Yugoslavia Revisited (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:42:44
From: Mitchel Cohen <mitchelcohen@mindspring.com>
To: red-green@onelist.com
Subject: Yugoslavia Revisited

In the early part of 1999, Green parties across the world (with the notable
exceptions of Germany and France) played important roles in mobilizing
against NATO's bombardment of Yugoslavia. Here in the U.S. we helped
mobilize thousands to anti-war rallies and were in the forefront of the
debates that raged -- first, to get the truth out about the enormous
ecological and human devastation that the bombardment was causing; second,
in exposing the lies, lie after lie after lie, that the Clinton/Gore
administration was espousing to power forward this "war"; third, in
exposing the devastating new weapons NATO put on display there; and fourth,
in interpreting the political agenda and hidden motives underlying the New
World Order.

Every rationale given for that bombardment has been exposed for what it was
-- mind-numbing jingoistic propaganda. As I and others had predicted months
and months ago, even the "mass graves" -- originally said to contain
upwards of 200,000 bodies, a few months ago downgraded to "under 10,000"
bodies,  and now said to contain "under 2,000 bodies" (around 400 bodies
total have been found buried in the largest of the so-called "mass graves"
-- and these include cemeteries) -- turn out to be utter lies. Remember how
we were played for suckers: "Genocide", "ethnic cleansing", "worse than
Hitler"? More people were killed by NATO's bombs than by all sides in the
entire preceding year's "genocide". Hundreds of people have now been killed
by the Kosovo Liberation Army, and tens and tens of thousands of
non-Albanian Kosovars -- Serbs, Jews, Roma (Gypsies) and others -- have
been truly "ethnically cleansed" from Kosovo after the fighting stopped,
under the watchful eyes of NATO "peacekeepers."

We need to examine why so many purportedly "progressive" people (PPPs) were
so desperate to believe the lies of the New World Order that they bought
into this bombardment, for similar propaganda techniques are being used on
us still, around the "emergency preparedness" panic that's been going on
across the country (here in New York City the form it has taken is over an
alleged "encephalitis epidemic" and the consequent mass-spraying of
organophosphate and other dangerous insecticides (nerve gasses)), which may
also have been tested in various forms on the anti-New World Order
demonstrators in Seattle on November 30th and the beginning of December.

The following article, from Monday's Toronto Globe & Mail, is notable in
this regard in re-examining the bombardment, because it is written by
someone who was long part of the Canadian government's foreign ministry.

- Mitchel Cohen
Brooklyn Greens


The tragic blunder in Kosovo
The Toronto Globe and Mail

We led the way in Suez, so why didn't we know better than
to be led into a flagrant violation of international law,
asks James Bissett, Canada's former ambassador to Yugoslavia

JAMES BISSETT

Monday, January 10, 2000

The bombing of Yugoslavia in the closing days of the 20th century has raised
disturbing and unresolved issues about international security that must be
addressed. Hailed as a victory for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
the bombing, on closer analysis, can be seen as an unmitigated failure with
far-reaching implications for world peace. Canada must demand more of its
political leaders before they lead us into another war.

Canada's participation in this undeclared war against a sovereign state was
carried out without public awareness or debate in Parliament. The bombing
was conducted without the approval of the United Nations Security Council
and was a direct violation not only of the UN Charter but also of Article 1
of the NATO Treaty itself, which requires NATO to settle any international
dispute by peaceful means and to refrain from the threat or use of force,
"in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy and Defence Minsiter Art Eggleton have
assured us this flagrant violation of international law was necessary to
stop ethnic cleansing and human-rights violations against the Albanian
population of Kosovo.

Six months have passed since the end of the bombing. Now the war is over,
it's time for sober analysis about why it was fought. The public has been
bombarded with NATO propaganda, not only about the reasons for the
intervention but also about its results. I believe we have been subject to
duplicity and misleading information. The first casualty of the war in
Kosovo has been the truth.

Our political leaders and much of the media have said that the bombing of
Yugoslavia was launched to stop ethnic cleansing and atrocities. This is a
myth. All the evidence shows that there were approximately 2,000 casualties
in Kosovo up to the time of the NATO bombing -- by any standard, not an
extraordinary number considering that a civil war had been raging since
1993. By contrast, the number of Yugoslavian civilians killed by the NATO
bombing is reckoned to be well above 2,000.

The UN estimated that close to 200,000 ethnic Albanians were displaced
before the NATO air strikes -- again, a deplorable figure but not surprising
given that these people were driven from their homes as a result of the
civil war. After the NATO bombs began to fall, more than 800,000 Kosovars
were forced to flee from Serbian retaliation and from NATO bombs.
So much for humanitarian intervention.

