who have provided the New York Times article. There are always many sides to the story and while nothing can justify the aggression which forced so many Kosovars to flee to neighboring areas, this does help shed some light as to what was happening in the region.

Media Ignores Nato's Violation Of International Law

The fact that US/NATO broke international law seems to have been missed out in all the various press reports from mainstream media.

How Does The Media Play A Role In This War?

So, perhaps the role of the mainstream media, in the West, has been less objective than we should expect, not verifying the various claims that they often make and has in fact perhaps been used as a major weapon in the form of propaganda to rally local support for the war against Serbia. Hence, as the following link suggests, perhaps the Media are also to blame for the war, and maybe the US media have supported war crimes. (Also, check out this link for a lot more articles on the role of media and propaganda during the Kosovo crisis.)

 (1)

American Journalists Have No Reason To Be Smug

By Norman Solomon

Ever since the start of NATO 's bombing blitz more than two weeks ago, the regime in Belgrade has maintained total control of Serbia's press -- and American journalists have scornfully reported on the propaganda role of Yugoslavian news media. But no one should be smug about freedom of the press in the United States.

At first glance, U.S. news organizations may seem to be independent and critical. This is a popular self-image. In a typical comment last Tuesday night on public television's "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," media correspondent Terence Smith spoke of "the frequently adversarial relationship between the Pentagon and the press."

Rather than engage in self-examination, most reporters have preferred to go along to get along with the Pentagon -- serving a function more akin to stenography than journalism. Despite all the pretenses, the sparring and griping is part of a game in which correspondents seem eager to show that they're on Uncle Sam's side, no matter what. Routinely, tactical differences are writ large while fundamental issues go unaddressed.

When the "free press" marches off to war, the reflexive deference to officials sources -- with their nonstop briefings, interviews and behind-the-scenes backgrounders -- produces an overwhelming flood of propaganda. One result is that buzz phrases like "air campaign," "strike against Yugoslavia" and "collateral damage" generate a continual fog.

As the second week of NATO bombing came to a close, the daily Independent in London published an analysis by scholar Philip Hammond that assessed British media coverage -- and made observations that also apply to U.S. media. Major news outlets, he wrote, "have generally been careful to keep the debate within parameters of acceptable discussion, while politicians have stepped up the demonization of the Serbs to try to drown out dissenting voices."

There are informal but well-understood limits to media discourse. "The rules appear to be that one can criticize NATO for not intervening early enough, not hitting hard enough, or not sending ground troops," Hammond added. "Pointing out that the NATO intervention has precipitated a far worse crisis than the one it was supposedly designed to solve or that dropping bombs kills people are borderline cases, best accompanied by stout support for `our boys.' What one must not do is question the motives for NATO going to war."

In late March, during the first week of bombing, the U.S.-based Committee to Protect Journalists released its annual report, "Attacks on the Press." The committee disclosed that "for the fifth consecutive year, Turkey held more journalists in prison than any other country." Among the 27 Turkish journalists behind bars as 1999 began, "most are victims of the government's continued criminalization of reporting on the 14-year-old conflict with Kurdish insurgents in Turkey's southeast."

The government of Turkey -- lauded by Washington as an important member ofNATO -- has engaged in torture and murder for many years. Of course, rationalizations for such actions are always available, whether in Ankara or Belgrade.

As it happens, the most righteous charges leveled by President Clinton against the Yugoslavian government about its treatment of ethnic Albanians could just as accurately be aimed at the Turkish government for its treatment of Kurds.

To depart from their own propaganda functions, major U.S. media outlets could insist on pursuing tough questions. Such as: If humanitarian concerns are high on Washington's agenda, why drop bombs on Yugoslavia and give aid to Turkey?

Slobodan Milosevic is guilty of monstrous crimes against human beings. And what about top officials whose orders have sent missiles into cities and towns of Yugoslavia, day after day?

"Every government is run by liars, and nothing they say should be believed," journalist I.F. Stone observed long ago. His judgment may seem harsh -- but it continues to be verified in the real world.

This month, it would be an act of heresy in the mainstream media of the United States or Yugoslavia to suggest that Slobodan Milosevic and Bill Clinton share a zest for generating propaganda to justify involvement in killing for political ends. Whatever their differences, both speak a common language of world-class bullies, fond of proclaiming high regard for humanity as blood drips from their hands.

For the American media consumer, NATO's military prowess is apt to be impressive, almost mesmerizing. We've seen such awesome firepower many times before. Vietnam War correspondent Michael Herr recalls about the U.S. military: "Our machine was devastating. And versatile. It could do everything but stop."

The same can be said of propaganda machinery, whether it's fueled by overt censorship or tacit self-censorship.

*************************************

Violation of International Law

• by Anup Shah

"Nato is the friend of the Tribunal," said NATO spokesman Jamie Shea. "NATO countries are those that have provided the finances to set up the Tribunal; we are among the majority financiers."

— Inter Press News Service, May 1999

"We will act multilaterally when we can and unilaterally when we must"

— Madeline Albright, 1998

Sub-sections:

1. Nato Violates International Law
2. Milosevic Also Violates International Law
3. Military Targets Only?
4. Ramifications And Reactions

Nato Violates International Law

"Amnesty International believes that in the course of Operation Allied Force, civilian deaths could have been significantly reduced if NATO forces had fully adhered to the laws of war.

NATO did not always meet its legal obligations in selecting targets and in choosing means and methods of attack. In one instance, the attack on the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television (RTS), NATO launched a direct attack on a civilian object, killing 16 civilians. Such attack breached article 52 (I) of Protocol I and therefore constitutes a war crime."

-- "Collateral Damage OR Unlawful Killings?
Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force",
Amnesty International.

At the beginning of June 2000, the War Crimes Tribunal Prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, announced that she would not prosecute NATO for war crimes (due to subtle pressure from various NATO and political leaders, as explained in this link). A week following that, Amnesty International released a report accusing it of committing serious violations of the rules of was and even a war crime. (And a "Berlin Tribunal" came to an opposite conclusion to Carla Del Ponte's.)

Even though there will always unfortunately be civilian casualties in any wars, there are still international rules of war that help define situations when civilian deaths count as violations of those laws or not. For over ten years, Amnesty has been reporting on human rights violations against ethnic Albanians. (See also this radio debate between representatives from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others on this report. Some of the links below, which have been growing since the bombing started have also pointed out similar things that Amnesty International has pointed out.)

Another issue that was also of concern before and during the bombing commenced was the place of NATO with respect to the UN Security Council. NATO bombing of Serbia, should have legally been performed with the authorization of the UN Security Council.

The fact that US/NATO broke international law and therefore once again undermined the UN seems to have been missed out in all the various press reports from mainstream media. Although International Law was invoked hypocritically when three American soldiers are captured by Serb troops.

And if international law was something that could be ignored, even the US Congress had not approved war and therefore this bombing was illegal according to US law as well as international law.

Regardless of by-passing the UN, it didn't stop NATO blaming the UN for any ineffectiveness in rebuilding processes -- even though it is normally ignored by those countries that lay the blame that they are often the ones who are responsible for reducing monetary funds or political support to the UN in the first place.

Check out this link as well, for a detailed look at the legal and humanitarian issues.

Milosevic Also Violates International Law

This doesn't make Milosevic innocent by any means. The United Nations had called forth many many resolutions to stop his crackdowns and atrocities. However, NATO was not acting out an enforcement of these resolutions. Instead, it totally by-passed. If there were humanitarian motives behind the US-led NATO attack, the United Nations would have been the obvious overseer of the whole operation.

Military Targets Only?

And what about the rules of war? International Humanitarian Law, (Geneva Conventions etc) all point out that there should not be wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, yet we saw both NATO and Milosevic's troops violate this. Additional to the well-documented reports of atrocities by Serb troops, there were numerous NATO bombs killing and targeting civilian infrastructure, and civilians themselves. For example, NATO bombed bridges, factories, water facilities, hospitals, accidentally killed many refugees, destroyed passenger trains with Serb civilians, bombed apartment blocks, had the embarrassment of a stray NATO missile even hitting Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria, about 40 miles from Kosovo's border, and so on.

NATO also bombed the Chinese Embassy causing diplomatic problems. In fact, just a couple of months after the NATO bombing ended, it was revealed that the bombing of the Chinese embassy was deliberate. This was because the Chinese were using the embassy to rebroadcast Serb signals. This definitely raises numerous questions about Chinese involvement. It also questions once again the truthfulness and credibility of NATO. What else has been presented untruthfully? During the actual incident, people in all ranks within NATO from US President Clinton, to various military commanders and officials all blamed the incident on out-dated maps and insisted that it was a mistake. (The previous link provides many details.) The mainstream media were all over the bombing incident in May 1999. However, when it was revealed to be deliberate (a worthy news story), there was very little coverage by US media, even though most other mainstream media covered it. Check out the media part of this site's Kosovo section for more about the various media distortions that accompanied this crisis.

While some of these are disastrous, or even embarrassing accidents some of the infrastructure that had been targeted like water and energy infrastructure, as well as numerous factories, had been deliberate with the accompanying claim that these were used to facilitate the military, while they are also largely and mainly used for civil purposes. What if say India bombed UK's National Grid that delievers electricity to everyone on the grounds that the UK has been unlawful in Northern Ireland and must be bombed as a result and that the National Grid is a legitimate target because the military may be using it as well?

International Law says that bombing or starving a civilian population is a violation and yet while most people will not argue the fact Milosevic is responsible for some horrendous crimes and violations of International Law, nations like the USA have also violated these very same principles they helped define, on many occasions.

Ramifications And Reactions

Thousands upon thousands of people had taken to the streets in numerous countries all around the world, to protest NATO's unilateral actions. With USA leading NATO, even more anti-US sentiment had been created and many nations probably feel that they will need to increase their military expenditure on national security due to fears of rogue actions from large bully nations that can by-pass UN and international laws without consequence. (This will also then result in the US having to increase their military spending, because, for some reason other nations seem to be arming themselves!)

The Supreme Court of Greece has also issued a statement deploring the internationally criminal acts from NATO.

A Times of India editorial, May 6 1999, (for which their link seems to have now expired) suggests that international law has been a big loser in this war. Events in Kosovo, suggest that NATO can ignore, or not worry about what the UN or anyone who disagrees with USA says in this matter. The ramifications of this, as also seen in the Iraq crisis (where USA and UK did not obtain UN Security Council authorization to use force in 1998/1999), are important and once again the Madeline Albright quote at the top comes to mind (which describes blatantly how international co-operation and the majority of views can be ignored).

War Crimes

All sides in this conflict have committed gross violations of humanitarian and international law.

Milosevic was finally indicted for crimes against humanity. However, some less reported facts about the type and scale of bombing and agression againt Serb civillians suggest that NATO/USA/UK should also be indicted for war crimes.

