Nineteen Years Ago: NATO’s War of Aggression Against Yugoslavia: Who Are the War Criminals?
By Prof Michel ChossudovskyGlobal Research, March 23, 2018
15 May 1999
Url of this article:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/
Nineteen years ago in the early hours of March 24, 1999, NATO began the bombing of
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. “The operation was code-named
“Allied Force ” – a cold, uninspired and perfectly descriptive moniker”
according to Nebosja Malic.
This article was first written in May 1999 at the height of the bombing of Yugoslavia.
The
causes and consequences of this war have been the object of a vast
media disinformation campaign, which has sought to camouflage NATO and
US war crimes.
It
is important to note that a large segment of the “Progressive Left” in
Western Europe and North America were part of this disinformation
campaign, presenting NATO military intervention as a necessary
humanitarian operation geared towards protecting the rights of ethnic
Albanians in Kosovo.
The
intervention was in violation of international law. President Milosevic
at the Rambouillet talks had refused the stationing of NATO troops
inside Yugoslavia.
The
demonization of Slobodan Milsovic by so-called “Progressives” has
served over the years to uphold the legitimacy of the NATO bombings. It
has also provided credibility to “a war crimes tribunal” under the
jurisidiction of those who committed extensive war crimes in the name of
social justice.
The Just War thesis was also upheld by several prominent intellectuals who viewed the Kosovo war as: “a Just War”.
In turn the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was upheld by several “Leftists” as a bona fide liberation movement rooted in Marxism.
In turn the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was upheld by several “Leftists” as a bona fide liberation movement rooted in Marxism.
The
KLA –whose leader Hachim Thaci is now president of Kosovo– was a
paramilitary army supported by Western intelligence, financed and
trained by the US and NATO. It had ties to organised crime. It also had
links to Al Qaeda, which is supported by US intelligence.
Michel Chossudovsky, March 2006, updated March 2018
* * *
NATO’s War of Aggression against Yugoslavia: Who are the War Criminals?
by Michel Chossudovsky, 15 May 1999
Low Intensity Nuclear War
With
NATO air-strikes entering their third month, a new stage of the War has
unfolded. NATO’s “humanitarian bombings” have been stepped up leading
to mounting civilian casualties and human suffering. Thirty percent of
those killed in the bombings are children.1 In addition to the use of
cluster bombs, the Alliance is waging a “low intensity nuclear war”
using toxic radioactive shells and missiles containing depleted uranium.
Amply documented, the radioactive fall-out causes cancer potentially
affecting millions of people for generations to come. According to a
recent scientific report, “the first signs of radiation on children
including herpes on the mouth and skin rashes on the back and ankles”
have been observed in Yugoslavia since the beginning of the bombings.2
In
addition to the radioactive fall-out which has contaminated the
environment and the food chain, the Alliance has also bombed
Yugoslavia’s major chemical and pharmaceutical plants. The bombing of
Galenika, the largest medicine factory in Yugoslavia has contributed to
releasing dangerous, highly toxic fumes. When NATO forces bombed plants
of the Pancevo petrochemical complex in mid-April “fire broke out and
huge quantities of chlorine, ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride
monomer flowed out. Workers at Pancevo, fearing further bombing attacks
that would blow up dangerous materials, released tons of ethylene
dichloride, a carcinogen, into the Danube.”3
Nato to the “Rescue of Ethnic Albanians”
Ethnic
Albanians have not been spared by NATO air raids. Killing ethnic
Albanians in Kosovo is said to be “inevitable” in carrying out a
“humanitarian operation on behalf of ethnic Albanians”. In addition to
the impacts of the ground war between the KLA and the Yugoslav Armed
Forces, the bombings and the resulting radioactive fall-out in Kosovo
have been more devastating than in the rest of Yugoslavia.
Presented
as a humanitarian mission, the evidence amply confirms that NATO’s
brutal air raids of towns and villages in Kosovo have triggered the
exodus of refugees. Those who have fled their homes to refugee camps in
Macedonia and Albania have nothing to return to, nothing to look forward
to… An entire country has been destroyed, its civilian industry and
public infrastructure transformed into rubble. Bridges, power plants,
schools and hospitals are displayed as “legitimate military targets”
selected by NATO’s Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC) in Vicenza,
Italy and carefully “validated prior to the pilot launching his strike.”
With
the “diplomatic shuttle” still ongoing, the Alliance is intent on
inflicting as much damage on the Yugoslav economy (including Kosovo) as
possible prior to reaching a G8 brokered “peace initiative” which will
empower them to send in ground troops. “Allied commanders have steadily
widened their list of economic targets… Increasingly, the impact of NATO
air strikes has put people out of work… causing water shortages in
Belgrade, Novi Sad and other Serbian cities. … [T]he effect was to shut
down businesses, strain hospitals’ ability to function and cut off
water…”4. Some 115 medical institutions have been damaged of which
several have been totally demolished. And hospital patients –including
children and the elderly– are dying due to the lack of water and
electricity…5
General
Wesley Clark, NATO’s Supreme commander in Europe, confirmed in late May
that “NATO’S air campaign has not reached its peak yet and the alliance
should be prepared for more civilian casualties.”6. General Clark also
confirmed that “he would be seeking to increase the number of air
strikes in Kosovo and expand the range of targets.7 As the bombings
entered their third month, there was also a noticeable change in “NATO
rhetoric”. The Alliance had become increasingly unrepentant, NATO
officials were no longer apologising for civilian casualties, claiming
that the latter were contributing to “helping Milosevic’s propaganda
machine.”
Extending the Conflict Beyond the Balkans
Drowned
in the barrage of media images and self-serving analyses, the broader
strategic interests and economic causes of the War go unmentioned. The
late Sean Gervasi writing in 1995 had anticipated an impending War.
According to Gervasi, Washington’s strategic goals stretched well beyond
the Balkans. They largely consisted in “installing a Western-style
regime in Yugoslavia and reducing the geographic area, power and
influence of Serbia to a minimum….”8
In
this context, the installation of American power in Southern Europe and
the Mediterranean also constitutes a step towards the extension of
Washington’s geopolitical sphere of influence beyond the Balkans into
the area of the Caspian Sea, Central Asia and West Asia.
In
this regard, NATO’s military intervention in Yugoslavia (in violation
of international law) also sets a dangerous precedent. It provides
“legitimacy” to future military interventions. To achieve its strategic
objectives, national economies are destabilised, regional conflicts are
financed through the provision of covert support to armed insurgencies…
In other words, the conflict in Yugoslavia creates conditions which
provide legitmacy to future interventions of the Alliance into the
“internal affairs of sovereign nations”.
