The
Marxist
Volume: 15, No. 02-03
April-September 1999
YUGOSLAVIA: AN IMPERIALIST WAR FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER
(This
is
an
abridged
version
of
the
original
article
written
before
the
war
on
Yugoslavia
ended)
--
Tania
Noctiummes
-- Jean Pierre Page
"The
NATO
war
is
a
bandit
action"
Harold
Pinter,
London,
2
May
1999
A
War
of
Aggression
The
imperialist
war
of
aggression
is
being
waged,
under
the
NATO
umbrella,
against
a
sovereign
State
and
its
peoples
under
the
leadership
of
the
United
States
and
the
active
participation
of
France,
Britain,
Italy,
Germany
and
other
NATO
partners.
The
argument
of
legitimate
defence
cannot
be
invoked.
Moreover,
it
was
launched
without
authorization
of
the
United
Nations
Security
Council,
without
any
approval
of
the
national
parliaments
of
these
countries,
and
in
violation
of
the
terms
of
the
Treaty
governing
the
Atlantic
Alliance.
As
such,
the
perpetrators
have
violated
every
rule
of
international
law
and
are
guilty
not
only
of
a
breach
of
the
peace
but
of
war
crimes.
The
intervention
of
NATO
is
unprecedented
and
creates
a
new
precedent.
For
the
first
time,
Western
Europe
has
endorsed
and
actively
participated
in
a
unilateral
action
of
war
that
has
upto
now
been
a
privileged
weapon
of
the
United
States.
What
we
are
seeing
today
is
not
simply
an
alignment
of
Western
Europe
with
US
against
Yugoslavia.
Neither
does
it
reflect
any
inability
of
Europe
to
provide
itself
with
the
necessary
means
to
carry
out
its
own
politics.
The
war
against
Yugoslavia
reveals
a
joint
will
to
implement
a
common
`new
strategic
concept',
elaborated
and
finalised
together
by
Western
Europe
and
the
United
States,
and
ratified
at
the
recent
NATO
summit
in
Washington.
The
war
serves
to
legitimize
this
new
concept
and,
for
this
reason,
NATO
cannot
afford
to
lose
the
war.
It
is
significant
that
the
war
is
conducted
in
the
name
of
the
`international
community'
when
in
reality
it
is
being
waged
by
a
bellicose
Euro-American
alliance.
On
what
basis
does
NATO
arrogate
itself
the
right
to
speak
on
behalf
of
the
international
community
in
a
unilateral
manner
and
claim
to
incarnate
`the
law'?
After
Pax
Americana,
Lex
Americana!
One
of
its
main
results
is
the
programmed
death
of
the
system
of
international
relations
built
after
World
War
II.
In
the
US
view,
the
present
system
has
become
anachronic
and
must
be
replaced
by
a
new
world
order
through
a
new
role
for
NATO
under
US
domination.
Within
a
period
of
only
eight
months,
the
United
States
is
guilty
of
armed
aggression,
carried
out
with
total
impunity,
against
four
sovereign
states
--
Sudan,
Afghanistan,
Iraq
and
Yugoslavia
--
without
any
authorization
by
the
United
Nations
and
in
violation
of
the
United
Nations
Charter.
The
instrumentalisation
of
the
Secretary-General
of
the
United
Nations,
Kofi
Annan,
is
its
most
significant
demonstration:
yesterday,
forced
into
silence,
today
pressed
into
submission
to
obtain
the
agreement
of
the
Security
Council
to
legitimize
ground
intervention
in
Yugoslavia.
The
NATO
Alliance
may
have
agreed
to
designate
the
ground
force
as
a
UN
force,
but
it
insists
that
NATO
troops
must
be
the
core,
wielding
heavy
NATO
firepower
and
working
within
an
exclusively
NATO
command
structure:
"UN-wrapped
but
NATO-filled"![1]
According
to
sources
close
to
the
Secretary-General,
he
was
apparently
warned
by
US
Secretary
of
State
Madeleine
Albright
on
7
May
1999
that
any
political
or
military
intervention
by
the
United
Nations
would
be
"unacceptable",
that
the
international
military
presence
in
Yugoslavia
would
not
be
a
UN
force
and
that
"in
no
case"
would
it
be
under
the
control
of
the
UN.
He
was
also
told
that
the
UN
"should
be
satisfied
with
its
own
business,
ie,
humanitarian
affairs".[2]
A
war
planned
and
prepared
in
advance…Rambouillet
and
Akrona
The
United
States
had
prepared
the
aggression
against
Yugoslavia
well
in
advance.
The
`negotiations'
undertaken
in
Rambouillet
turned
out
to
be
a
manoeuvre
to
deceive
the
public
into
giving
a
stamp
of
approval
for
the
war.
The
US
attack
against
Yugoslavia
began
more
than
a
decade
ago
when
the
World
Bank
and
the
IMF
set
about
destroying
the
multi-ethnic
federation
with
lethal
doses
of
debt,
market
reforms
and
imposed
poverty.
