Agression, other crimes & Pat Gunning

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
                   ANDRE GUNDER FRANK
250 Kensington Ave - Apt 608     Tel: 1-514-933 2539    
Westmount/Montreal PQ/QC         Fax: 1-514-933 6445 
Canada H3Z 2G8              e-mail:agfrank@chass.utoronto.ca 

My Personal/Professional Home Page> http://www.whc.neu.edu/gunder.html
My NATO/Kosovo Page> http://csf.colorado.edu/archive/agfrank/nato_kosovo/       
My professional/personal conclusion is the same as Pogo's - 
            We have met the enemy, and it is US 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pat Gunning writes:

Gunder, Clinton's non sequitur reply notwithstanding (and the Serb
delegation did more than "suggest"), I could not find any violation. So
perhaps I at least need some hints as to which acts of NATO and its
leaders you believe are indictable. A lot seems to hinge on how one
defines aggression.


This is literally NOT understandable, because
1.  I mentioned and cited  7 specific sections of intrernational law
that NATO is flagrantly  violating of which agression is only PART of one
of them.Others included , eg " wanton destruction of
> cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military
> necessity"  and  (a) killing members of the group;
> (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
> to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  
by NATO's unprovoked, non-defensive=agressive  massive bombing and guided
missiles, AND i metnioned  another dozen other statutes the US/NATO
states have signed and now violate.

But since you ask for a 'definition of agression', here are some 
also formally subscribed to by the states in NATO:                                                        

NATO's attack on Yugoslavia is a violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact,
the Pact of Paris, of 1928. The signatories to the pact (including what
were to become the the NATO countries) "condemned recourse to war for
the solution of international controversies, and renounced it as an
instrument of national policy." NATO is thus guilty not merely of a
breach of treaty, but of the crime of aggression as defined by the
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and by the General Assembly
in its Resolution affirming the principles of International Law
recognized by the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal. NATO countries had
voted in favour of this, and the 1975 Resolution defining aggression as
a crime against international peace giving rise to international
responsibility. Aggression is defined in this Resolution as "the use of
armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or
political independence of another State, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations ... [and] the first
use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall
constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression."

Even Big Brother's war=peace doublespeak cannot deny that
what US/NATO is doing is clearly and indisputably  legally criminal,
no matter what.