The
consolidation of American strategic interests in Eastern Europe, the
Balkans (and beyond) was not only marked by the enlargement of NATO
(with the accession of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic as NATO
members) barely two weeks before the beginning of the bombings, the War
in Yugoslavia also coincided with a critical split in geopolitical
alignments within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
In
late April, Georgia, the Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldava
signed a pact in Washington, creating GUUAM, a regional alliance which
lies strategically at the hub of the Caspian oil and gas wealth, “with
Moldava and the Ukraine offering [pipeline] export routes to the West”.9
This geopolitical split bears a direct relationship to the crisis in
Yugoslavia. The region is already unstable marked by nationalist
conflicts and separatist movements.
The
members of this new pro-NATO political grouping not only tacitly
support the bombings in Yugoslavia, they have also agreed to “low level
military cooperation” with NATO while insisting that “the group is not a
military alliance directed against any third party, namely Moscow.”10
Dominated
by Western oil interests, the formation of GUUAM is not only intent on
excluding Russia from the oil and gas deposits in the Caspian area but
also in isolating Moscow politically thereby potentially re-igniting
Cold War divisions…
The War Has Stalled Nuclear Arms Controls
In
turn, the War in Yugoslavia has significantly stalled nuclear
arms-control initiatives leading to the cancellation of an exchange
program “that would have had US and Russian nuclear weapons officers in
constant contact at year’s end to prevent any launches as a result of
Year 2000 computer troubles.”11
Moreover,
Russia’s military has also voiced its concern “that the bombing of
Yugoslavia could turn out in the very near future to be just a rehearsal
for similar strikes on Russia.”12.
According
to Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford, co-president of the Nobel Peace Prize
winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
(IPPNW), the impact of NATO bombings of Yugoslavia “on nuclear weapons
policy is an extremely serious development… Russians feel a sense of
betrayal by the West… because NATO took this action outside the UN.”13
Aleksander
Arbatov, deputy chairman of the Defence Committee of the Russian State
Duma U.S.-Russian relations describes the War in Yugoslavia as the
“worst most acute, most dangerous juncture since the U.S.-Soviet Berlin
and Cuban missile crises.”14 According to Arbatov:
“START
II is dead, co-operation with NATO is frozen, co-operation on missile
defence is out of the question, and Moscow’s willingness to co-operate
on non-proliferation issues is at an all-time low. Moreover, anti-U.S.
sentiment in Russia is real, deep and more wide-spread than ever, and
the slogan describing NATO action – “today Serbia, tomorrow Russia,” is
“deeply planted in Russian’s minds.”…15 Mary-Wynne Ashford also warns
that whereas Russia was moving towards integration with Europe, they
[the Russians] now:
“….
perceive their primary threat from the West. Officials in [Russia’s]
Foreign Affairs (Arms Control and Disarmament) told us that Russia has
no option but to rely on nuclear weapons for its defence because its
conventional forces are inadequate…. Even if the bombings stop now, the
changes in Russia’s attitude toward the West, its renewed reliance on
nuclear weapons with thousands on high alert, and its loss of confidence
in international law leave us vulnerable to catastrophe…. This crisis
makes de-alerting nuclear weapons more urgent than ever. To those who
say the Russian threat is all rhetoric, I reply that rhetoric is what
starts wars”.16
The Media War: “Silencing the Silent Majority”
This
war is also “a War against the Truth”. With protest movements
developing around the World, NATO has reinforced its clutch over the
mass media. In a stylised (“wag the dog”) media mascarade, the Alliance
is relentlessly portrayed as “the saviour of ethnic Albanian Kosovars”. A
full-fledged “cover-up operation” has been set in motion with a view to
thwarting public debate on the War. The hidden agenda is to “silence
the silent majority.” The Western media heeding to the Alliance’s
demands has blatantly misled public opinion. Casually portrayed on TV
screens, civilian deaths are justified as inevitable “collateral
damage”. According to the Pentagon, “there is no such thing as clean
combat.”17
Meanwhile,
anti-war commentators (including former ambassadors and OSCE officials)
have been carefully removed from mainstream public affairs programmes,
TV content is closely scrutinised, the images of civilian deaths and
destruction relayed from Belgrade are seldomly and selectively
displayed, journalists are under tight supervision. While the media does
not hesitate to criticize NATO for having committed “errors” and
“tragic mistakes”, the legitimacy of the military operation and its
“humanitarian mandate” are not questioned:
“Public
opinion is confronted with a loaded question which allows only one
answer. In the present war, that question is, “Doesn’t ethnic cleansing
have to be stopped?” This simplification allows the media to portray
Yugoslavia rather than NATO as the aggressor. The alliance, in a
complete inversion of reality, is presented as conducting an essentially
defensive war on behalf of the Kosovar Albanians…” when in fact ethnic
Albanians are the principle victims of NATO’s “humanitarian bombings.”18
According
to NATO’s propaganda machine, “ethnic Albanians do not flee the
bombings” and the ground war between the KLA and the Yugoslav Army.
According to Diana Johnstone this makes them “nearly unique [because]
throughout history, civilians have fled from war zones…. No, as we have
heard repeatedly from NATO spokesmen and apologists, Kosovo Albanians
run away from only one thing: brutal ethnic cleansing carried out by
Serbs.”19
The
refugee crisis we are told by NATO is limited to Kosovo. Yet the
evidence (withheld by the Western media) confirms that people throughout
Serbia are fleeing major cities:
Reliable
estimates put the number of refugees who have left Belgrade to escape
the bombing at 400,000. Most are women and children, as with the Kosovo
Albanians. At least another 500,000 have left Serbia’s other cities,
notably Novi Sad and Nish, where NATO bombing has caused air pollution,
cut the water supply, and struck purely civilian targets such as market
squares. Altogether, according to the Italian daily “Il Manifesto”, the
NATO bombing has produced at least a million refugees in Serbia. Predrag
Simic, foreign policy adviser to Serbian opposition leader Vuk
Draskovic, told a Paris conference [in late May] that Kosovo was being
so thoroughly devastated by NATO bombing that nobody, neither Albanians
nor Serbs, would be able to go back and live there”.20
Who is Responsible for War Crimes?
Public
“disapproval” of NATO bombings is immediately dismissed as “Serb
propaganda”. Those who speak out against NATO are branded as “apologists
of Milosevic”. While most anti-War critics in NATO countries are not
defenders of the Milosevic regime, they are nonetheless expected to be
“balanced” in their arguments. “Looking at both sides of the picture is
the rule”: anti-war commentators are invited to echo NATO’s fabricated
media consensus, to unequivocally “join the bandwagon” against
Milosevic. Under these circumstances, an objective understanding and
analysis of the role of the Milosovic government since the civil War in
Bosnia and in the context of the present crisis in Kosovo has been
rendered virtually impossible.
Media
double standards? Whereas President Milosevic and four members of his
government were indicted by the Hague International Criminal Tribunal
(ICTY) (late May) for organising a policy of “ethnic cleansing” in
Kosovo, the news media failed to mention that several parallel law suits
were launched at The Hague Tribunal (ICTY), accusing NATO leaders of
“crimes against humanity.”21
It
is also worth mentioning that the UK government (whose Prime Minister
Tony Blair is among the list of accused in one of the parallel law
suits) has provided The Hague Tribunal with “intelligence on the
situation within Kosovo” since the beginning of the bombings.22 Part of
this intelligence material was relayed by the KLA with which British
Foreign Secretary Robin Cook has been in frequent contact as well as
through British Special Forces (SAS) directly collaborating with the
KLA.
