Re: STATEMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (fwd)

__________________________________________________________________________
For some reason (Chris Chase-Dunn may be able to answer this) my posting
below was not sent out on the WSN listserv today, although it appears in
the WSN Archives as having been received at 
Tue, 11 May 1999 16:30:09-0400 (EDT).  Am thus resending it out so that it
appears to the list.

csc
__________________________________________________________________________

Pat,

That the judgement as to whether the US/NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy in 
Belgrade was either a "mistake" or a deliberate provocation is "pretty easy to 
make" on your part is understandable, Pat, given your continuous and systematic 
apologetics of US imperialism on the World Systems Network listserv which first 
began on April 23 with your reply to Peter Grimes.

There are many reasons why the US would want to intimidate and/or provoke China.  
For example, as you yourself state in your defense of Taiwan
(http://www2.cybercities.com/g/gunning/taiwan/us_pcy.htm#Is Taiwan Part of China?):

     Let us take it for granted that the U.S. has chosen to be the world's police 
     force, as its laws and past policies seem to reflect. Then, it should 
     contain the PRC and protect democracy in Taiwan with a clear and open policy 
     to that effect. Given Taiwan material wealth and the U.S. capacity to 
     produce weapons, the direct cost to the U. S. citizens should be minimal. 

On the other hand, one can interpret the bombing of the Chinese embassy as a 
warning to China to back off on its principled criticisms of the US/NATO war on 
Yugoslavia.  For example, Li Peng, Chairman of the National People's Congress 
(NPC) of China, stated on March 30 
(http://www.peopledaily.com.cn/english/features/Kosovo/txt/3102.html):

     China firmly opposes NATO's military actions against Yugoslavia, he said. The 
     air strikes by NATO forces constituted a grave violation of the  
     international norms, infringed upon the sovereignty of Yugoslavia, worsened 
     the Balkan situation, and endangered peace and stability in Europe. 

     China has always held that the internal affairs, including the ethnic issue, in 
     any country should be solved through appropriate approaches and foreign 
     countries should not interfere. While valuing Greece's policy towards Kosovo
     problem, Li called for unremitting international efforts to ease the 
     situation in Yugoslavia, and that in the Balkan region as a whole.

     China opposes hegemonism and power politics, including the acts of  
     interfering in the internal affairs of other countries under whatever 
     pretext or in whatever form, the Chinese leader reiterated.

Also, the bombing could well be the result of a deliberate attempt to silence a 
particular reporter.  As China's People's Daily stated in its article entitled "Top 
Chinese Paper Accuses NATO of Creating Humanitarian Disasters"
(http://www.china.org.cn/ChinaEmbassy/ehtml/990511/990511-22.htm):

     Six days prior to her death in NATO's barbaric raids against Chinese embassy in 
     Yugoslavia, Shao Yunhuan, a correspondent with Chinese official Xinhua news  
     agency, wrote an article entitled " When will NATO Stop its 'Accidental 
     Mistakes'?", in which she angrily questioned:  "With its continued air raids, 
     how many more 'mistakes' will NATO make? How many more innocent civilians in 
     Yugoslavia will be killed in these 'unavoidable mistakes?'" 

     The commentary pointed out that as a matter of fact, the cruel nature of 
     aggressors was exactly to inflict calamities upon peaceful people. The 
     flagrant attacks against the Chinese embassy in Belgrade were completely out 
     of NATO's deliberate calculations. They also exposed NATO's aggressive nature. 

The truth is, Pat, that much of the world does not believe that the US/NATO 
bombing of the Chinese embassy was a "mistake".  The Times of India, perhaps, 
stated it best in today's paper (http://www.timesofindia.com/today/11edit1.htm):

     President Bill Clinton's `apology' will not convince many in Beijing to 
     forgive and forget, especially since he continues to justify the illegal 
     bombing of Yugoslavia and says such `accidents' as the attack on the embassy 
     are `inevitable'.  To claim, as Washington has done, that the Chinese 
     embassy was mistakenly targeted because of an intelligence error, is to 
     stretch the limits of credibility to breaking point. According to the US, the
     real target was the building of the Yugoslav arms procurement agency. 
     However, given the type of targeting technology NATO has been using -- with 
     high resolution satellite imagery supplemented by visual confirmation on the 
     ground by its `human intelligence resources' (i.e. spies) -- it is hard to 
     believe the precise location and shape of the Chinese embassy and all major 
     diplomatic premises were not known to it beforehand.