While Milosevic should rightly be tried for such gross crimes, this link also reminds us, that the victors, who may have also committed huge crimes against humanity themselves, often get away, unaccountably.

There has already been a submission to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague, requesting the indictment of UK's Prime Minister Tony Blair, Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and Defence Secretary George Robertson for serious violations of international humanitarian law.

But given quotes like the following, it is easy to see how difficult it would be to even attempt to try all aggressors and violators of law:

"Nato is the friend of the Tribunal," said NATO spokesman Jamie Shea. "NATO countries are those that have provided the finances to set up the Tribunal; we are among the majority financiers." -- from this link.

War crimes can also apply to USA/NATO, yet the media will often faithfully only concentrate on the 'other' side.

*************************************

Political Factors

• by Anup Shah

Many feel that the NATO bombing was to facilitate a number of additional political agendas such as:

• future access to Caspian oil.
• strategic NATO expansion
• arms sales
• access to new markets resources and minerals in Kosovo and Yugoslavia.
• "The determination by the U.S and NATO, at all costs, to occupy Kosovo and virtually all of Yugoslavia, is spurred on by the enticement of abundant natural resources. Kosovo alone has the richest mineral resources in all of Europe west of Russia. The New York Times observed that "the sprawling state-owned Trepca mining complex, the most valuable piece of real estate in the Balkans, is worth at least $5 billion." producing gold, silver, pure lead, zinc, cadmium, as well as tens of millions of dollars in profits annually. "Kosovo also possesses 17 billion tons of coal reserves and Kosovo (like Serbia and Albania) also has oil reserves."
• "A number of unofficial partition plans have been drawn up for Kosovo all raising the question of who would control an important northern mining region," the New York Times revealed. Trepca was also a "glittering prize" taken over by Hitler to fuel the Nazi war machine during WWII."
• — Backing Up Globalization with Military Might
• Since the bombing has ended, numerous US bases in the Balkans have been set up. A military base is being built in Kosovo, described as the largest US foreign base built since the Vietnam War.
• "Behind the propaganda of a humanitarian war, U.S./NATO bases have been constructed in Albania, Croatia, Bosnia, Hungary, Macedonia, and Kosovo. The Balkans, a region of enormous strategic importance, rich natural resources and important industrial capacity is now occupied by thousands of US troops. All this has happened without any informed debate or discussion."
• — Sara Flounders, Censored 2000, (Seven Stories, 2000) p. 44

Yet, equally important is the wider Balkan conflict that has been going on for years:

• As J.W. Smith points out and details in his book, Economic Democracy, (M.E. Sharpe, 2000), throughout history, the centers of power have often raided and plundered their "countryside" to maintain dominance and control of access to resources.
• When these so-called peripheries were plundered, their basic industry would often be destroyed.
• We have seen this pattern with Yugoslavia as well. With the Soviet collapse, Yugoslavia was the main economic power in East Europe and for good or bad, (it is hard to know for sure) would have potentially dominated developments in Eastern Europe, which had highly skilled, comparatively cheap labor as well as resources.
• The years of destabilization in Yugoslavia and the Balkans has therefore had this in mind as well, as Smith details.
• Furthermore, with the bombing of Serbia being mainly destruction of civilian infrastructure (not military as pointed out in the bombing section on this site, with links and sources), we see this pattern throughout history that Smith has also detailed of plundering the "periphery" by destroying their means of production and crippling their economic capabilities preventing future development and being dependent upon the conquerors.
• (See J.W. Smith, Institute for Economic Democracy, and their book, Economic Democracy; Political Struggle for the 21st Century, (M.E. Sharpe, 2000), especially chapter 6, extracts of which are available on line at their web site.)

As mentioned in the NATO section, Russia saw NATO attacks on Yugoslavia as a direct threat to itself. In fact apparently some polls showed that 92 percent of Russians condemned the bombings while 70,000 young Russians had even registered as would-be volunteers for Yugoslavia.

We have been told that before the bombing began, all the diplomatic efforts did not yield any silver linings. What has not been mentioned in much detail is that Milosevic in fact did suggest that he would consider a UN or other, non-NATO force, but for the US, this was not the silver-lining that the US wanted.

As the link also points out, a leaked version of the Pentagon's 1994-1999 Defense Planning Guidance report advises that the United States "must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO. Therefore, it is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for U.S. influence and participation in European security affairs.". This is setting a pretty serious precedent -- even though perhaps there may have been better options available, the US did not want to consider them, because it wanted to have a (leading) role in Europe's security affairs and keep Europe dependent on it.

The "Bombable Serbia" section of this article, for a starter, describes the region's history showing that there have been a number of additional reasons to the tensions we see today.

Also check out the latter half of this link for political reasons.

Also, see this article for a look at the economic problems imposed on Yugoslavia since the Kosovo bombing ended, and for a general look at the relationship between wars and economics.

*************************************

Backing up Globalization with Military Might

The following article is from Covert Action Quarterly whose web site just recently went off line. This article about globalization and the use of the military to help globalization efforts is therefore backed up here and reposted as it has been referred to a few times on this web site.

Backing up Globalization with Military Might
New World Order Onslaught
by Karen Talbot
Covert Action Quarterly, Issue 68, Fall 1999

The U.S. and its NATO underlings undoubtedly will be vastly emboldened by their "success" in ensconcing themselves in Kosovo, Bosnia and the other remnants of Yugoslavia—Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia. We can expect rapid steps to further fragment the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). We can also expect the new mission of nuclear-armed NATO — intervening over so-called "humanitarian concerns" against sovereign nations—to be implemented elsewhere, with great speed, especially in the Caspian Sea/Caucuses areas of the former Soviet Union.

Burgeoning military alliances, with the U.S. at the helm, are likely to try intervening in a similar way against North Korea, China — any country refusing to be a "New World Order" colony by allowing its wealth and labor power to be plundered by the TNCs. The assault against Yugoslavia threw open the floodgates for new wars including wars of competition among the industrial powers, with nuclear weapons part of the equation.

President Bill Clinton recently praised NATO for its campaign in Kosovo saying the alliance could intervene elsewhere in Europe or in Africa to fight repression."We can do it now. We can do it tomorrow, if it is necessary, somewhere else," he told U.S. troops gathered at the Skopje, Macedonia airport. (1)

Given these scenarios, it is hardly surprising that Clinton and the leaders of the other NATO countries continue to glorify the aggression against Yugoslavia as "preventing a humanitarian catastrophe," "promoting democracy" and "keeping the peace "against a Hitler-like dictator who would not adhere to "peace" agreements. The public is being repeatedly assured that the means -the bombing of the people of Yugoslavia-were justified by the ends.

The ongoing media hype, including the unprecedented demonization of the Serbs, is designed to continue molding public opinion to accept the "justice" of the war. The unmistakable message is that the "Serbs got what they deserve." It also masterfully conceals, and therefore allows unimpeded momentum toward, the true goals behind the stepped-up saber-rattling of the world's super-power and its allies. This skillful disinformation campaign has been spectacularly successful in derailing sections of the traditional peace and progressive movement.

But, today, as never before, we need to tear away the mask of lies and disclose the real goals of this "new world order" imperialism and see clearly how it hurts workers and the poor within our own borders and globally. We need to see the ways in which military dominance increasingly works in close tandem with economic globalization, privatization and the drive for corporate super profits. This basic understanding is essential for paving the road to a powerful united worldwide resistence movement. Already, the U.S./NATO war against Yugoslavia has awakened millions of people to the ferocious nature of the U.S. corporate drive for world dominance. That process needs to be accelerated by exposing the palliatives designed to mislead the public and getting down to a true diagnosis which can help lead the peace and justice movement to an effective response. So let's examine some of the rationales for the war and then look at some of the real motives.

Sub-sections:

1. The Real Terrorists
2. "Humanitarian Crisis" Crusade
3. Kla Steps Up Terrorist Attacks
4. Kla's Fascist Roots
5. The U.S. And Nato Prevented A Peace Agreement
6. Mcdonald's Needs Mcdonnell Douglas To Flourish
7. Corporations Will Stop At Nothing
8. Profits For The Military-Industrial Complex
9. War Profiteering
10. The New Nato
11. Intensifying Antagonisms Between The U.S. And Europe
12. Girdling The Globe With U.S.-Led Military Alliances
13. "Control Of Space Means Control Of Earth"
14. Becoming 'Irrational," "Vindictive" And Threatening Nuclear Attack
15. Why The Balkans?
16. The Allure Of Rich Resources And Cheap Labor
17. Is Montenegro Next?
18. Sanctions: War Against The People
19. The Lucrative Business Of Destroying And Rebuilding
20. Above All Its About Oil!
21. Pipelines Across The Balkans
22. Stoking Conflict In The Caucuses /Caspian Sea Region
23. Stirring Things Up In East Asia
24. A Military Nafta
25. Globalization Onslaught Of Tncs
26. Corporations Seek To Rule The World
27. The Fightback
28. Footnotes

The Real Terrorists

Adding to the barrage or propaganda, the U.S. Senate recently labeled Serbia a "terrorist state." (2) What obscene hypocrisy! Yet another case of blaming the victim for the crimes of the perpetrator. What could be more "terrorist" than the relentless blitzkrieg with 23,000 "dumb" bombs and "smart" missiles rained upon Yugoslavia for 79 days by U.S.- led NATO forces? Is it not terrorism to casually drop upon civilians, from the sanctuary of thousands of feet in the air, or with terrain-hugging computer-guided missiles, radioactive depleted uranium weapons and outlawed cluster bombs designed to rip human flesh to shreds? Is it not terrorism to deliberately target the entire infrastructure of this small nation including the electrical and water filtration systems critical to the survival of civilians? Is it not terrorism to ferociously obliterate 200 factories destroy the jobs of millions of workers? What of the constant air assault-"fire from the sky"-against cities, villages, schools, hospitals, senior residences, TV towers and studios, oil refineries, chemical plants, electrical power plants, transmission towers, gas stations, homes, farms, marketplaces, buses, trains, railroad lines, bridges, roads, medieval monasteries, churches, historic monuments- destruction amounting to more than $100 billion dollars? What of the eco-terrorism, biological and chemical warfare, resulting from the incalculable destruction of the environment including the deliberate bombardment of chemical plants. Above all, is it not terrorism to kill, maim, traumatize, impoverish, or render homeless tens of thousands of men, women and children?

Not only was NATO's war a reprehensible act of inhumanity, it was in contravention of all norms of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations.

It was an unprecedented war by the most powerful military force in history involving the 19 wealthiest nations with 95% of the world's armaments against a small sovereign nation that ultimately had little chance of countering such an attack. Given that reality, it was awe-inspiring to see the heroism of the peoples of Yugoslavia-a population of 10 million— standing up to such a mighty juggernaut.