Law Suit Directed Against Nato Leaders
In
May, a group of 15 Canadian lawyers and law professors together with
the American Association of Jurists (with members in more than 20
countries) launched a suit against NATO leaders at the ICTY in the
Hague.23 The suit points to “open violation” of the United Nations
Charter, the NATO treaty, the Geneva Conventions and the “Principles of
International Law Recognized by the Nuremberg Tribunal”. The latter
makes: “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of
aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements
or assurances” a crime.24
The list of crimes allegedly committed by NATO leaders includes:
“wilful
killing, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or
health, extensive destruction of property,… employment of poisonous
weapons [implying radioactive fall-out] or other weapons to cause
unnecessary suffering, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages,
or devastation not justified by military necessity,… “25
Under
the terms of reference of the ICTY “a person who planned, instigated,
ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning,
preparation or execution of a crime shall be individually responsible
for the crime” and “the official position of any accused person, whether
as Head of State or Government or as a responsible Government official,
shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility or mitigate
punishment.”26
United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson (and former
President of Ireland) confirmed in Geneva on 30 April that the
Prosecutor of the War Crimes Tribunal (ICTY) has the mandate not only to
prosecute Serb forces but that the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and
NATO may also come under scrutiny, “if it appears that serious
violations of international humanitarian law have occurred.”
According to Walter J. Rockler, former prosecutor of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials:
“The bombing war also violates and shreds the basic provisions of the United Nations Charter and other conventions and treaties; the attack on Yugoslavia constitutes the most brazen international aggression since the Nazis attacked Poland to prevent “Polish atrocities” against Germans. The United States has discarded pretensions to international legality and decency, and embarked on a course of raw imperialism run amok.”27
Shaky Evidence of a “Humanitarian Catastrophe” Prior to the Bombings
In
the course of “covering-up” the real motivations of NATO in launching
the War, the international media has also failed to mention that an
official intelligence report of the German Foreign Ministry (used to
establish the eligibility of political refugees from Kosovo) confirmed
that there was no evidence of “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo in the months
immediately preceding the bombings. Who is lying? German Foreign
Minister Joschka Fischer had justified NATO’s intervention pointing to a
“humanitarian catastrophe”, yet the internal documents of his own
ministry say exactly the opposite:
“Even
in Kosovo an explicit political persecution linked to Albanian
ethnicity is not verifiable. The East of Kosovo is still not involved in
armed conflict. Public life in cities like Pristina, Urosevac, Gnjilan,
etc. has, in the entire conflict period, continued on a relatively
normal basis. The actions of the security forces [were] not directed
against the Kosovo-Albanians as an ethnically defined group, but against
the military opponent [KLA] and its actual or alleged supporters.”… “29
[W]ith
an agreement made with the Serbian leadership at the end of 1998 … both
the security situation and the conditions of life of the
Albanian-derived population have noticeably improved… Specifically in
the larger cities public life has since returned to relative
normality.”29
The
above assessments are broadly consistent with several independent
evaluations of the humanitarian situation in Kosovo prior to the
onslaught of the bombing campaign. Roland Keith, a former field office
director of the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM), who left Kosovo
on March 20th reported that most of the violence in Kosovo was
instigated by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA):
“Upon
my arrival the war increasingly evolved into a mid intensity conflict
as ambushes, the encroachment of critical lines of communication and the
[KLA] kidnapping of security forces resulted in a significant increase
in government casualties which in turn led to major Yugoslavian reprisal
security operations… By the beginning of March these terror and
counter-terror operations led to the inhabitants of numerous villages
fleeing, or being dispersed to either other villages, cities or the
hills to seek refuge… The situation was clearly that KLA provocations,
as personally witnessed in ambushes of security patrols which inflicted
fatal and other casualties, were clear violations of the previous
October’s agreement [and United Nations Security Council Resolution
1199]. The security forces responded and the consequent security
harassment and counter-operations led to an intensified insurrectionary
war, but as I have stated elsewhere, I did not witness, nor did I have
knowledge of any incidents of so-called “ethnic cleansing” and there
certainly were no occurrences of “genocidal policies” while I was with
the KVM in Kosovo. What has transpired since the OSCE monitors were
evacuated on March 20, in order to deliver the penultimate warning to
force Yugoslavian compliance with the Rambouillet and subsequent Paris
documents and the commencement of the NATO air bombardment of March 24,
obviously has resulted in human rights abuses and a very significant
humanitarian disaster as some 600,000 Albanian Kosovars have fled or
been expelled from the province. This did not occur, though, before
March 20, so I would attribute the humanitarian disaster directly or
indirectly to the NATO air bombardment and resulting anti-terrorist
campaign.”30
Chronology of Nato Planning
Carefully
removed from the public eye, preparations for both “the air campaign”
and “the ground War” have been ongoing for almost a year prior to the
beginning of NATO’s “humanitarian bombings” on March 24th 1999.
Responding
to broad strategic and economic objectives, the Alliance’s first
priority was to secure the stationing of armed combat troops in
Macedonia on the immediate border with Kosovo. US Secretary of Defense
William Cohen had travelled to Skopje in late December 1997 for
discussions with the Macedonian government and Military. These high
levels talks were followed a few months later by the visit of
Macedonia’s Defense Minister L. Kitanoski to Washington for meetings at
the Pentagon. On the agenda: the establishment of a NATO base in
Macedonia.31
No
time was lost: on May 6, 1998, the NATO Council met “to review alliance
efforts” in the region; a major military exercise entitled “Cooperative
Best Effort” was slated to take place in Macedonia in September. NATO
nonetheless “reassured the international community” that the military
exercise was not meant to be “a rehearsal”, rather it was to enable
“NATO military authorities to study various options. Decisions on
whether to execute any of those options would be a matter for future
decision.”32
Largely
the consequence of KLA terrorism, the deterioration of the security
situation in Kosovo conveniently provided NATO with a pretext to build
up its ground forces in Macedonia (composed largely of British and
French troops). According to NATO, it was therefore necessary to
envisage “a more complicated and ambitious [military] exercise [in
Macedonia] to send a clear political signal [to Belgrade] of NATO’s
involvement”.33
The Role of the Kosovo Liberation Army
In
parallel with the setting up of its military operations in Albania and
Macedonia, NATO had established direct links with the Kosovo Liberation
Army (KLA). A US Department of Defense briefing confirms in this regard
that “initial contacts” between the KLA and NATO had taken place by
mid-1998:
“…the
realization has come to people [in NATO] that we [NATO] have to have
the UCK [acronym for KLA in Albanian] involved in this process because
they have shown at least the potential to be rejectionists of any deal
that could be worked out there with the existing Kosovo parties. So
somehow they have to be brought in and that’s why we’ve made some
initial contacts there with the group, hopefully the right people in the
group, to try and bring them into this negotiating process. 34
While
these “initial contacts” were acknowledged by NATO officially only in
mid-1998, the KLA had (according to several reports) been receiving
“covert support” and training from the CIA and Germany’s Bundes
Nachrichten Dienst (BND) since the mid-nineties.35
The
concurrent building up of KLA forces was part of NATO planning. By
mid-1998 “covert support” had been gradually replaced –despite the KLA’s
links to organised crime– by official (“overt”) support by the military
Alliance in violation of UN Security Council Resolution UNSCR 1160 of
31 March 1998 which condemned: “…all acts of terrorism by the Kosovo
Liberation Army or any other group or individual and all external
support for terrorist activity in Kosovo, including finance, arms and
training.”