In an AP story in the Washington Post
(http://search.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WAPO/19990507/V000016-050799-idx.html) on 
the day of the attack, Goran Matic, a Yugoslav minister, stated:  "Now I would like 
to see how NATO will justify this," Matic said. "It was a deliberate targeting of 
the Chinese embassy. It's high time to end this madness. Everybody has to sit and 
talk."  Little did Matic know at the time that the US would attempt to write it 
off as just a "mistake".

And here are some additional articles of what others are saying about the "mistaken"
intentionality of the US/NATO bombing of the Chinese embassy:

Nato Explanation Unacceptable: FM Spokesman 
http://www.china.org.cn/ChinaEmbassy/ehtml/990511/990511-72.htm

DPRK Slams NATO Missile Attack on Chinese Embassy 
http://www.china.org.cn/ChinaEmbassy/ehtml/990511/990511-91.htm

Laos Condemns NATO Attack on Chinese Embassy 
http://www.china.org.cn/ChinaEmbassy/ehtml/990511/990511-89.htm

NATO's Raid of Chinese Embassy Deliberate: Paper 
http://www.china.org.cn/ChinaEmbassy/ehtml/990511/990511-61.htm

Cuban Official Condemns NATO's Attack on Chinese Embassy 
http://www.china.org.cn/ChinaEmbassy/ehtml/990511/990511-45.htm

Indian Parties Condemn NATO Attack on Chinese Embassy
http://www.china.org.cn/ChinaEmbassy/ehtml/990511/990511-11.htm

The Chinese Embassy in Belgrade Was Attacked by the NATO Missiles (photos)
http://www.china.org.cn/ChinaEmbassy/ehtml/990508-24ct.htm

_____________________________________________________________________________
And, Pat, am including as well the following note from David Kessel which was 
posted to the PSN listserv this afternoon. David's shock, nay outrage, speaks 
for many, I believe, though you are free, Pat, to go on and continue to believe
in US/NATO "mistakes", e.g. "the train just appeared on the bridge"; "the bus 
just appeared on the bridge"; "the missile just inadvertently flew off into 
Sophia, Bulgaria"; "the hospital was collateral damage", "the column of refugees 
looked like Yugoslavian troops"; "the column of refugees again looked like 
Yugoslavian troops"; "we were using old maps"; etc.; etc. 
________________________________________________
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999 00:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Kessel <dhkessel@yahoo.com>
To: PROGRESSIVE SOCIOLOGISTS NETWORK <psn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: No Action is Too Obscene

Hello,

I periodically write a commentary on my homepage (linked below), The
Sociology Shop.  It is my modest effort to be a progressive voice. 
Today I wrote the following commentary about the bombing of the Chinese
embassy and thought I'd post it here, too.  Why?  I guess I just want
to vent at some more people and given the variety of venting that I
read on PSN and Cafe, I thought some of you might enjoy it. I make no
claim for comprehensive coverage of all points that could be brought
up.  I merely said what's on my mind.  Love it or hate it...here it is:

Have you had enough yet?  Has NATO inadvertently bombed YOUR house yet?
 Mine, neither...but there's still time.  Let me see if I've got this
right.  "Targeting errors" based on "faulty information" led to "tragic
mistakes" that are merely "anomalies" which do no worse than
"collateral damage."  Ah shucks, NATO didn't "intend" to bomb that
Chinese embassy...it was "inadvertent" and the Chinese better not get
too uppity about it...or...OR WHAT?  As we like to say, what's wrong
with this picture?  Let's try applying it to another situation.
<p>Let's say I'm mad at someone and want to kill them.  So, I "target"
them for a Monday evening after being given their home address.  I plan
it carefully and I carry it out.  I go to the address I was told and I
kill them as they sleep. Later, on the news, I find out that those I
killed weren't the ones I "intended" to kill.  Damn, I say, a
"targeting error" has happened and its all based on the "faulty
information" I was given.  It's a "tragic mistake" I've made...killing
the wrong people...people I had nothing against, not to mention
allowing the the desired people to remain alive.  But, I know I've only
made mistakes like this a few times before and thus, its an anomaly. 
I've killed so accurately in the past...people need to understand I
didn't intend to kill these particular ones.  I meant to kill the other
ones and the ones dead are simply the "collateral damage"...the breaks
of the game...unfortunate fallout.  But since I won't get caught
because I'm a careful guy, there's no need to worry...who can sanction
me?  However, my conscience is bothering me, so I decide to send an
apology via news outlets.  I'm sorry I killed the WRONG people.  Don"t
get mad at me.  There...that ought to satisfy them...I'm really not a
careless and heartless guy at all.  So, don't come looking for me (as
if you could actually find me) and most of all don't get too pissy
about it.  Damn, it was no more than a targeting error!!     