Following a UN resolution, the Yugoslav government in November, 1998,
allowed 1,300 Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)
observers into Kosovo in an attempt to monitor and de-escalate the fighting.
As far as I know the official OSCE report was never published. Had it been,
we could verify the allegations that ethnic cleansing and atrocities were
serious enough to warrant military intervention. The failure to publish the
report strongly suggests that the alleged repression in Kosovo did not
justify intervention.

Moreover, a number of credible OSCE observers have publicly stated that in
the weeks leading up to the bombing they witnessed no murders, no
deportations and nothing that could be described as systematic persecution.
One of these observers, the former Czech foreign minister, Jiri Dienstbier,
has further testified that NATO was fully aware that bombing would force the
Serbs to expel Kosovar Albanians as a military tactic. Yet our political
leaders continue to tell us the bombing was designed to prevent -- not cause
-- ethnic cleansing.

The immediate reason for the air strike was the Serbian refusal to sign the
infamous Rambouillet Agreement -- a 57-page document that called for a
referendum on autonomy in Kosovo and provided access to NATO forces to all
of Yugoslavia. No sovereign state could possibly have accepted such
conditions. This document was not made public until well after the bombing
was under way. The chairman of the French National Assembly's defence
committee did not receive a copy until June 3, after the Serbs had already
accepted the terms of the ceasefire! I doubt any Canadian member of
Parliament has bothered to request a copy. In any case, the Rambouillet
document, drafted by the Americans, was clearly designed to ensure a Serb
rejection. NATO needed its war.

The bombing began on March 25, 1999. NATO expected Yugoslavia to capitulate
in a matter of days. When this did not happen and the bombing was extended
to more and more civilian targets, public support in some NATO countries
began to wane. The alliance found itself in trouble: None of its objectives
had been achieved and the bombing was creating a humanitarian catastrophe
and pulverizing a modern European state.

A negotiated settlement was essential. But NATO had to save face. Although
it had in effect excluded the Russians through the insulting terms of
Rambouillet, the alliance now turned to Moscow to get it out of the jam it
found itself in. Former Russian prime minister Victor Chernomydrin persuaded
NATO to drop the two most objectionable conditions, the referendum and
access for NATO troops to Yugoslavia. NATO made further concessions --
acknowledging Yugoslav sovereignty over Kosovo, putting the occupation of
Kosovo under UN auspices, and letting Yugoslav troops guard Serbian holy
sites.

The UN approved the terms of this peace agreement; it remains to be seen if
NATO will honour them. My guess is, having made a mess of the war, NATO will
make a mess of the peace. Already, NATO's supreme commander in Europe, U.S.
General Wesley Clark, has warned that NATO will prevent any attempt by
Yugoslavia to return troops to Kosovo. One can hardly read this as a sign of
NATO's respect for the UN.

The bombing of Yugoslavia was a tragic mistake. There have been dreadful
human and financial costs. Ethnic cleansing and murder continue in Kosovo.
More seriously, NATO's illegal action has fractured the framework of world
security that has existed since the end of the Second World War. It has
destabilized the Balkans and alienated the other great nuclear powers,
Russia and China. NATO has abandoned the rule of law and lost any moral
stature it might have had during the Cold War years. By forsaking diplomacy
and resorting to force, NATO has reduced the democratic countries of the
West to the level of the dictatorships it was created to oppose.

Canada's foreign minister would have us believe Kosovo marked a turning
point in the way the international community is to react in future when
human-rights violations take place within the borders of a sovereign state.
We are asked to believe that the long-standing principle of state
sovereignty can be overruled in the interests of humanitarianism
intervention. We are asked to embrace new concepts of "soft power" and
"human security." Mr. Axworthy assures us that Canada will always make its
own foreign-policy decisions independently.

Yet when great issues were at stake in Kosovo -- issues of life or death, of
war or peace, of ignoring the UN Security Council, of violating NATO's own
treaty -- Canada's voice was not heard. We eagerly joined the war without
question and without consultation with the representatives of the Canadian
people.

It didn't have to be this way. Another Canadian foreign minister faced a
similar decision back in 1956. In the early days of the Suez crisis, Lester
Pearson came out against the bombing of the Suez Canal by Canada's French
and British allies and played a key role in getting the UN to halt the
invasion.

If Canada is to play an effective role in international affairs it must
continue to stand for the rule of law, for the UN charter and for democratic
decision-making when its military could become involved in aggressive action
against sovereign states. If Mr. Axworthy is serious about pushing a human
security agenda, let him demand that NATO reaffirm its adherence to the UN
Charter and its commitment not to resolve international disputes by the
threat or use of force. This simple reaffirmation would reassure Canadians
that as we enter the new millennium we all know that the ground rules have
not changed. 

James Bissett was Canada's ambassador to Yugoslavia from 1990 until 1992,
with responsibility for Albania and Bulgaria.