On
24 September 1998, another key UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR
1199) was adopted which called “upon the authorities in Belgrade and the
leadership of the Kosovar Albanian community urgently to enter without
preconditions into a meaningful dialogue on political status issues.” It
also required Belgrade to withdraw its troops from Kosovo.
Following
a renewed wave of KLA terrorism, the Yugoslav authorities were blamed
for the “crackdowns on ethnic Albanians” providing NATO defense
ministers meeting in Vilmoura Portugal (September 24th on the same day
as the adoption of UNSCR 1199) with the “justification” to issue an
“activation warning” for a campaign of air strikes against Serb
positions. The Vilmoura statement called upon Belgrade to “take
immediate steps to alleviate the humanitarian situation…, stop
repressive actions against the population and seek a political solution
through negotiations with the Albanian majority”.36
This
so-called “activation warning” was followed in mid-October by “an
activation order” by the North Atlantic Council authorising NATO’s
Supreme Commander for Europe General Wesley Clark to initiate “limited
air strikes” and a “phased air campaign” … should the Yugoslav
authorities refuse to comply with UNSCR 1199.37
Under
the impending threat of air strikes, a partial withdrawal was carried
out by Belgrade (following the adoption of UNSCR 1199) creating almost
immediately conditions for the KLA to occupy positions previously held
by retreating Serb forces. In turn, the strengthening of the KLA was
accompanied by renewed terrorist activity and a consequent “worsening of
the security situation”. NATO’s hidden objective, in this regard, was
to use the KLA insurgency to further provoke ethnic tensions and
generate social strife in Kosovo.
In
the meantime, US envoy Richard Holbrooke had entered into discussions
with President Milosovic. Forged under the threat of NATO air strikes,
negotiations on Kosovo’s political status had also been initiated in
Pristina between a Serbian delegation led by President Milan Milutinovic
and Ibrahim Rugova, President of the Democratic League (DLK)
representing ethnic Albanians. While Mr Christopher Hill, the US envoy
had been invited as an observer to these meetings, Milutinovic had
insisted that the negotiations (which proceeded from UNSCR 1199) were an
internal matter.
Following
the agreement between US envoy Richard Holbrooke and President Slobodan
Milosevic, Yugoslavia was to complete negotiations on “a framework for a
political settlement” by the 2nd of November 1998. Moreover, a
Verification Mission to establish compliance with resolutions UNSCR 1160
and UNSCR 1199, was put in place in Kosovo under the auspices of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). A parallel
NATO air verification mission (complementing the OSCE verification
mission) was established following an agreement signed in Belgrade on 15
October 1998 by the Yugoslav Chief of General Staff and NATO Supreme
Allied Commander for Europe, General Wesley Clark.
The
terms of both the OSCE and NATO verification agreements were
subsequently embodied in UNSCR 1260 of October 24th. Whereas Belgrade
was given a 96 hour “deadline for compliance”, the Alliance decided to
postpone the initiation of air strikes following talks in Belgrade
(October 25-26) between President Slobodan Milosevic and General Wesley
Clark. According to the Alliance statement: “NATO will remain prepared
to carry out air operations should they be necessary” 38. In the
meantime, NATO launched Operation Eagle Eye using unarmed aircraft and
unmanned predator aerial vehicles (UAVs). Eagle Eye surveillance
activities were coordinated with the “ground verification” mission
conducted by OSCE observer teams and by the Kosovo Diplomatic Observer
Mission (KDOM).
A Former “Iran-Contragate” Official Heads the OSCE Verification Mission
In
the meantime, a career US diplomat, Ambassador William G. Walker was
appointed Head of the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM). A
tailor-made assignment: Walker was well-known for his role in the
“Iran-Contragate” scandal during the Reagan administration. The KLA
insurgency was in many regards a “carbon copy” of the Nicaraguan Contras
which had also been funded by drug money with covert support from the
CIA.
Well
documented by court files, William G. Walker –in association with
Oliver North– played a key role in channelling covert funding to the
Nicaraguan Contras while serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
for Inter-American Affairs in the Reagan Administration. In this
capacity, he became a special assistant to Assistant Secretary of State
Elliot Abrams, “a figure whose name would soon be making its way into
the headlines on a daily basis in connection with … the “Iran-Contra”
affair.”39
William
G. Walker had been involved in the so-called Nicaraguan Humanitarian
Assistance Office (“NHAO”) in the State Department which was a cover-up
fund whereby covert military aid was supplied to the Contras. The
objective was to circumvent the so-called “Boland Amendments”, –ie.
“riders” to the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, “which
prohibited the [US] government from spending money for the purpose of
overthrowing the government of Nicaragua”. 40 Confirmed by files of the
US Court of Appeal (District of Columbia), “Walker attended some
meetings of the Restricted Interagency Group for Central America, of
which Oliver North was a member”.41
Walker
was never indicted for criminal wrong-doings in the Iran- Contragate
scandal. Upon completing his work with Oliver North, he was appointed US
Ambassador to El Salvador. His stint in El Salvador coincided with the
rise of the death squadrons and a period during which the country was
virtually “under the grip of US sponsored State terror.”42
In
Kosovo, William G. Walker applied his skills in covert operations
acquired in Central America. As head of the Kosovo Verification Mission
(KVM), Walker maintained close links to the KLA military command in the
field.43 From the outset of his mission in Kosovo, he used his position
to pursue the interests of the Alliance.
“The Racak Massacre”
The
so-called “Racak massacre” occurred shortly before the launching of the
Rambouillet “peace initiative”. although it turned out to be a fake,
the Racak massacre nonetheless played a key role in “setting the stage”
for NATO’s air raids. William Walker declared (in his capacity as head
of KVM) that the Yugoslav police had carried out a massacre of civilians
at Racak on January 15th. The Yugoslav authorities retorted that local
police had in fact conducted an operation in this village against the
Kosovo Libration Army and that several KLA soliders had died in
cross-fire. As later reported by several French newspapers (Le Monde, Le
Figaro and Liberation), it was confirmed that the “Racak massacre” was
indeed a fake put together with a view to discrediting Belgrade:
“Eventually,
even the Los Angeles Times joined in, running a story entitled “Racak
Massacre Questions: Were Atrocities Faked?” The theory behind all these
exposs was that the KLA had gathered their own dead after the battle,
removed their uniforms, put them in civilian clothes, and then called in
the observers.”44.