"Humanitarian Crisis" Crusade

We were told this inhuman blitzkrieg was necessary to protect the human rights of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. People everywhere wanted to believe this noble purpose. Yet the most obvious and glaring contradiction was the absence of any similar concerns about hundreds of thousands of Serbs expelled from the Krajina region of Croatia by the Croatian military, in 1995-described in the press as "the largest ethnic cleansing" of the Yugoslav civil war. (3)

Thousands died in that "Operation Storm." Not only did the United States not express compassion or offer to defend those refugees, the massive assault was carried out with the aid of "retired" U.S. military officers belonging to a "private" organization, Military, Professional Resources, Inc. (MPRI) with the help of U.S./NATO planes and weaponry. (4)

In fact, Agim Ceku, a brigadier general from the Croatian Army who presided over that colossal bombing and expulsion of Serbs from Krajina, beginning in 1993, took over command of the KLA in recent months, according to Jane Defense Weekly. Licensed by the U.S. State Department and Pentagon, the MPRI also had been operating in Kosovo training the KLA, beginning several weeks before the air strikes began. (5)

Rick Rowden, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, said "Americans should question the administration's stated objective to 'stop the killing' in Kosovo. [It] should give us reason to ask "Why can the U.S. support Croatian ethnic cleansing in Croatia but oppose Serbian ethnic cleansing in Kosovo? The answer likely has little to do with 'stopping the killing' and much to do with the expansion of NATO and its post-Cold War global role." (6)

There were a million Serb refugees even before the bombing began. This terrible flood of human suffering was greatly augmented by refugees who fled Kosovo after the NATO attack was launched-Albanians, but also, Turks, Romas, Goranies, and Serbs (many of whom were refugees from Bosnia and Krajina, once again uprooted.) Now there is a vast exodus particularly of Serbs as the KLA's drive for an ethnically pure Kosovo is being played out swiftly while NATO troops stand by and take no steps to prevent it.

What of the human rights of the population of Yugoslavia which is confronted by appalling conditions following the U.S./NATO attack? People have no jobs, often no water and electricity, and face desperate circumstances in the coming winter, according to Jim Carlton, Secretary-General of the Australian Red Cross, who inspected the devastation in June. He said that NATO's air war had destroyed the basic industry resulting in massive unemployment and caused a serious refugee situation. "The humanitarian assistance that the Red Cross can get into Serbia is minuscule compared to the need," he said. (7)

In fact, there was no "humanitarian crisis" until NATO started bombing Yugoslavia, (including Kosovo) over an alleged "humanitarian crisis."

If protecting human rights was the purpose behind the bombardment why were there no similar actions, for example, over the genocide in Rwanda, or the tens of thousands killed in Angola, Mozambique, Guatemala, El Salvador or among the Kurds of Turkey? There were no threats to bomb on their behalf. What of millions of victims of the bombings and continuing sanctions-using the withholding of food and medicines as a weapon of war-against the people of Iraq? What of the embargo against the people of Cuba?

Kla Steps Up Terrorist Attacks

The U.S. and NATO's hypocrisy over human rights is exposed especially since the occupation of Kosovo began on June 8. There has been intense persecution and expulsion of tens of thousands of Serbs, Romas, pro-Yugoslav ethnic Albanians and anyone targeted by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). This has included attacks on Serbian monasteries and churches, and assaults carried out while NATO troops watch and do nothing, which amounts to helping the KLA. The separatist KLA whose goal is an ethnically pure "Greater Albania." has been further entrenched-not "demilitarized" as required in UN Security Council resolution 1244 ending the bombing.

Yet, out of a total of $150 million appropriated for assistance for Kosovo, the Senate earmarked $20 million for training and equipping a security force "that its authors say could include the KLA," (8)

By the first of September, NATO and UN officials had agreed to the civilian force made up of "the remnants of the KLA." It will have 3,000 members with a military structure formed from the core KLA commanders. Gen. Agim Ceku, who makes no secret about this force as essential to achieving independence from Yugoslavia, said "We will build a new army in the future and the Kosovo Corps will be one part of it."

According to the UN Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), nearly one third of the Serbs in Kosovo had fled by early July. No longer are there any Serbo-Croat language television or radio programs. Broadcasting studios have been taken over by the KLA. Albanian and German currencies have replaced the Yugoslav dinar, postal links have been cut and a legal system is being set up without Belgrade's involvement. (9)

Human Rights Watch reported, "well over 164,000 Serbs have now fled Kosovo with a significant number of Romas. The intent behind many of the killings and abductions..appears to be the expulsion of Kosovo's Serb and Roma population." It said NATO and the UN "seem ill-equipped to stop the violence." (10) That number has escalated greatly in the interim, reaching proportions approaching the ejection of the entire Serb population.

A media release by UNCHR said "If emergency aid is not immediately provided to these people, 40-50 percent of whom are children under 16 years of age, UNCHR believes their situation could turn desperate when winter comes." (11)

There are myriad examples of the ongoing KLA rampage such as the plundering of Belo Polje which had been an entirely Serb village. Today it is in ruins. Soldiers wearing KLA uniforms murdered Serb civilians, then looted and torched the entire village, according t a reporter at the scene. NATO soldiers did nothing to stop the mayhem. (12)

Three hundred and fifty armed KLA troops seized the Belavic coal mine in Dobro Selo near Pristina-a mine that provides for much of Serbia-and KFOR took no action (13)

"Violence has been rising steadily, against the remaining pockets of Serb civilians. The looting and burning of Serb homes, as well as dozens of assassinations and kidnapings of Serbs-including the massacre of 14 Serb farmers...are reminiscent of the gun-slinging and anarchy that have characterized Albania in the last few years." (14)

Congress member Dennis J. Kucinich, said: "I read the latest reports concerning a recent Executive Order that hands the CIA a black bag in the Balkans for engineering a military coup in Serbia, for interrupting communications, for tampering with bank accounts, freezing assets abroad and training the Kosovo Liberation Army in terrorist tactics, such as how to blow up buildings.

"How this is intended to help establish a democracy in Serbia or Kosovo hasn't been explained. Nor has the failure to substantially demilitarize the KLA been explained. Nor has the reverse ethnic cleansing taking place in Kosovo by the KLA while NATO rules the province been explained." (15)

Kla's Fascist Roots

The fascist roots of the KLA were detailed even in a New York Times story by Chris Hedges. (16) He speaks of the leadership faction as having "hints of fascism" and being comprised of the "sons and grandsons of those who fought in the World War II fascist militias and the Nazi Skanderberg SS Division" or descendants of the rightist Albanian Kacak rebels who fought against Serbs 80 years ago. They wear black fatigues and had ordered their fighters to salute with a clenched fist to the forehead, as did their fascist antecedents. (17)

The 1941, German and Italian fascist invaders of Kosovo called for turning multi-ethnic Kosovo into a "pure" Albanian State. A "greater Albania" only existed during the administration by the Nazis who linked Albania and Kosovo as a single unit.

The CIA and BND of Germany had been covertly training and supplying the KLA since the mid 1990s. (18)

German NATO troops-the first German forces in Yugoslavia in 54 years- were enthusiastically welcomed by KLA supporters. Western journalists seemed to be startled by this. "This is a second liberation," Ali Majo, 68, a native of Prizren told Los Angeles Times staff writer Marjorie Miller on June 17. "I can't describe how it felt when we saw German soldiers come here again." Majo told the reporter how he had first seen the Nazi forces bomb Partisan guerrilla positions. "After that...we all shouted 'Hitler.' We were proud of the German soldiers because they liberated us from the Serbs." (19)

The U.S. And Nato Prevented A Peace Agreement

The key reason used to justify the NATO attack was that Milosevic refused to sign the Rambouillet "peace agreement." Actually, the chance to arrive at a peaceful settlement of the crisis during the talks in Rambouillet and Paris, last February and March, was thwarted. Even the short time initially allotted to "negotiate" this complex question showed a lack of seriousness. It becomes clear by perusing the text of the Rambouillet "agreement" (20) that the Contact Group, especially the U.S., did not want a peace agreement because no nation would have signed away its sovereignty as required in that document. It was accompanied by an ultimatum to sign or be bombed. This was deja vu for the Yugoslavs. In 1941, Hitler had ordered them to capitulate to his pact or be bombed. Then as now, they refused and were bombed. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, in its thrust toward World War I, inflicted a similar edict on Serbia, in 1914.

In Rambouillet, the delegation from the FRY, made up of representatives of every nationality of Serbia including ethnic Albanians, had agreed to the ten original political points decreed by the U.S. and the Contact Group, including autonomy for Kosovo. However they rejected the added demand for the deployment of NATO troops in the province, maintaining that if the parties agreed to the ten points, there would be no need for a heavily armed force in Kosovo. (21)

The acquiescence of the Yugoslavs to the political points provided an opening for a successful peaceful settlement of the crisis. It contrasted sharply with rejection of this document by the KLA, causing considerable consternation among U.S. officials. Press accounts were full of U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's open apprehension that NATO would not be able to bomb if the KLA refused to sign. After a flurry of activity over several days, a signature was obtained on the greatly altered Rambouillet accords with 56 added pages. It was then presented to the FRY delegation when the talks resumed in Paris. This virtually new document, totally contravening the 10 Contact Group principles, had never been negotiated. In fact, there never were real negotiations.

Aside from the other blatant violations of the sovereignty of Yugoslavia contained in the Rambouillet "accords, there was a provision that after a three year period, a new international meeting would be held to "take into account the will of the people" in Kosovo. This was clearly meant to open the way to independence even though the U.S. and the other Contact Group members had repeatedly assured the world they only favored autonomy, not independence, for Kosovo-Metojia. (22)

The refusal of the FRY to sign the fraudulent Rambouillet document provided the desired go-ahead for NATO to begin bombing with all its terrible consequences for civilians, refugees— Serbs, Albanians and all the people of Yugoslavia. NATO's ultimate goal of establishing itself in Kosovo was also accomplished.

These few simple and obvious facts cut through the lies used to justify the war against Yugoslavia. What then are the real objectives of the U.S. and NATO?

Mcdonald's Needs Mcdonnell Douglas To Flourish

An article by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times entitled "What the World Needs Now" tells it all. Illustrated by an American Flag on a fist it said, among other things: "For globalism to work, America can't be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is....The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist-McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps." (23)

There could not be a better description of how the U.S. armed forces are seen as the military arm of the globalizing transnational corporations (TNCs).