<p>What do you think a U.S. Court would say to that individual?  Three
guesses and the first two don't count!  So, why does a country and a
"treaty alliance" get to use this reasoning and not an individual? 
Does the sovereignty of a country or the cosignatures on a treaty
exempt them from accountability?  Is it any less "criminal" than for
you or me if we were the guy who killed the people in their home? 
Hardly.
<p>But lets go one step further (backward, actually).  The apology of
Clinton/US/NATO is an apology for bombing the WRONG place...NOT for the
bombing activity itself.  It's not not a tragic mistake we're
bombing...it was the wrongful target that is tragic.  Good information
was needed and afterall, we haven't made TOO MANY of these goofs, only
a few.  Its not the preponderance of "successful" missions that's the
problem.  No, NATO expects the rest of us to simply accept their
premises and to know just how sorry they are for their "tragic
mistake."
<p>Have you had enough yet?  Fact is...we bombed China...Chinese soil
in the form of an embassy in another country.  That's right, all
embassies are considered to be the soverign soil of the country whose
embassy it is.  WE BOMBED CHINA!!  We killed Chinese nationals and
destroyed Chinese property, an act of war based on even a loose
interpretation of international law.  AND...then we actually sent
warnings to China not to overreact.  Amazing.
<p>So, although I have more to say about some particular points, I'll
let it wait until the next commentary...soon to follow.  For now I
conclude by saying I'm angry and my anger doesn't cancel out my ability
to analyze, think, and conclude that the United States has obliterated
completely the line between a "just" action and an "unjust" action (as
if we haven't many times before).  We have rationalized everything
about ourselves and we still don't 'get' it...do we?  
<p>My anger is also directed at the danger these crazy people have put
us in...vis-a-vis China.  Their irresponsible actions and goof-ups have
put each of us in "harms way" once again.  They are risking our lives. 
Does anyone really believe China will forget this...formal apology or
not?  You, me, your family and mine are less safe in this world than we
were prior to last Friday.  Yes, I'm nervous...I'm also a bit scared. 
Why not?
<p>Yet, my anger is also directed at all of us in this country who sit
by silently and let all this take place in OUR names.  It's directed at
all of us who got up today and assumed it was "business as usual."  It
is NOT business as usual...the world has changed dramatically and I am
NOT overreacting.  We must talk with, to and at each other...even piss
off those who don't want to hear it.  Interrupt people, speak up, tell
them what you think.  Those that rule us depend on our compliance and
they get it by our silence and focus being drawn elsewhere.
Where has this "hands off" and "don't disturb" approach we take with
each other gotten us so far?  Face to face with China, that's where.
<p>Folks, we bombed China and now we'll find out just how rational they
are and want to be.  No, I don't expect an immediate warlike response
from the Chinese...they can afford to wait.
<p>Finally, from now on it seems to me that the letters NATO should
stand for <font color="brown">No Action is Too Obscene</font>.  Look
for them to change their name in the near future.

David H. Kessel
===
Please visit THE SOCIOLOGY SHOP at...
http://www.angelfire.com/or/sociologyshop/index.html


_______________________________________
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Pat Gunning wrote:

> "colin s. cavell" wrote:
> > 
> > Dear List Members:
> > 
> > I felt that this posting was significant enough to post as the US bombing
> > of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade represents a very significant
> > escalation of the war on Yugoslavia.  One either has to accept that it was
> > a "mistake" as US/NATO propagandists assert or that it was a deliberate
> > hit meant as a provocation...
> 
> True, one has to make a judgment. But that judgment is pretty easy to
> make. Why in the world would NATO or the U.S. want to provoke China? Or,
> more to the point, why would they want to appear to their political
> supporters like bunglers?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Pat Gunning, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman
> Web pages on Subjectivism, Democracy, Taiwan, Ludwig von Mises,
> Austrian Economics, and my University Classes
> http://www2.cybercities.com/g/gunning/welcome.htm
> http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/barclay/212/welcome.htm
>