The Rambouillet Process
On
January 22, senior officials of the so-called “Contact Group” of six
countries (including the US, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and Italy)
meeting in London called for a peace conference which would bring
together the Yugoslav government and “representatives of ethnic
Albanians.” In turn, NATO warned that it was “ready to act” if the peace
plan to be finalised by the Contact Group were rejected. United Nations
Secretary General Kofi Annan concurred during a visit to NATO
headquarters in Brussels that the threat of force was “essential” to
press both sides into a settlement.45
In
the meantime, while supporting the KLA insurgency on the ground, the
Alliance had also contributed to spearheading KLA leader Hashim Thaci (a
29 year “freedom fighter”) into heading the Kosovar delegation to
Rambouillet, on behalf of the ethnic Albanian majority. The Democratic
League headed by Ibrahim Rugova had been deliberately side-stepped. The
Alliance was relying on its KLA puppets (linked to organised crime) to
rubber-stamp an agreement which would have transformed Kosovo into an
occupied territory under NATO military rule.
While
negotiations were ongoing in Rambouillet, NATO decided to increase the
readiness of its assigned forces “so as to make them able to execute the
operation within 48 hours”.46 In other words, “peace negotiations” had
been initiated in Rambouillet (contrary to the Vienna Convention) under
the threat of impending air strikes. NATO had granted a three weeks
period to the parties meeting in Rambouillet to conclude negotiations.
On
February 19, one day prior to the deadline, NATO Secretary General
Javier Solano reaffirmed that, “if no agreement is reached by the
deadline set by the Contact Group, NATO is ready to take whatever
measures are necessary to avert a humanitarian catastrophe”.47 And on 22
March 1999, NATO’S North Atlantic Council authorised”the Secretary
General to decide, subject to further consultations, on a broader range
of air operations if necessary.”48 And on 23 March 1999, NATO’s
Secretary General directed the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe
General Wesley Clark to initiate air operations in the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia. Air operations commenced on 24 March 1999 under the
nickname “Operation Allied Force.”49
Sending in Ground Troups Under a G-8 “Peace Plan”
Since
the brutal onslaught of the air campaign on March 24, the Alliance has
continued to build up its ground combat troops on the Macedonian border
in anticipation of an impending military invasion. Initially NATO had
envisaged a Kosovo occupation force of 50,000 troops which could be
increased to 60,000 with a larger US share than the 4,000 initially
envisaged under Rambouillet.
In
other words, the proposed invasion force was to be more than double
that under Rambouillet (28,000 troops) while also enforcing all the
normative clauses of the initial Rambouillet agreement including the
“free movement” of NATO combat units throughout Yugoslavia.
In
the meantime, NATO’s military establishment was forcing the pace of
international diplomacy. The Alliance hinted in May that a ground
offensive could be launched prior to reaching a “peace agreement”
sanctioned by the G8 and ratified by the United Nations Security
Council.
In
addition to the 16,000 ground troops already stationed (well before the
beginning of the bombings) in Macedonia (of which almost half are
British), some 7000 NATO troops and “special forces” were also present
in Albania, not to mention the NATO troops stationed in
Bosnia-Herzegovina under Operation Joint Endeavour:
“We’ve
already put quite a lot of troops in Macedonia as the nucleus of that
operation”, said British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. “There are over
12,000 there already… and last weekend [14-15 May] we committed another
two and a half thousand to go there. We need to build up – actually we
need to build up now…”50.
In
late May, the 60,000 troops target was revised to 150,000. Alliance
officials estimating that “if the alliance later decides to mobilize for
a land attack … an invasion force could number more than 150,000
soldiers.”51 Prime Minister Tony Blair in a separate statement had
(without any form of parliamentary debate) confirmed the sending of
50,000 British troops as part of the 150,000 invasion force.
In
early June, a NATO led invasion under a bogus G8-UN peace initiative
was put forth. While the latter served to appease and distract public
opinion, it usefully provided the Alliance with a semblance of
legitimacy under the UN Charter. It also purported to overcome the
hesitation of elected politicians including German Chancellor Gerhard
Schroeder and Italian Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema. The US
Administration also required the “rubber stamp” of the United Nations
Security Council so as to acquire the assent of the Republican dominated
Congress:
“House
and Senate Democrats agree there is little support at this point for
launching ground troops… even if Clinton and other NATO leaders could
reach a consensus on such a dramatic shift in tactics. For now, Clinton
has said he is opposed to ground troops.”52
The
US House of Representatives (in what appeared to be a partisan
“anti-Clinton” vote) has declined to even endorse the air campaign while
signifying its refusal to authorize a “ground war” without
congressional approval. In early April, Republicans and Democrats joined
hands in the House and threw out a proposed “declaration of war on
Yugoslavia” by an overwhelming 427-2 vote.
In
late May, seventeen members of Congress launched a suit against
President Clinton pointing to the blatant breach of the US Constitution:
“that
the Defendant, the President of the United States, is
unconstitutionally continuing an offensive military attack by United
States Armed Forces against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without
obtaining a declaration of war or other explicit authority from the
Congress of the United States as required by Article I, Section 8,
Clause 11 of the Constitution, and despite Congress’ decision not to
authorize such action.” 53
The
law suit launched in District Court (District of Columbia) also pointed
to the violation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a Vietnam
War-era legislation which requires “the sitting President congressional
approval for the “introduction into hostilities” of the U.S. armed
forces for longer than 60 days”:
Plaintiffs
also seek a declaration that a report pursuant to Section 1543(a)(1) of
the War Powers Resolution was required to be submitted on March 26,
1999, within 48 hours of the introduction into hostilities in the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of United States Armed Forces.
Additionally, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that, pursuant to Section
1544(b) of the Resolution, the President must terminate the use of
United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia no later than sixty calendar days after March 26,
1999. The President must do so unless the Congress declares war or
enacts other explicit authorization, or has extended the sixty day
period, or the President determines that thirty additional days are
necessary to safely withdraw United States Armed Forces from combat.54
NATO as “Peace-keepers”
Echoing
the barrage of self-serving NATO propaganda, the media scam now
consists in skilfully portraying Alliance ground troops as bona fide
“peace-keepers”. Public opinion should not be deluded as to the meaning
of a G8-UN brokered diplomatic solution.
An
“international presence” consisting largely of NATO troops under the G8
proposal (ratified by the Serbian Parliament in early June) could
include a token participation of “non-NATO forces” including Russia and
the Ukraine. While Moscow agreed in early June that all Yugoslav forces
be withdrawn from Kosovo alongside the disarmement of the KLA, Russian
envoy Viktor Chernomyrdin nonetheless insisted that the command
structure of the proposed international force be under the control and
jurisdiction of the United Nations.