President Clinton said in a speech delivered the day before his televised address to Americans about Kosovo: "If we're going to have a strong economic relationship that includes our ability to sell around the world, Europe has got to be a key....That's what this Kosovo thing is all about." (24)

Defense Secretary William Cohen, in remarks to reporters prior to his speech at Microsoft Corporation in Seattle, put it this way, "[T]he prosperity that companies like Microsoft now enjoy could not occur without having the strong military that we have."

"The defense secretary is making the case that conflicts in faraway lands such as Bosnia, Korea and Iraq have a direct effect on the U.S. economy. The billions it costs to keep 100,000 American troops in South Korea and Japan, for example, makes Asia more stable—and thus better markets for U.S. goods. The military's success in holding Iraq in check ensures a continued flow of oil from the Persian Gulf," concluded the Associated Press dispatch reporting on Cohen's Seattle appearance.(25)

In today's world, TNCs, and governments running interference for them, are pushing relentlessly for an end to national sovereignty and democratic rights in order to achieve total unimpeded access to acquire investments, cheap labor and consumers in every nook and cranny of the globe. This is being accomplished particularly through mechanisms such as multilateral agreements on investment, NAFTA-type free trade agreements, and the dictates of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and World Trade Organization (WTO).

The globalization fever is running rampant. It is epitomized in the feeding frenzy taking place across the Asia-Pacific region where U.S.-based transnationals and banks are gobbling up assets at bargain basement prices in nations stricken by the Asian economic crisis. In the early weeks of that economic tsunami, the New York Times , described U.S. banks and corporations as poised to "snap up some corporate bargains...Chase Manhattan, General Electric, General Motors and J.P. Morgan are all said to be looking at ailing companies in the region."(26)

Corporations Will Stop At Nothing

To achieve maximum profits these transnationals will stop at nothing. After all, they are non-human institutions that must expand through ever-greater profits, or go out of business. In so doing they have shown willingness to violate human rights-particularly workers' rights—to throw millions out of work, eliminate unions, use sweat-shops and slave labor, destroy the environment, destabilize governments, install or bolster tyrants who oppress, repress, torture and kill with impunity.

Is it surprising, then, that wars and military intervention, including attacks on civilians, are waged on behalf of corporations? It has been an integral part of the history of imperialist powers. Why should we believe it is any different today? Yugoslavia is but the most recent victim of this process.

But the targeting of Yugoslavia did not begin with the bombing. Economic destabilization of that nation began in the 1980's with IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programs (SAPs). As happens throughout the world where such SAPs are imposed as conditions for debt relief, they devastated the economy, laying the groundwork for the break-up of Yugoslavia.

Political destabilization through the years against Yugoslavia was equally intense. Today, there are amazingly open pronouncements about deposing Milosevic. The funding and organizing of opposition groups is openly espoused and carried out.

Those endeavors by the U.S. have included a meeting held the end of June organized by President Milo Djukanovic of Montenegro, attended by Prince Alexander, self-declared heir to the Yugoslav "throne," and Serbian Democratic Party President Zoran Djindjic. Djindjic has taken the lead in organizing U.S.-orchestrated efforts to get rid of Milosevic. To this end he formed the Alliance for Change.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) funded by the U.S. government in what Republican Congressman Chris Smith defined as "the most cost-effective item in the budget" (NED Press Release, March 5, 1999) has been pouring millions of dollars into Yugoslavia for years.* (27)

*(Statement by Paul B. McCarthy, National Endowment for Democracy (NED Press Release, March 5, 1999) : Hearing of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe "The Milosevic Regime Versus Serbian Democracy and Balkan Stability, December Paul B. McCarthy, said "past grantees have included the newspapers Nasa Borba, Vreme, and Danas, an independent TV station in eastern Serbia, TV Negotin, the prominent news agency BETA, and...Radio B-92....the Association for Independent Electronic Media (ANEM)....and Dnevni Telegraf." ( 10,1998, 2172 Rayburn House Office Building)

Among other things, McCarthy praised the "Forum of Non-Governmental Organizations held in Belgrade in June (1998) and encouraged U.S. organizations "to provide opposition political parties with expertise.." He said western funders should support organizations like the Alternative Academic Network, the Anti-War Campaign which "protested the war in Kosovo." NED funding also is going to the Humanitarian Law Center, the Center for Democracy Foundation, the Belgrade Center for Human Rights, the Center for International Private Enterprise the European Movement of Serbia and the G-17 group of economists as well as the American Center for International Labor Solidarity which continues to assist UGS Nezavisnost, a trade union confederation which opposes Milosevic., among others, according to McCarthy. )

Profits For The Military-Industrial Complex

Clearly, a related major objective behind the NATO action was to add more billions to the already bloated U.S. military budget and to fill the coffers of the military-industrial corporations with super profits acquired from the hard-earned tax dollars of American workers. After all, the stocks of Tomahawk Cruise missiles must be replenished. Congress, with great bi-partisan fervor, is approving an increase for the Pentagon of $20 billion adding up to $288.8 billion for FY 2000. By contrast, all other domestic discretionary spending, including for education, job-training, housing, environment and health programs, totals $245 billion— "the biggest disparity in modern times," according to the Center for Defense Information. More food and education being taken from children to feed the war machine.

If that were not enough, President Clinton signed a bill appropriating $15 billion above the current Pentagon budget to wage the war against Yugoslavia. Most of that will be siphoned out of the Social Security surplus fund.

The Pentagon is not satisfied with all this largess but apparently finds it necessary to divert hundreds of millions of dollars into projects never authorized by Congress including a "super-secret" Air Force "black program," and "illegally spent hundreds of millions to update its C-5 transport planes; and millions on a previously canceled 'Star Wars' missile defense program."(28)

Tapping into this lucrative bottomless well of funds, the "Big Three" weapons makers-Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon— now receive among themselves over $30 billion per year in Pentagon contracts. Companies like Lockheed Martin are actively engaged in shaping U.S. foreign and military policies. Their efforts have yielded among other things: the "payoffs for layoffs" subsidies for defense industry mergers such as the Lockheed/Martin Marietta merger; the elimination of royalty fees that foreign arms customers had been paying to reimburse the U.S. Treasury for the cost of weapons developed at taxpayer expense (this adds up to a loss for taxpayers of roughly $500 million per year); and the creation of billions of dollars of new grants and government-guaranteed loans to support the export of U.S. weaponry. These Pentagon contractors, conservative think tanks and advocacy groups lobbied heavily and successfully for the "Star Wars" missile defense program.(29)

Back to top

War Profiteering

The bombing and missile strikes are, more than ever, giant bazaars for selling the wares of the armaments manufacturers. An article in USA Today said: "The USA's defense equipment, such as the satellite-guided smart bombs, has stolen the international spotlight as NATO air forces pound Serbian forces. That could mean increased foreign interest in U.S. military equipment..." (30) Raytheon spokesperson, David Shea, said: "We are expecting the Kosovo conflict to result in new orders downstream." Officials at Raytheon announced that replacing munitions used in the Balkans could lead to about $1 billion in new contracts. (31)

Jaynatha Dhanapala, UN Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, said recently that "television coverage of modern warfare has effectively created an 'advertising dividend' for the manufacturers of high-tech weaponry and the countries and alliances that use such weapons..." He observed that during the 1991 war in the Persian Gulf and the recent NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, tiny video cameras enabled hundreds of millions of viewers to "experience vicariously" the flight paths of attacking missiles to their intended targets. (32)

No wonder stock prices of the large military manufacturers shot up. Since the beginning of the war against Yugoslavia, March 24, 1999, the stocks of Rockwell International (maker of the Lancer, B-1 bomber, etc.) was up +48 percent; Boeing Aircraft (maker of the B-52 Stratofortress, etc.) up +30 percent; Raytheon Systems (maker of the Tomahawk cruise missile, HARM missile, etc) up +37 percent; Lockheed Martin (maker of the F-117 Nighthawk, F-16 Falcon, etc.), up +18 percent; and Northrop Grumman (maker of the B-2 bomber, etc.) up +16 percent. (33)

Defense and aerospace companies have either announced or completed mergers and acquisitions amounting to nearly $60 billion just in the first half of 1999. That amount is already well above the total for all of 1998. (34)

Back to top

The New Nato

The giant corporations-especially the military-industrial corporations—have been pushing vigorously for expanding and extending the role of NATO. Their blatant salivating over potential profits was indisputable during NATO's 50th Anniversary celebrations which became "the ultimate marketing opportunity," as described in the Washington Post. The host committee included the chief executives of Ameritech, DamilerChrysler, Boeing, Ford Motor, General Motors, Honeywell, Lucent Technologies, Motorola, Nextel, SBC Communications, TRW and United Technologies. (35) These companies sell weapons but also other products. They have been busy lobbying for the expansion of NATO to avail themselves of the lucrative markets in Eastern European nations which have been pressed to join NATO. Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary have already been admitted. In order to be a part of the Alliance these nations must spend billions to upgrade their military forces.

Even the Ukraine, part of the NATO-sponsored Partnership for Peace, held joint naval exercises with the United States in July. Perceiving this as a threat, Russian Prime Minster Sergei Stepashin was quoted by Interfax Ukraine news agency as telling the officers and men of Russia's Black Sea fleet to prepare for a naval exercise to imitate the military action in Yugoslavia during the Kosovo crisis. (36)

The Ukraine along with Georgia, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldava are members of GUUAM, a bloc of "Western-oriented" Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) members, according to a dispatch from "Global Intelligence Updates." (37) Moldava and Uzbekistan joined during the NATO anniversary Summit in April, and a charter was established encompassing military cooperation within the group and with NATO. GUUAM members have opted out of the CIS Collective Security Treaty. (38)

"The pendulum of Ukrainian foreign policy swung closest to the West on June 12, when Kiev briefly closed Ukrainian airspace to Russian aircraft trying to reinforce Russian troops at Slatina airbase in Kosovo... Russia's military commanders were furious. It was bad enough that NATO convinced ostensibly neutral Romania and Bulgaria to deny their airspace to Russian aircraft, but Ukraine was a step too far. Ukraine had to clarify its relationship with NATO and with Russia," said the dispatch. (39)

Moreover, NATO has repeatedly deflected protest over its possession of nuclear armaments and its refusal to renounce first use of these weapons.

At all costs then, NATO is projecting its new role as acting "out of area" and intervening anywhere on the basis of "humanitarian concerns" regardless of national sovereignty and international law. The purpose is to send a message to nations of the entire world that if they do not do the U.S. bidding, they too could be a victim of the kind of devastation unleashed upon Yugoslavia and Iraq. They too could be divided up, balkanized, turned into banana republics or emirates. Especially vulnerable are those countries involved over the oil riches of the Caspian Sea basin—Russia, Turkmenistan, Kazahkstan, Azerbaijan and Georgia-and where there are already related conflicts including over Dagestan, Chechnya, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Abhkazia.

Back to top

Intensifying Antagonisms Between The U.S. And Europe

Another factor driving U.S. policies is economic competition with the European Union which is surfacing increasingly in spite of cooperation and commonality of interests on other levels. This is epitomized by: the recent banana trade wars in which the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled in favor of U.S. TNCs; the rivalry over such prizes as the oil riches of the Caspian sea basin and access to the labor, market and resources of Eastern Europe.

The U.S. has warned openly that it will not tolerate a purely European military alliance to take the place of NATO. The military might of the U.S. must prevail.

This was clearly spelled out in "The Defense Planning Guide," excerpted in the New York Times , which said, among other things: "We must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. ... we must [deter] potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role... We must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO."(40)

Nevertheless, on the very day that Yugoslavia adhered to the G-8 agreement, the leaders of 15 European countries announced the European Union will establish an independent military force.

Commerce up the Danube was disrupted by the bombing of bridges in Novi Sad which infuriated Europeans whose economies continue to be adversely affected. It was perceived as a manifestation of the intensifying economic rivalry between the U.S. and Europe.

Alarm bells should remind us that two world wars were ignited by such competition

At the same time, rivalry is tempered increasingly by the the corporate imperative to survive at all costs and to make maximum profits including through mergers and partnerships. Lockheed Martin, maker of missiles and high tech weaponry, has created Lockheed Martin UK Limited, based in London. Its largest UK operation is the Royal Navy Merlin helicopter program among many other military programs. In fact, Lockheed Martin has more than 200 international partnerships around the world. (41)

U.S. aerospace companies are determined not to be locked out of the lucrative profits to be had from the establishment of a separate European military alliance. This pressure has led to a shift in policy by the Pentagon. Mergers between U.S. and European defense contractors are being given the go-ahead. "U.S. Undersecretary for Defense Jacques Gansler has admitted being in talks not only with European Governments such as the UK, Germany, France and Italy but also with leading defense companies including British Aerospace (Bae), France's Aerospatiale Matra SA and Germany's Dasa," (42)

Back to top

Girdling The Globe With U.S.-Led Military Alliances

NATO expansion pertains to what Washington calls a "new strategic concept," an expensive new program to have NATO, under U.S. leadership, become the key player globally. This new blueprint for NATO not only sees it extending throughout Eastern and Baltic Europe, possibly taking in Russia itself, it goes considerably beyond this, as indicated by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his new book ("The Grand Chessboard"). He defines the alliance as part of an "integrated, comprehensive and long-term geostrategy for all of Eurasia," in which NATO would eventually reach Asia, where another U.S. led military alliance would connect Pacific and Southeast Asian states.

The unfolding events in Indonesia and East Timor appear to be closely related to plans for establishing a U.S.-controlled NATO-type military alliance in that region and to counter a purely Asian military association.

Back to top

"Control Of Space Means Control Of Earth"

The Pentagon is convinced that control of space means control of Earth. It is working non-stop to deploy anti-satellite weapons (ASAT's) to enable the U.S. to knock out competitors' "eyes in the sky," according to Bruce Gagnon, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. (43)

The Persian Gulf war convinced the U.S. military that "space dominance and space control" are essential. The war in Kosovo was used "to show the world that they have achieved their goal," says Gagnon. In a news release, June 17, 1999, the U.S. Space Command proclaimed: "Any questions about the role or effectiveness of the use of space for military operations have been answered by NATO's operation Allied Force." (44)

The recent go-ahead given by Congress for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) is integral to this strategy. Though BMD is touted as being "defensive," Col. Tom Clark, speaking at the 36th Space Congress at Cape Canaveral, Florida, said it is "obvious that dual use is clear", referring to the ability of lasers in space to fire either defensively or offensively. (45)

Russia and China are deeply concerned over this drive for space dominance and the flouting by the U.S. of the ABM and Outer Space Treaties. They have both called for the UN Conference on Disarmament (CD) to establish an ad hoc committee to negotiate a treaty for the "prevention of an arms race in outer space." The U.S. has consistently blocked this in the CD for two decades. Furthermore, the U.S. has been virtually the only member state of the UN to vote "no" time and again opposing UN General Assembly resolutions calling for preventing an arms race in outer space. (46)

Back to top

Becoming 'Irrational," "Vindictive" And Threatening Nuclear Attack

Nothing could describe U.S. military goals better than the British American Security Information Council's recently published, partially declassified, text of the U.S. Strategic Command's 1995 "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence:

"[T]he United States should have available the full range of responses, conventional weapons, special operations, and nuclear weapons. Unlike chemical or biological weapons, the extreme destruction from a nuclear explosion is immediate, with few if any palliatives to reduce its effect. Although we are not likely to use nuclear weapons in less than matters of the greatest national importance.. Nuclear weapons always cast a shadow over any crisis or conflict in which the U.S. is engaged. Thus, deterrence through the threat of use of nuclear weapons will continue to be our top military strategy...

"That the U.S. may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be a part of the national persona we project to all adversaries..." [emphasis added] (47)

Back to top

Why The Balkans?

How do the Balkans figure in all this? The peoples of this strategically situated region have had the great misfortune of living on real estate coveted by empire after empire, all of which employed classic divide and conquer tactics by pitting one people against another. Not much has changed!

Today, there is determination that the free market and privatization must prevail. Yugoslavia committed the unpardonable sin of putting the brakes on market reforms imposed by the IMF and World Bank including the drive to privatize all public enterprises. Huge strikes by the workers had protested the reforms. President Borisav Jovic who headed the government in 1990-1991 opposed those austerity measures because of the economic havoc they were causing the people. Among others, Slobodan Milosevic, who was president of the Republic of Serbia at the time, backed him in that stance.

Numerous articles in the mainstream press have unveiled this real complaint against Milosevic. The New York Times, for example, says, "there has been little improvement in the Serbian economy, largely because of the determination of Mr. Milosevic, a former Communist, to keep state controls and his refusal to allow privatization."(48) The Christian Science Monitor put it this way: "Milosevic is harking back to the political control promised by that old Communist star on this presidency building...[he] is revoking some privatization and free market measures." (49)

In response to this "stubbornness" by Yugoslavia, the U.S. Congress, on November 5, 1990, passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. That law abruptly cut off all aid, credits and loans from the U.S. to Yugoslavia, further demolishing the economy. It also demanded separate elections in each of the six republics making up Yugoslavia and said only those forces defined as "democratic" would receive funding from the U.S. At the time this law was passed theCIA issued an unusual public report described in the New York Times in which it "predicted that the federated Yugoslavia will break apart most probably in the next 18 months and that civil war is highly likely." The article spoke of the expected impact of cutting all funds to the government as the basis of impending civil war. (50) This was one year before it actually happened and before there were any indications in the press of the impending trouble. Coupled with the increasing economic suffering of the people, this law fueled ethnic strife by providing backing for right-wing and nationalist elements. In this way, the full onslaught for the dismantling of Yugoslavia was launched.

Back to top

The Allure Of Rich Resources And Cheap Labor

The determination by the U.S and NATO, at all costs, to occupy Kosovo and virtually all of Yugoslavia, is spurred on by the enticement of abundant natural resources. Kosovo alone has the richest mineral resources in all of Europe west of Russia. The New York Times observed that "the sprawling state-owned Trepca mining complex, the most valuable piece of real estate in the Balkans, is worth at least $5 billion." producing gold, silver, pure lead, zinc, cadmium, as well as tens of millions of dollars in profits annually. (51)"Kosovo also possesses 17 billion tons of coal reserves and Kosovo ( like Serbia and Albania) also has oil reserves. (52)

"A number of unofficial partition plans have been drawn up for Kosovo all raising the question of who would control an important northern mining region," the New York Times revealed. (53) Trepca was also a "glittering prize" taken over by Hitler to fuel the Nazi war machine during WWII.

Serbia as a whole is rich in minerals and oil including in Vojvodina, the northern part of the FRY. That coveted area of Vojvodina is also extremely fertile land-a major "breadbasket" for Europe. Then there is the allure of enterprises to be privatized at bargain prices, and the anticipation of exploiting very cheap and highly skilled labor potentially available to work in sweatshop conditions.

Chapter 4 of the outrageous 85-page Rambouillet "agreement" deals with plans for the economic assets of Kosovo. Article 1 calls for the privatization of the whole economy. (54) This meant that private Western corporations would have been allowed to easily plunder the large industries in this Serbian province which are almost entirely state-owned.

Similarly, a major aspect of the implementation of the Dayton Accords on Bosnia is overseeing the publicly owned enterprises and their privatization. (55)

Perhaps most significantly, Yugoslavia has strong elements of a socialist economy -the last in Europe— however tattered it may have become by years of economic destabilization by the West and international financial institutions. Sixty-five percent of all firms are either state-owned or self-managed cooperatives. Most heavy industry is state-owned. Factories bombed during the 79 days of NATO attacks were exclusively state-owned. The banking and financial system is also state-controlled. Only 20 percent of the workforce is in the private sector. (56) Yet like scores of nations around the globe, Yugoslavia fell prey to the international financial institutions.

The U.S. had joined Belgrade's other international creditors in imposing a first round of macroeconomic reforms in 1980, shortly before the death of Marshal Tito. "Successive IMF-sponsored programs since then continued the disintegration of the industrial sector and the piecemeal dismantling of the Yugoslav welfare state. Debt restructuring agreements increased foreign debt and mandated currency devaluation also hit hard at Yugoslavia's standard of living...[the] IMF prescribed further doses of its bitter economic medicine periodically...Industrial production declined to a negative 10 percent growth rate in 1990- with all its predictable social consequences,." (57)

In autumn of 1989, Yugoslavia agreed to even more sweeping economic reforms, including a new devalued currency, another wage freeze, sharp cuts in government spending and the elimination of socially-owned worker-managed companies. (58)

Workers from all national communities protested and the government began to reject these structural adjustment requirements. In later years, as President of the FRY, Slobodan Milosevic again moved away from privatization. This, of course, outraged the U.S. and its partners.

On top of all of this, harsh economic sanctions were then imposed against Yugoslavia.

The targeting of the Yugoslav economy can be traced back to a 'Secret Sensitive" 1984 National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 133), United States Policy toward Yugoslavia."). A censored version declassified in 1990 largely elaborated on NSDD 54 on East Europe issued in 1982. The latter advocated "expanded efforts to promote a 'quiet revolution' to overthrow Communist governments and parties" while reintegrating the countries of Eastern Europe into a market-oriented economy.(59)

Back to top

Is Montenegro Next?