Despite
his perfunctory condemnation of NATO bombings, Russian President Boris
Yeltsin is a Western puppet. Chernomyrdin writing in the Washington Post
had earlier warned that a continuation of the air raids could hurt
US-Russian relations: “The world has never in this decade been so close
as now to be on brink of nuclear war…” adding that “Russia would pull
out of the negotiating process if NATO bombing, which started March 24,
doesn’t stop soon.”55
In
the meantime, the Alliance, however, had persisted in maintaining a
unified NATO command structure (which was unacceptable to Moscow and
Belgrade). NATO has also stepped up the bombings as a means of
pressuring Belgrade into accepting (without prior negotiation) NATO’s
“five conditions”.
If
the G-8 proposal were to be ratified, NATO would first send in US
Marines into Kosovo from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit in the
Adriatic Sea. The Marines would be part of a so-called “Enabling Force”
prior to the moving in of a force of 50,000 troops.
A
G-8 “peace proposal” (implying a de facto military occupation of
Kosovo) could be formally ratified at the Cologne G7-G8 Summit in
mid-June. All G7 heads of government and heads of State together with
President Boris Yeltsin will be in attendance at Cologne in what is
hoped to be a highflown display of unity in favour of a (G8 sanctioned)
NATO led invasion. NATO nonetheless warned in early June that should the
diplomatic initiative not succeed, the Alliance would proceed with a
ground invasion involving 150,000 troops….
The Sending in of “Special Forces”
In
the meantime, an incipient undeclared ground War has already commenced:
special British, French and American forces were reported to be
advising the KLA in the conduct of ground combat operations against
regular units of the Yugoslav Army. To support this initiative, a
Republican sponsored bill was launched in the US Congress to provide
direct military aid to the KLA.
These
“special forces” are “advising the rebels at their strongholds in
northern Albania, where the KLA has launched a major recruitment and
training operation. According to high-ranking KLA officials, the
[British] SAS is using two camps near Tirana, the Albanian capital, and
another on the Kosovar border to teach KLA officers how to conduct
intelligence-gathering operations on Serbian positions”.56 In May, three
French special forces officers wearing uniforms of the French Armed
Forces (“Parachutistes”) were reported killed on the Albania-Yugoslavia
border by the Yugoslav daily Vecernje Novosti. According to the French
daily Libration, the three men were allegedly “instructors in charge of
coordinating ground war activities by the KLA…”57.
An Unholy “Marriage of Convenience”
In
addition to the dispatch of Western special forces, Mujehadeen
mercenaries and other Islamic fundamentalist groups (financed inter alia
by Iran and Saudi financier Osmane Bin Laden) have been collaborating
with the KLA in the ground war.
“[B]y
early December 1997, Iranian intelligence had already delivered the
first shipments of hand grenades, machine-guns, assault rifles, night
vision equipment, and communications gear… Moreover, the Iranians began
sending promising Albanian and UCK [KLA] commanders for advanced
military training in al-Quds [special] forces and IRGC camps in Iran…58.
Bin
Laden’s Al Qa’ida allegedly responsible for last year’s African embassy
bombings “was one of several fundamentalist groups that had sent units
to fight in Kosovo, … Bin Laden is believed to have established an
operation in Albania in 1994 … Albanian sources say Sali Berisha, who
was then president, had links with some groups that later proved to be
extreme fundamentalists”.59
Nato in Close Liaison with KLA Ground Operations
According
to Jane Defence Weekly (10 May 1999), the KLA’s new chief of staff is
former Croatian Armed Forces Brigadier General Agim Ceku (an ethnic
Albanian) who is currently under investigation by the War Crimes
Tribunal in the Hague (ICTY) for his role in “summary executions,
indiscriminate shelling of civilian populations and `ethnic cleansing’
during the War in Bosnia.”60
NATO
spokesman Jamie Shea’s response to the appointment of a War criminal as
KLA chief of staff was communicated in a Press Briefing:
“I
have always made it clear, and you have heard me say this, that NATO
has no direct contacts with the KLA. Who they appoint as their leaders,
that is entirely their own affair. I don’t have any comment on that
whatever.61
Shea’s
statement that NATO has “no direct contacts with the KLA” is a lie. It
is in overt contradiction with other Alliance statements: “I speak
regularly to Hashim Thaci, the leader of the Kosovo Liberation Army
who’s in Kosovo. I spoke to him at the end of last week” said British
Foreign Secretary Robin Cook.62
Operations
on the ground (led by the KLA and NATO Special forces) are now being
carefully coordinated with the air campaign. Moreover, some 50 Canadian
armed forces “are working with the KLA in Kosovo” to help report “where
the bombs are falling” so they can better target “where the next bomb
should go.”63
Pentagon Sponsored Mercenaries in Kosovo
The
KLA has also been provided with “a long-term training deal with
Military and Professional Resources International [MPRI], a mercenary
company run by former American officers who operate with semi-official
approval from the Pentagon and played a key role in building up
Croatia’s armed forces [during the War in Bosnia].”64 And General
Brigadier Agim Ceku (despite his role in “ethnic cleansing” in Bosnia),
is currently collaborating closely with the Pentagon’s mercenary outfit
MPRI on behalf of the KLA.
The KLA to Form a “Post-conflict Government”
A
self-proclaimed provisional KLA government of Kosovo has been
established. With KLA leader Hashim Thaci as Prime Minister designate,
the KLA has already been promised a central role in the formation of a
“post-conflict government”.
While
openly promoting a “freedom movement” with links to the drug trade,
NATO was also intent in bypassing the civilian Kosovo Democratic League
and its leader Ibrahim Rugova who had earlier called for an end to the
bombings. Rugova was branded as a “traitor” by the KLA. According to
Albanian state-run TV, the KLA had sentenced Rugova to death accusing
him of being “an agent of the regime in Belgrade.”65
In
April, Fehmi Agani, one of Rugova’s closest collaborators in the
Democratic League was killed. The Serbs were blamed by NATO spokesperson
Jamie Shea for having assassinated Agani. According to Skopje paper
Makedonija Danas quoting reliable sources in Albania: “Agani was killed…
on the orders of Tirana where Thaci is located with the members of his
illegal government”.66
According to a report of the Foreign Policy Institute:
“…the
KLA have [no] qualms about murdering Rugova’s collaborators, whom it
accused of the “crime” of moderation. Most recently, although Rugova’s
recent meeting with Milosevic may well have been under duress, the KLA
declared Rugova a “traitor” – yet another step toward eliminating any
competitors for political power within Kosovo.”67
The
KLA military regime had replaced the duly elected (by ethnic Albanians)
civilian provisional Kosovar government of President Ibrahim Rugova. In
a statement issued in April, the KLA considered the (parallel)
“parliamentary elections” organised by the Democratic League and held in
March 1998 to be invalid.
The
self-proclaimed Kosovar administration is made up of the KLA and the
Democratic Union Movement (LBD), a coalition of five opposition parties
opposed to Rugova’s Democratic League (LDK). In addition to the position
of prime minister, the KLA controls the ministries of finance, public
order and defence. In the words of US State Department spokesman James
Foley:
`We
want to develop a good relationship with them [the KLA] as they
transform themselves into a politically-oriented organization,’ ..`[W]e
believe that we have a lot of advice and a lot of help that we can
provide to them if they become precisely the kind of political actor we
would like to see them become.’68
With
the KLA poised to play a central role in the formation of a “post
conflict” government, the tendency is towards the installation of a
“Mafia State” with links to the drug trade. The US State Department’s
position is that the KLA would “not be allowed to continue as a military
force but would have the chance to move forward in their quest for self
government under a ‘different context'” meaning the inauguration of a
de facto “narco-democracy” under NATO protection: “If we can help them
and they want us to help them in that effort of transformation, I think
it’s nothing that anybody can argue with.”69
In
recent developments, the Alliance, however, has sought through the
intermediation of US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to reconcile
divisions between Thachi, Rugova and other ethnic Albanian leaders
“primarily with a view to strengthening its [the Alliance’s] own
position in the region.”70
Imposing “Free Market” Reforms
Wall
Street analysts concur that “war is good for business” particularly
during a period of “economic slowdown”. The US Congress has approved
increased budgetary allocations to finance the War in Yugoslavia which
will result in multi-billion contracts for America’s Defense industry.
In turn, the War will boost the military-industrial complex and its
related high tech sectors in the US and Western Europe. A ground war
combined with a prolonged military occupation (as in Bosnia) will prop
up military spending. In turn, covert support and financing of “freedom
fighters” (extending beyond the Balkans into Central Asia and the Middle
East) will contribute to boosting the lucrative contraband in small
arms for an expanding market of insurgent nationalist movements.
“Economic Reconstruction”
The
“post conflict” agenda (under the proposed G8 “peace initiative”
consists in establishing in Kosovo an occupied territory under Western
administration (broadly on the same model as the 1995 Dayton Agreement
imposed on Bosnia-Herzegovina).
“Free
market reforms” are envisaged for Kosovo under the supervision of the
Bretton Woods institutions. Article I (Chapter 4a) of the Rambouillet
Agreement stipulates that: “The economy of Kosovo shall function in
accordance with free market principles”.
“Civilian
administration [in Kosovo] and reconstruction would be carried out by
non-military bodies including the EU and the OSCE, with input from the
World Bank and the IMF to rebuild war-damaged infrastructure and rehouse
refugees.71
In
close liaison with NATO, the Bretton Woods institutions had already
analyzed the consequences of an eventual military intervention leading
to the military occupation of Kosovo: almost a year prior to the
beginning of the War, the World Bank conducted “simulations” which
“anticipated the possibility of an emergency scenario arising out of the
tensions in Kosovo”.72 The “simulations” conducted in Washington have
in fact already been translated into a panoply of “emergency recovery
loans” for Macedonia and Albania, and there is more to come… Since the
imposition of the embargo, Yugoslavia, however, is no longer considered a
member of the Bretton Woods institutions and will not be eligible for
IMF-World Bank loans until the sanctions are lifted.
The
proposed “Marshall Plan” for the Balkans is a delusion. We recall that
in Bosnia, the costs of reconstruction were of the order of 50 billion
dollars. Western donors initially pledged $3 billion in reconstruction
loans, yet only a meagre $518 million dollars were granted in December
1995, part of which was tagged (under the terms of the Dayton Peace
Accords) to finance some of the local civilian costs of the
Implementation Force’s (IFOR) military deployment as well as repay debt
arrears with international creditors.73
The
eventual “reconstruction” of Yugoslavia formulated in the context of
the “free market” reforms and financed by international debt largely
purport to create a safe haven for foreign investors rather than
rehabilitate the country’s economic and social infrastructure. The IMF’s
lethal “economic medicine” will be imposed, the national economy will
be dismantled, European and American banks will take over financial
institutions, local industrial enterprises which have not been totally
destroyed will be driven into bankruptcy. The most profitable State
assets will be transferred into the hands of foreign capital under the
World Bank sponsored privatisation programme. In turn, “strong economic
medicine” imposed by external creditors will contribute to further
boosting a criminal economy (already implanted in Albania and Macedonia)
which feeds on poverty and economic dislocation.
“The
Allies will work with the rest of the international community to help
rebuild Kosovo once the crisis is over: The International Monetary Fund
and Group of Seven industrialized countries are among those who stand
ready to offer financial help to the countries of the region. We want to
ensure proper co-ordination of aid and help countries to respond to the
effects of the crisis. This should go hand in hand with the necessary
structural reforms in the countries affected — helped by budget support
from the international community.74
In
turn, the so-called “reconstruction” of the Balkans by foreign capital
will signify multi-billion contracts to multinational firms to rebuild
roads, airports and bridges which will eventually be required (once the
embargo is lifted) to facilitate the “free movement” of capital and
commodities.
The
proposed “Marshall Plan” financed by the World Bank and the European
Development Bank (EBRD) as well as private creditors will largely
benefit Western mining, petroleum and construction companies while
fuelling the region’s external debt well into the third millennium. And
the countries of the Balkans are slated to reimburse this debt through
the laundering of dirty money in the domestic banking system which will
be deregulated under the supervision of Western financial institutions.
Narco-dollars from the multi-billion dollar Balkans drug trade will be
recycled (through the banking system) and channelled towards servicing
the external debt as well as “financing” the costs of “reconstruction”.
The
pattern for Kosovo is, in this regard, similar to that of Macedonia and
Albania. Since the early 1990s, the IMF’s reforms have impoverished the
Albanian population while spearheading the national economy into
bankruptcy. The IMF’s deadly economic therapy transforms countries into
open territories. In Albania and Macedonia it has fostered the growth of
illicit trade and the criminalisation of State institutions.
Moreover,
even prior to the influx of refugees, NATO troops in Macedonia and
Albania had already occupied civilian facilities (including hotels,
schools, barracks and even hospitals) without compensating the national
governments for the use of local services.75
In
a cruel irony, a significant part of these incurred costs as well as
those associated with the refugee crisis are now to be financed not by
the Alliance but by the national governments on borrowed money:
“[T]he
Albanian government’s formal structures have been paralysed by the
crisis. The country’s treasury has been emptied by the initial efforts
to help the refugees.”76
Who Will Pay War Reparations?
The
extensive destruction of Yugoslavia, would normally require the
Alliance to “pay war reparations” to Belgrade. However, following a
pattern set in both Vietnam and Iraq, the Alliance will no doubt compel
Belgrade “to pay for the costs” of Operation Allied Force (including the
cruise missiles and radioactive shells) as a condition for the
“normalisation of relations” and the lifting of the economic embargo.