Even though a referendum in Montenegro had rejected seceding from Yugoslavia, there continue to be very strong efforts to tear Montenegro away from the FRY. Montenegro, under U.S.-supported leadership has privatized 95% percent of its economy, unlike Serbia. In 1992, Montenegro received a pledge from Secretary of State Madeline Albright to "shield" it from the sanctions (imposed seven years ago on Yugoslavia). Montenegro was receiving $5.9 million in aid from the U.S. and $4.4 million from the European Union. (60)

Montenegro is a coveted prize also because of its extremely valuable port of Bar -a deep water port which provides the cheapest route for commerce in and out of Eastern Europe and beyond. (Lituchy) Its beautiful seacoast is a haven for tourists.

In the coming months, there are sure to be further efforts to dismantle Yugoslavia by peeling away Montenegro and Sandjak, (a region connecting Kosovo to Bosnia-Herzegovina ) as well as the Northern province of Vojvodina.

Those machinations are already well underway. Talks began in mid- July between delegations from the two republics-Montenegro and Serbia. "Montenegro's pro-Western government hopes the talks might lead to Yugoslavia becoming a looser federation," says an Associated Press dispatch, "The threat of a split puts pressure on Serb officials to consider ousting Milosevic. .. Serb-born American millionaire, Milan Panic, who served [briefly] as federal premier...told Belgrade daily Blic that, if Milosevic remains in power, 'everything has been prepared for Montenegro to secede.'" (61)

Back to top

Sanctions: War Against The People

Yugoslavia has been suffering under severe sanctions for seven years and now, as it tries to recover from the vast destruction of the country, there promises to be no let up in those sanctions.

Senate Bill 1234,(and its counterpart in the House HR 2606) not only declared Yugoslavia a "terrorist state" along with Cuba, Iraq, Libya ,North Korea, Iran, Sudan an Syria. In Section 578 it called for keeping in place sanctions against Yugoslavia. (62) As has happened in Iraq, this will likely result in the deaths of additional thousands of people in a nation where, 90 percent are unemployed due to the U.S/NATO bombing and where the infrastructure has been demolished.

This section stipulates that sanctions will remain in place, until the President certifies that "... successor states to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [the former Yugoslavia] have successfully negotiated the division of assets and liabilities and all other succession issues... Serbia-Montenegro is fully complying with its obligations as a signatory to the... [Dayton Accords];...fully cooperating with and providing unrestricted access to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, including surrendering persons indicted for war crimes who are within the jurisdiction of the territory of Serbia-Montenegro, and with the investigations...of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Kosova [sic]:...instituting democratic reforms; and Serbian-Montenegrin federal governmental officials, and representatives of the ethnic Albanian community in Kosova [sic] have agreed on, signed and begun implementation of a negotiated settlement on the future of Kosova [sic]." (63)

Back to top

The Lucrative Business Of Destroying And Rebuilding

Another goal is to create a "Marshall Plan" for the Balkans. Though this sounds benevolent—and certainly reconstruction is desperately needed—it means using public funds to underwrite the profits of corporations to rebuild the infrastructure and entrench themselves in Yugoslavia. This amounts to corporate welfare paid for by the workers. It also provides easy access into the region for Western corporations and gives impetus to the establishment of a "free" market economy and massive privatization. Destroying and rebuilding is enormously lucrative!

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told Congress in mid-April that the Clinton administration envisioned a plan to reconstruct Kosovo, create a common Balkan currency and forge new trade relationships. She assured Congress that Europeans were prepared to pay for most of it. Subsequently, NATO finance ministers met with the World Bank and IMF to "explore aggressive ways for us to help," in Clinton's words. Later a conference was held in Bonn to plan for ways to come up with the billions needed for reconstruction of the Balkans. (64)

Other countries have been hard hit by the NATO war against Yugoslavia. They too will need "rebuilding." The bulk of commerce for Bulgaria, Macedonia and Romania went either to or through Yugoslavia. This was substantially destroyed by the NATO attack. The World Bank and IMF issued a report in April which said that over five percent of the gross domestic product will be wiped out for the Balkans this year plunging their economies into recession and unemployment.(65)

Debt-ridden and impoverished Albania and Macedonia both of which gave NATO free-rein to use their territories, and to a lesser extent, Bosnia-Herzogovina, Croatia and Slovenia will need to be "rejuvenated," as well.

The U.S. dominated South East European Cooperative Initiative (SECI), in which Milosevic refuses to participate, has been very active in this picture.

Though U.S. officials insist there will be no aid to Serbia so long as Milosevic is in power, Montenegro will receive such "assistance." There have also been promises of aid made to Mayors and city councils of some cities if they oppose the Milosevic government.

Basically, Serbia is now susceptible to the whetted appetites of the TNCs who are eager to invest and rebuild on their own terms.

Special task forces have been set up in Britain, Germany and France made up of companies who want to go after reconstruction contracts. There is considerable hustle and bustle by these companies as they seek to avoid being outdone by competitors in the U.S. and other countries. The U.S. Undersecretary for Trade, David Aaron announced on June 15 that the U.S. is demanding a share of the Kosovo contracts, saying 100 companies want to participate. (66)

Back to top

Above All Its About Oil!

Perhaps above all, this U.S.-led NATO onslaught is about oil. It is related to the drive to extend and protect the investments of the transnational corporations in the Caspian Sea region, especially the oil corporations.

The Balkans are strategic for the transshipment of oil and gas to Europe and beyond. They are critical in the competition between Europe and the U.S. over these riches. Time is of the essence. The first tanker shipment from the port of Supsa in Georgia on the eastern Black sea coast — the terminus of a pipeline from the Caspian sea oil fields—took place recently. Another pipeline passing through Russia and Chechnya, also ending at the eastern shore of the Black Sea at Novorossiisk, will add to the tanker traffic.

The predicament is how to get that oil beyond the Black Sea. The Bosporus straits, at Istanbul, are narrow and pose considerable hazards, especially for the tremendously heavy tanker traffic expected. And so far plans to build a pipeline through Turkey (Kurdistan) are thwarted by the struggles of the Kurds and by competing interests. Hopes for a pipeline through Iran are also on hold. Though preferred for several reasons, those routes would not provide the best access to Europe and the Western Hemisphere. The oil can be shipped by tanker up the Danube River, a waterway crossing Europe from the Black Sea where a short canal connects it to the port of Constanza in Romania. The Danube runs through Belgrade and Novi Sad in Yugoslavia. The recent completion of a grand canal— about the time the turmoil started in the former Yugoslavia— between the Danube and Rhine Rivers now makes it possible to ply those waters through a great inland system of canals and waterways to the industrial Ruhr Valley and clear to the North Sea. Undoubtedly this route is favored by the Europeans in the competition over the Caspian Sea treasure chest.

Back to top

Pipelines Across The Balkans

There are also plans to build pipelines across the Balkans. One from Romania— which, incidentally, has considerable oil wealth itself-would extend from Constanza to Trieste on the Adriatic Sea. At Trieste the oil would be piped northward or shipped westward out of Europe by tanker.(67)

There are also plans for a pipeline through Bulgaria from the port of Bourgas on the Black Sea, to the Vlore port on the Adriatic in Albania. This is a project of the U.S.-owned Albanian, Macedonian and Bulgarian Oil Corporation (AMBO) (68)

These would be part of a multiple pipeline system in the Balkans some connecting

with existing "Soviet-era" pipelines from Russia that would need upgrading. But these oil and gas pipelines extending through Serbia from Russia to Central Europe are extremely valuable. (69)

In the competition with European- based companies, the U.S. backs the Caspian Pipeline consortium led by Mobil. (70)

Also, Kosovo is in a corridor used for centuries, including during the Crusades, as a route between Europe and the Middle East. The route follows river valleys connecting with the Danube River Valley near Belgrade. The southern arm of the transbalkan railway runs along these valleys. Control of this overland passageway was critical to the German fascist war machine in World War II, and to other conquerors. It remains vital to getting the oil riches into Europe from the Middle East and for other two-way commerce.

Neighboring Albania, whose economy has been completely transformed to the "free-market" and domination by western transnational corporations and banks, has vast untapped mineral resources including oil reserves. These are already being gobbled up by transnationals including the major oil companies. (71)

The application of strong structural adjustment policies imposed by the World Bank and IMF "had contributed to wrecking Albania's banking system and precipitating the collapse of the Albanian economy, says Chossudovsky. The resulting chaos enabled American and European transnationals to carefully position themselves. Several Western oil companies including Occidental, Shell and British Petroleum had their eyes riveted on Albania's abundant and unexplored oil-deposits. Western investors were also gawking Albania's extensive reserves of chrome, copper, gold, nickel and platinum.. The Adenauer Foundation had been lobbying in the background on behalf of German mining interests." (72)

So this entire region is broiling with activities over the profits to be had particularly from oil.

Back to top

Stoking Conflict In The Caucuses /Caspian Sea Region

There is a growing contention between Russia and the West over the oil wealth of the Caspian Sea basin. This was manifested not only in the NATO war against Yugoslavia, but also increasingly in the Baltics, the Ukraine, the region of the Caucuses Mountains and among all the littoral nations of the Caspian Sea. The main pipelines for the Central Asian oil, the Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline and the Baku-Supsa pipeline, pass through the Caucasus. In the mounting disputes, Russia allies itself with Armenia and, it is suspected, with the Abkhaz separatists to "counterbalance NATO influence in Azerbaijan and Georgia". Chechnya and Dagestan are also critical in this struggle as the Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline passes through its territory.(73) That pipeline also passes through Dagestan which is located between Chechnya and the Caspian Sea and where conflict has exploded recently between secessionists and Russia.

"For Russia, Dagestan retains an important strategic value. Dagestan commands 70 percent of Russia's shoreline to the oil-producing Caspian Sea and its only all-weather Caspian port at Makhachkala. It provides the crucial pipeline links from Azerbaijan, where Russia maintains important oil interests..." (74)

The recently opened Baku-Supsa route through Georgia, favored by the West, by-passes Russia altogether,"undermining Russian influence on the region's oil and Russian revenue from that oil. This route was opened following military maneuvers for training to defend the line by Ukrainian, Georgian and Azeri troops, as part of the GUUAM alliance.