We
recall in this regard that whereas Vietnam never received War
reparations payments, Hanoi was compelled –as a condition for the
“normalisation” of economic relations and the lifting of the US embargo
in 1994–, to recognize the “bad debts” of the defunct Saigon regime
which were largely used to finance the US War effort. By recognizing (in
a secret Paris Club agreement negotiatied in 1993) the legitimacy of
these debts, Vietnam had accepted “to pay war reparation damages” to her
former enemy.77
Similarly
Baghdad has been “billed for the costs of the Gulf War”, – –ie.
accumulated Iraqi debts including private claims against Iraq have been
carefully recorded by a special unit of the UN Security Council. The
recognition of these debts by Baghdad at some future date will be a
condition for the lifting of sanctions on Iraq.
Endnotes
1. Statement by UNICEF Representative in Belgrade, quoted in Yugoslav Daily Survey, Belgrade, 23 May 1999, No. 4351.
2. Report by Dr Siegwart-Horst Guenther, meeting of the PBS (Federal Socialists), Bonn, 17 May 1999.
3. International Action Center, “NATO Bombing Unleashes Environmental Catastrophe in Europe”, Press Release, 14 May 1999).
4.
Joseph Fitchett, “Is Serb Economy the True Target? Raids Seem Aimed at
Bolstering Resistance to Milosevic”, International Herald Tribune,
Paris, 26 May 1999.
5. Tanjug Press Release, 25 May 1999.
6. Statement to Ambassadors of 19 NATO Countries, quoted in Daily Telegraph, London, 28 May 1999.
7. Ibid.
8. Sean Gervasi, Bosnia and Vietnam, draft text, 1995.
9. Financial Times, London, 6 May 1999, p. 2.
10. Ibid.
11. The Boston Globe, 8 April 1999.
12.
According to Viktor Chechevatov, a Three-star General and Commander of
ground forces in Russia’s Far East, quoted in The Boston Globe, 8 April
1999
13.
Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford, “Bombings Reignite Nuclear War Fears”, The
Victoria Times-Colonist. 13 May 1999, page A15. Mary-Wynne Ashford is
co-president of the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPPNW.
14. Quoted in Mary-Wynne Ashford, op. cit.
15 Quoted by Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford, op. cit.
16. Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford, op cit.
17. Quoted in The Washington Post, May 9, 1999, page A20.
18. World Socialist Website editorial, 24 May 1999.
19. Diana Johnstone, On Refugees, Paris, 30 May 1999.
20. Ibid.
21. See “Lawyers Charge NATO Leaders Before War Crimes Tribunal”, Toronto, 6 May 1999.
22. See Financial Times, 27 May 1999.
23.
See “Lawyers Charge NATO Leaders Before War Crimes Tribunal”, Toronto, 6
May 1999; see also Jude Wanniski, “Memo to US House Majority Leader”,
Polyeconomics, New York, 10 May 1999.
24. Lawyers Charge NATO, op cit.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27.
Chicago Tribune, 10 May 1999. 28. Intelligence Report from the German
Foreign Office, January 12, 1999 to the Administrative Court of Trier.
29.
Status Report of the German Foreign Office, November 18, 1998 to the
Upper Administrative Court at Mnster, February 24, 1999.
30.
See, Roland Keith, “Failure of Diplomacy, Returning OSCE Human Rights
Monitor Offers A View From the Ground in Kosovo”, The Democrat, May
1999.
31.
US Department of Defense Press Release, 6 April 1999. The stated
purpose of the mission was “to discuss a range of security issues with
the recent ethnic clashes in Kosovo.” In Skopje, the agenda consisted in
examining security arrangements to be implemented after the termination
of United Nations UNPREDEP programme.
32. Background briefing by a Senior Defense Official at NATO Headquarters, Thursday, June 11, 1998.
33. Ibid.
34. US Department of Defense, Background Briefing, July 15, 1998.
35. For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Kosovo `Freedom Fighters’ Financed by Organised Crime, Ottawa, 1999.
36. Quoted in The Daily Telegraph, London, 25 September 1998.
37.
See Federation of American Scientists, “Operation Determined Force”, 24
March 1999, see also Financial Times, October 12, 1998.
38. Quoted in Federation of American Scientists, op. cit.
39. See Roland Keith, Appendix, op. cit.
40.
United States Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia Circuit,
Filed January 23, 1996, Division No. 86-6, in Re: Oliver L. North.
41. Ibid.
42. Roland Keith, Appendix, op. cit.
43. Confirmed by several press reports as well as statements of the KLA, see also Radio 21 Dispatch, Tirana, February 28, 1999.
44. Roland Keith, Appendix, op cit.
45. Daily Telegraph, London, 29 January 1999.
46. Federation of American Scientists, op. cit.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid.
50. “Margaret Warner talks with Cook about the latest developments in the Yugoslav conflict”, Jim Lehrer News Hour, 21 May 1999.
51. New York Times, 26 May 1999.
52. Washington Post, 23 May 1999.
53.
Action launched in United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Preliminary Statement,
District of Columbia, 27 May 1999.
54. Ibid., see also Truth in Media, Phoenix, 23 May 1999.
55. Washington Post, 27 May 1999.
56. Sunday Telegraph, London, 18 April 1999.
57. Libration, Paris, 19 May 1999.
58.
Yossef Bodansky, “Italy Becomes Iran’s New Base for Terrorist
Operations,” Defense and Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy, London,
February 1998. Bodansky is Director of the US House Congressional Task
Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare
59. Chris Steven, “Bin Laden Opens European Terror Base in Albania”, Sunday Times, London, 15 November 1998.
60. “War Crimes Panel Finds Croat Troops ‘Cleansed’ the Serbs,” New York Times, 21 March 1999.
61. NATO Press Briefing, 14 May 1999.
62. Jim Lehrer News Hour, op cit.
63. According to Canadian MP David Price, April 19, 1999, UPI Press Dispatch. 64. Sunday Telegraph, London, 18 April 1999.
65. “US Is Trying to Reconcile Ethnic-Albanian Separatists”, Belgrade, Tanjug Press Dispatch, 30 May 1999.
66. Quoted in Tanjug Press Dispatch, 14 May 1999.
67. See Michael Radu, “Don’t Arm the KLA”, CNS Commentary from the Foreign Policy Research Institute, 7 April, 1999).
68. New York Times, 2 February 1999.
69. Ibid.
70. Tanjug Press Dispatch, 30 May 1999.
71. See World Bank Development News, Washington, 27 April 1999.
72. Ibid.
73. See Michel Chossudovsky, Dismantling Yugoslavia, Colonising Bosnia, Covert Action Quarterly, No. 56. Spring 1996.
74. Statement by Javier Solano, Secretary General of NATO, published in The National Post, Toronto May 1999).
75. See Jan Oberg, Press Info, no. 59, Insecuring Macedonia, Transnational Foundation TFF, March 18, 1999.
76. Jane Intelligence Review, June 1999.
77.
See Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalisation of Poverty, Impacts of IMF
and World Banks Reforms, Third World Network Penang and Zed Books, 1997,
chapter 8.
Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.
Copyright © Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2018