Intensifying competition between Russia and NATO has escalated after a battle with heavy losses, June 14, between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. (75)

Another pipeline route favored by the U.S. is between Baku and Ceyhan passing through Turkey. However this is more expensive and transverses the area of intense struggles by the Kurdish people. This is leading the U.S. oil companies to revive their interest in other routes. One of these is through western Afghanistan, the other, south through Iran. (76)

Richard Morningstar, special advisor to the U.S. President and Secretary of State for Caspian Issues, said it was essential that the two Caspian states—Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan—

agree as soon as possible about a transcaspian gas pipeline to transport oil from Turkmenistan to Turkey via the Caspian Sea. Washington has urged them to ignore Russian and Iranian hostility and move ahead with this pipeline even if it means violating the existing legal status of the Caspian Sea in which all the littoral states are to be consulted about its future. Russia and Iran " feel increasingly irritated by the U.S. activities in Central Asia, aimed at preventing Moscow and Teheran from reasserting their economic and political grip over the former Soviet republics in the Caspian region," according to a Stratfor article. (77)

Also at stake in this region is the growing competition from China which recently has established significant military and economic ties with Turkmenistan. China's National Petroleum Company has helped rebuild over100 wells in Turkmenistan resulting in an increase in the nation's export production. It is estimated that Turkmenistan soon will be the third largest gas exporter in the world. (78)

China, the second largest energy consumer in the world, is expected to require 40 percent of its oil through imports by 2010 up from less than 20 percent today. (79).

According to a report in the Journal of Commerce, June 25, 1998, by Michael S. Lellyveld, entitled, Trade bill embroils Senate in the Caucasus' problems; Measure would authorize fund to all 8 former Soviet republics:

"A bitter ethnic battle in the Caucasus spilled over into Congress this week as U.S. corporate and oil interests won a key vote on aid to the region in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

"The panel approved the Silk Road Strategy Act...[which] would 'target assistance to support the economic and political independence of the countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia.' But behind the measure's bland title is a widening web of international and U.S. business alliances with stakes in the outcome of a 10-year old war..."(80)

So once again oil interests lead to interventions predicated on "national liberation" or "human rights concerns."

Back to top

Stirring Things Up In East Asia

Steps are well underway for new relations with Southeast Asia in which the U.S. is acquiring access to military bases in Asian countries in exchange for financial help to buy U.S. arms. The Pentagon's East Asian Strategy Report defines this program as offering the United States "a credible power projection capability in the region and beyond."

Dr. Joseph Gerson, Program Director at the New England Region of the American Friends Service Committee, puts it succinctly: "In the Asia-Pacific region, the U.S. is enforcing its 21st century "Open Door" policy by means of the IMF, the World Bank, APEC, bases and forward deployments, the Seventh Fleet and its nuclear arsenal; as it seeks to simultaneously contain and engage China, to dominate the sea lanes and straits through which the region's trade and supplies of oil must travel (the 'jugular vein' of Asia Pacific economies), and to 'cap' Japanese militarism and nationalism.

"Since 1951, the hub of this strategic architecture has been the Mutual Security Treaty (MST) with Japan. During the Clinton years, the MST has been 'redefined' to reconsolidate U.S., and to a lesser extent, Japanese power. (81)

A "US -Japan Joint Declaration on Security Alliance for the 21st Century" proclaimed at the Summit between President Clinton and Japanese Prime Minister Hashimoto, cited "the alliance's, new enemies and public rationales: tensions and instability on the Korean Peninsula, China's nuclear arsenal, and territorial disputes with China."

The regular gigantic "war games" conducted in the Korean region by the U.S., and South Korea, have been stepped substantially up in the recent period.

Echoing the Gulf of Tonkin provocation used to justify U.S. intervention in Vietnam, South Korean warships sank a North Korean boat and badly damaged another allegedly over a dispute about a crab-fishing area of the Yellow Sea. (82)

Plans for U.S. deployment of Theater Missile Defenses (TMDs) around China, sensationalized and unproven allegations of Chinese nuclear spying, claims of Chinese nuclear parity with the U.S., the blocking of China's entry to the WTO; the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, and recent independence moves by Taiwan encouraged by U.S. Congress members, place the world on the brink of a U.S.-orchestrated confrontation with that nation. Taiwan is "the most likely trigger for U.S.-Chinese nuclear confrontation and war," according to Gerson.(83)

A backdrop to these developing tensions is the Taiwan Relations Act which closely links the U.S. and Taiwan economically and militarily. (84)

With the bombing of Yugoslavia barely over and with continuing and escalating air strikes against Iraq, the U.S. appears to be moving rapidly toward such a confrontation with China over Taiwan. In mid-July, Taiwan's President, Lee Teng-hui, announced the island wants "special state-to-state relations" with China, meaning a rejection of the "one China" policy that has kept the peace for many years. This led Chinese President Jiang Zemin to tell President Clinton, July 18, that China would not rule out using force regarding Taiwan.(85)

Washington is regaining even greater access to ports and bases throughout the Phillippines under the "Visiting Forces Agreement." Considerable attention is also being focused on Indonesia, to prevent the U.S. loss of access to its natural resources, markets and its control of the strategically important shipping lanes. (86)

Back to top

A Military Nafta

The Americas are not to escape this buildup of U.S.-controlled military alliances. The U.S. Army War College has urged a "NAFTA for the military "with joint command between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. (87)

Also, there is every likelihood of an imminent, all-out U.S. military intervention in Columbia on the pretext of drug interdiction. The people of Columbia could well be the next victims of U.S. military attack.

Back to top

Globalization Onslaught Of Tncs

This information age of high technology communications and transportation is catapulting globalization forward at warp speed. A borderless world is increasingly attractive to profit-driven corporations seeking to extend their tentacles without impediment into every conceivable niche on Planet Earth. Indeed the pundits of the "new world order" speak openly now about the demise of national sovereignty as necessary and inevitable to permit capital to flow anywhere free of restrictions. The U.S./NATO destruction of Yugoslavia established the desired precedent for military attack, cloaked in a democracy and human rights disguise, against any sovereign country that might have the temerity to stand up to the encroachment of the TNCs.

But in this brave new corporate world all will not be well. The multitudes will suffer increasingly. Already, there are 1.5 billion people living on less than $1 per day and 1 billion are unemployed or under-employed (ILO ). (88) "Thirty percent of the world economy is now in recession, according to the Trade Union Advisory Committee (TUAC), made up of 55 European union federations. (89) "Only the United States has a buoyant economy." the TUAC statement said.

In the U.S., too, one must ask: "economic boom for whom?" Child poverty in the U.S. remains the highest for any industrialized country. That figure stands at 22 percent in 1997 or 5.2 million children living below the poverty line including 2.5 million who were "extremely poor," living below half the poverty line. (90)

More than one million children in America are homeless. "Some 40 percent of America's homeless are now women and their children-the fastest growing homeless group." (91)

The structural adjustment policies of the IMF and World Bank and the accelerating brutal economic globalization and privatization drive by the transnational corporations are creating divisive conflicts and assaults upon the living standards of hundreds of millions on our planet. In the process, national sovereignty, democratic and genuine human rights are being trampled on in scores of countries.

This great momentum toward destroying sovereignty and democratic rights is beginning to impact the people of the U.S. Laws protecting workers, consumers and the environment increasingly are being rendered null and void by NAFTA and other international agreements.

At the same time, the megacorps depend on the sovereign muscle of the major industrial powers who increasingly are headed toward direct confrontation with each other. Above all, these megacorps rely on the might, including military might of the United States to act in their behalf around the world. Business Week's listing of the world's 1,000 largest corporations shows that half of them are American. The market value of the U.S. corporations on the list, totaling $ll.3 trillion is more than double the total value of the next four countries' corporations combined: Britain, Germany, Japan and France," according to economist Victor Perlo. "Where U.S. armed forces penetrate and establish bases, American corporations, protected by the military, follow," says Perlo. (92)

"The technological superiority of the U.S. megacorps is also related to the vast resources [largely from the taxpayers] devoted to the development of new U.S. weapons, and the exclusive availability of the relevant discoveries to U.S. corporations.

"Equally important, U.S. megacorps realize a much higher rate of exploitation of labor than the domestic British, German, Japanese and French companies. American workers toil longer hours, have shorter vacations, lower pensions, less unemployment insurance and other social benefits of all kinds. The decisive factor here is the much smaller proportion of U.S. workers organized into trade unions, and the relative weakness of U.S. trade unions. ..." says Perlo. (93)

Back to top

Corporations Seek To Rule The World

It is highly likely that the economic globalization onslaught will be propelled forward exponentially at the meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle at the end of November."Europe, the U.S. and the WTO are devising agreements that will remove the final obstacles to the free play of 'market forces' and require countries to submit to the unfettered expansion of the multinationals. Learning from the failure of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), big business and technocrats are trying to force through a decision before the end of 1999," according to Christian de Brie writing in Le Monde Diplomatique. The MAI had been "stopped" in the OECD. Again, as in the case of the MAI, secret talks have been taking place on a MAI clone—this time by the Transatlantic Economic Partnership (TEP) and the Millennium Round of the WTO. The first of these meetings, which opened on September 16, 1998, dealt with "the favorite project of the British and Americans-seeing the European Union dissolved in a free trade area with the United States." says de Brie. The article points out that:

"On the pretext of removing 'technical barriers to trade,'which include health, social and environmental protection regulations, the ultimate aim is to 'reach a general commitment to unconditional access to the market in all sectors and for all methods of supply' of products and services, including health, education and public contracts. ...states and local authorities are required to make 'all derogations explicit in the form of 'a negative freedom that the agreements negotiated apply to all the territory of the parties, regardless of their constitutional structures, at all levels of authority. ...

[T]alks proceed behind closed doors, using ..tactics to avoid alerting public opinion, so everything can be sewn up by December 1999. Industrial goods, services, public contracts, intellectual property, etc. - in a dozen fields, slice by slice, 'mutual recognition agreements (MRAs)' ...seek to reduce standards and regulations to the lowest common denominator. The outcome is that the safeguards that Europe has built up, in food, the environment and health in particular are being dismantled.

"Once agreement has been reached, governments will be obliged to abolish any laws that conflict with the MRAs....the TEP follows the same aims as the MAI - to hand over all human activities to capital, without let or hindrance, thereby stripping the EU, member governments and local authorities of their ability to pursue their own policies....

"But the document...has another aim: to establish a US-EU condominium capable of imposing its will on the rest of the world, and in particular the countries of the South in the [WTO] talks....The war being prosecuted, with the support of their governments, by the transnational corporations on both sides of the Atlantic for the conquest and domination of world markets is becoming increasingly brutal and has no regard for laws. Witness America's ...Helms-Burton and D'AMATO-Gilman acts that are contrary to international law; the banana war lost by the EU....the disputes over hormone-contaminated meat and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that contravene health regulations....

"[T]here seems to be nothing to prevent the transnational corporations taking possession of the planet and subjecting humanity to the dictatorship of capital....

"In order to crush any thought of organized resistance to the supporters of the new world order, tremendous police and military forces are being used to establish a doctrine of repression..." (94)

The provisions of the MAI are finding there way into many agreements, such as the "African Growth and Opportunity Act"-the NAFTA for Africa bill recently passed by Congress. Even NAFTA, though purporting to deal only with trade issues, has a section on investments which is now being evoked in a suit by Canada, (on behalf of a corporation) challenging recently- adopted California environmental legislation banning the gasoline additive MTBE. If the suit prevails, California will have to abolish the law or pay large penalties.

The original draft of the MAI and its clones are written to have a dual effect: threatening social programs, while protecting and enhancing military spending and arms trade. (95) The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), also exempts military spending from its proscriptions against government subsidies. This gives U.S. corporations a great advantage over other countries because of the trillions already being spent on the Pentagon. In fact, the high tech industry got a its start and continues to benefit from the research conducted by the military with taxpayer dollars.

So while the MAI- and now its clones— would threaten nearly every public sector of national economies such as health care, education and culture, government spending for the military, weapons, development and production and direct support for weapons corporations are excluded from the liberalizing demands of such an agreement. (96) This will give free rein for the Pentagon to continue to abscond with the tax dollars of U.S. workers.

The purpose of MAI-type agreements is to remove virtually all barriers to investment by corporations. Foreign investors would be required to be treated the same as domestic investors. Governments would be denied much of their power to intervene in the economy to promote social goals. (97) Thus, not only national sovereignty but also the democratic rights of the people would be usurped.

NAFTA mechanisms, as well as the WTO, IMF and World Bank are totally undemocratic, with no access by the people. They are run by the nations with the greatest wealth, the U.S. in the first place— with the corporations and banks pulling the strings.

Back to top

The Fightback

The fightback against war and the corporate globalization offensive and its manifestations at home is needed today, more than ever in history, as events move at astounding speed. Such a movement is bound to grow every day. Multitudes of the world's poor and working people are resisting in rapidly growing numbers. In the process they are coming to understand the commonality of interests they share with all those victimized by the corporations and the policies of the U.S. and other powerful governments—the U.S. sword and dollar marching hand in glove— in the brutal, relentless drive for ever-higher profits. Nothing is more important than to quicken the pace and strengthen the unity to resist this imperialist onslaught toward global corporate rule.

Back to top

Footnotes

1. "Clinton Says NATO is ready to fight repression in Europe, Africa," Agence France Presse, June 22, 1999.

2. "Aid Bill Listing Yugoslavia as Terrorist Passes," Tim Weiner, New York Times, July 1, 1999.

The Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2000 passed on June 30, 1999, with only 2 dissenting votes. This foreign aid bill not only designates Yugoslavia as a terrorist state, a function typically left to the State Department, it also bars U.S. aid to Yugoslavia and permits Kosovars [sic] to sue President Slobodan Milosevic for damages in U.S. Courts. It includes $20 million for training and equipping a Kosovo security force that its authors say would include members of the Kosovo Liberation Army. The bill includes $150 million in aid to Kosovo, $85 million for Macedonia, $45 million for Bulgaria and $35 million for Montenegro.

3. San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 1999.

4. The Nation, 7/28-8/4,1997 and San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 1999.

5. "Secret U.S. Training Approved for KLA Troops," By Paul Beaver, The Scotsman, April,5 1999.

6. "Clinton to Bomb Again," By Rick Rowden, San Francisco Chronicle, March 24, 1999.

7. "Red-Cross reports economic disaster in Yugoslavia," by Mike Head and Michael Conachy, World Socialist Web Site, July 22, 1999.

8. "Aid Bill Listing Yugoslavia as Terrorist Passes ," by Tim Weiner, New York Times, July 1, 1999.

9. "Kosovo Links with Belgrade 'Severed,' " by Eve-Ann Prentice, Sunday Times, July 5, 1999.

10. AP article by Tom Cohen, August 3, 1999.

11. "Red-Cross reports economic disaster in Yugoslavia," by Mike Head and Michael Conachy, World Socialist Web Site, July 22, 1999.

12. San Francisco Chronicle, June 28, 1999.

13. Los Angeles Times, June 14, 1999.

14. "Guerillas Take Charge in Kosovo," by Chris Hedges, New York Times, and San Francisco Chronicle, July 29, 1999.

15. What I Learned from the War, by Dennis J. Kucinich, Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

16. Chris Hedges, New York Times, June 25.

17. Foreign Affairs, May/June, 1999.

18. "NATO's War Against Yugoslavia-An Overview," by Michel Chossudovsky, June 1999.

19. Marjorie Miller, Los Angeles Times, June 17.

20. Website of LeMonde Diplomatique

21. "Continuation on 15 March in France," Serbia in the World, February, 1999.

22. The formulation in the UN Security Council resolution on Kosovo could be interpreted as embracing this wording.

Point 11-e of that resolution reads: "facilitating a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status, taking full account of the Rambouillet Accords"— S/1999/648.

23. "What the World Needs Now", by Thomas Friedman, New York Times, March 28,1999.

24. "The Case Against Intervention in Kosovo", by Benjamin Schwarz and Christopher Layne, The Nation, April 19, 1999.

25. Associated Press dispatch reporting on Defense Secretary William Cohen's Seattle appearance, February 18, 1999.

26. New York Times , December 27, 1997.

27. National Endowment for Democracy (NED) Press Release, March 5, 1999, NED web site.

28. "Pentagon Misused Millions in Funds, House Panel Says," by Tom Weiner, New York Times, July 22, 1999.

29. "Military Industrial Complex Revisited,"by William Hartung, The Progressive Response, July 2, 1999.

30. USA Today, April 15, 1999.

31. "Balkan War to Bolster Defense Firms' Sales," San Francisco Chronicle, June 9, 1999.

32. "Disarmament: UN Calls for New Partnership with Arms Industry," Inter Press Service, July 9, 1999,

33. U.S. Department of Defense, May 26, 1999, and New York Stock Exchange daily data, 1999.

34. Ibid.

35. "Count Corporate America Among NATO's Staunchest Allies," by Tim Smart, Washington Post page E1, April 13, 1999.

36. "Ukraine, U.S. To Hold Navy Exercise This Month", Reuters, July 18, 1999.

37. "Russia Flexes Muscles in Caucasus," Global Intelligence Updates, Stratfor, June 21, 1999.

38. "Conflict Threatens Caucasus Pipelines," Global Intelligence Updates, Stratfor, June 14, 1999.

39. Ibid.

40. New York Times , March 8, 1992.

41. "Lockheed Martin creates new UK company," International Network on Disarmament and Globalization, July 1, 1999, sstaples@canadians.org.

42. "Pentagon sees US-European defense company mergers as inevitable", International Network on Disarmament and Globalization, July 8, 1999, sstaples@canadians.org.

43. Global Network Space UpDates Newsletter #6, July 17, 1999., posted on Abolition 2000 network- abolition caucus@igc.org.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid.

46. The United Nations: Who Supports, Who Opposes Disarmament?, by Karen Talbot, WPC Information Center.

47. "Essentials of Post-Cold War Deterrence," British American Security Information Council, a partially declassified text of the U.S. Strategic Commands 1995.

48. New York Times ,July 18, 1996.

49. Christian Science Monitor, June 6, 1996.

50. New York Times, November 28, 1990.

51. New York Times,

52. "American Barbarism and the Big Lie Technique Are the Winners in Kosovo," by Barry Lituchy, June 1999 Posted on Prime.

53. "The Prize: Issue of Who Controls Kosovo's Rich Mines,"New York Times, June 2, 1999.

54. The Rambouillet Agreement, page 45, posted on web site of Le Monde Diplomatique.

55. Gennady Shabonnikov, Deputy in the Office of the High Representative in Brcko (Bosnia) in an interview with the author, December 29, 1998.

56. Op. cit. , n. 52.

57. "Dismantling Yugoslavia, Colonizing Bosnia," by Michel Chossudovsky, Department of Economics University of Ottawa, Covert Action Quarterly, No. 56, Spring 1996.

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid.

60. Reuters, April 22, 1998 and Agence France-Presse, August 17, 1998.

61. Associated Press dispatch, July 17, 1999.

62. Op.cit., n. 2.

63. Ibid.

64. "Destroying the Balkans to save it," by Sid Balman, Jr.,UPI, April 25,1999.

65. "Economic Consequences of the Kosovo Crisis", World Bank and IMF report, April, 1999.

66. "NATO members squabble over war profits," by William Pomeroy, Peoples Weekly World, July 3, 1999.

67. U.S. Energy Information Administration, December, 1998.

68. Ibid.

69. Op. cit. n. 51

70. Joint U.S.-EU Statement-6th Annual Summit

71. "Kosovo 'Freedom Fighters' Financed by Organized Crime," by Michel Chossudovsky.

72. Ibid.

73. "Conflict Threatens Caucasus Pipelines," by Global Intelligence Updates,, Stratfor, June 14, 1999.

74. "Dagestan Skirmish is big Russian Risk,"by Carlotta Gall, New York Times, August 13, 1999.

75. Op. cit. n.73.

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid.

78. Global Intelligence Updates, Stratfor, September 17, 1999.

79. "Beijing anxious to ensure oil supplies are more secure",by James Kynge, Financial Times, May 6, 1999.

80. "Trade bill embroils Senate in the Caucasus' problems; Measure would authorize fund to all 8 former Soviet republics," by Michael S. Lellyveld,Journal of Commerce, June 25, 1998.

81. "U.S. Asia-Pacific Hegemony and Possibilities of Popular Solidarity," delivered at a conference in Seoul, South Korea, June 26-27, 1999-Fresh Look: Re-examining the role and impact of US bases in Asia-Pacific— by Dr. Joseph Gerson, Director of Programs at the New England Region of the American Friends Service Committee, 1651 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge Mass. 02140.

82. "South Korea Sinks North's Torpedo Boat," by Paul Shin, San Francisco Chronicle, p1, June 15, 1999.

83. Opcit. n. 8.

84. "Taiwan's Defiant Stand Challenges 'Clinton Doctrine,'" James Gregor, San Francisco Chronicle, July 26, 1999.

85. "Chinese Leader Talks Tough on Taiwan," John Pomfret, Washington Post, July 19.

86. Op. cit. n. 81.

87. "NAFTA for the Military Proposed," by Linda Diebel, Toronto Star, July 23, 1999.

88. Human Development Report-1999, United Nations Development Program.

89. The TUAC is an advisory committee to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

90. Columbia University's Center for Children in Poverty report, as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, June 18, 1999.

91. "The New Face of Homelessness is Youthful", San Francisco Chronicle, p A10, July 1, 1999.

92. "On Globalization," by Victory Perlo, People's Weekly World, July 10, 1999.

93. Ibid.

94. "Transatlantic Wheeling and Dealing- Watch out for MAI Mark Two," by Christian de Brie, Le Monde Diplomatique, May 1999.

95. "Protecting War, Militarism and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment," by Steven Staples, former Coordinator of End the Arms Race, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

96. Ibid.

97. Ibid.

*************************************