Millions
of
jobs
were
destroyed.
In
1989
alone,
600,000
workers,
almost
a
quarter
of
the
workforce,
was
sacked
without
severance
pay.
But
the
most
critical
reform
was
the
ending
of
economic
support
to
the
six
constituent
republics
and
re-colonisation
by
western
capital.
At
the
same
time,
`Milosevic,
the
reformer'
was
considered
a
favourite
among
senior
figures
in
the
US
State
Department
and
the
KLA
were
considered
to
be
"no
more
than
terrorists".
Richard
Holbrooke
described
President
Milosevic
as
"a
man
we
can
do
business
with,
a
man
who
recognises
the
realities
of
life
in
former
Yugoslavia".
In
October
1998,
the
US
drafted
a
peace
plan
for
Kosovo
giving
the
Kosovans
far
less
autonomy
and
freedom
than
they
had
under
the
old
Yugoslav
federation.
But
this
deal
included
crucially
for
the
Americans
a
NATO
military
presence.
When
Milosevic
objected
to
having
NATO
troops
on
his
soil,
he
was
swiftly
transformed
like
Saddam
Hussein
from
client
to
demon.
Frequently
it
is
claimed
that
the
war
has
provided
each
party,
Serbs
and
Albanians
alike,
with
the
pretext
to
fuel
the
worst
kind
of
nationalism.
However,
one
fails
to
recognise
that
the
situation
in
the
Balkans
has
a
clear
origins
and
responsibilities.
Germany
followed
by
the
rest
of
Western
Europe
hold
direct
responsibility
for
fuelling
ethnic
divisions
and
rivalry
with
the
objective
to
destabilise
and
dismantle
former
Yugoslavia.
Germany
directly
inspired
the
break-away
of
Croatia
and
Slovenia,
since
then
it
new
economic
colonies.
Later,
German
Chancellor,
Gerhard
Schroder,
was
to
offer
a
glimpse
of
the
underlying
strategic
context
of
this
kind
of
move
when
he
said,
on
19
April
1999,
that
"the
role
of
Germany
in
the
world
has
changed….we
are
advancing
to
the
centre
of
Europe
for
the
deepening
and
enlargement
of
the
process
of
European
integration….the
transfer
of
the
Reichstag
to
Berlin
clearly
shows
the
extent
to
which
German
capital
can
become
the
link
between
East
and
West
as
the
hinge
of
European
unity."[3]
The
`intransigence'
of
President
Molosevic
to
agree
to
the
Rambouillet
peace
accord
became
the
pretext
for
NATO
military
intervention
in
Yugoslavia.
In
an
article
appearing
in
Le
Monde
Diplomatique
of
May
1999,
Paul
Marie
de
la
Gorce
revealed
the
`secret
history
of
the
Rambouillet
negotiations'.[4]
The
`invitation'
extended
to
the
Government
of
Yugoslavia
by
the
`Contact
Group'
(USA,
UK,
Germany,
France,
Italy
and
Russia)
took
the
"form
of
an
ultimatum";
it
was
"threatened
with
military
reprisals
should
it
refuse
to
present
itself".
All
the
elements
of
the
Accord
presented
at
Rambouillet
as
`non-negotiable'
were
already
present
in
an
American
text
of
a
`peace'
agreement
which
was
published
in
February
1999
in
the
Albanian
journal
`Koha
Ditore'.
The
text
was
elaborated
by
Roger
Hill,
assistant
to
Richard
Holbrooke,
former
US
Secretary
of
State
and
US
mediator
in
former
Yugoslavia,
following
the
latter's
visit
to
Belgrade
in
summer
1998
to
oblige
President
Milosevic
to
begin
negotiations
with
the
Kosovo
Albanian
community.
The
negotiations
were
delayed
as
rivalry
escalated
between
the
moderate
Kosovo
Albanian
leader
Ibrahim
Rugova
and
the
extremist
Kosovo
Liberation
Army.
Meanwhile,
the
US
began
work
on
its
own
draft.
What
was
hidden
from
the
public
is
that
the
Yugoslav
delegation
to
Rambouillet
had
no
objection
to
the
political
aspects
of
the
Accord
but
rejected
other
the
military
section,
as
a
violation
of
its
national
sovereignty
and
independence.
Annex
B
of
the
Accord,
in
effect,
provided
for
the
occupation
of
the
entire
territory
of
Yugoslavia
by
NATO
forces.
In
fact,
there
were
no
negotiations
at
Rambouillet.
A
compromise
proposal
for
an
`international'
presence
in
Kosovo
made
by
the
representative
of
the
Government
of
Yugoslavia
was
ignored
by
the
Western
members
of
the
Contact
Group
which,
without
further
ado,
acquired
the
signature
of
the
Kosovo-Albanian
representative.
The
final
document
was
given
to
the
Russian
delegation
only
on
the
last
day
of
the
conference!
Since
then,
France
and
UK,
co-chairs
of
Rambouillet,
have
refused
to
release
to
the
public
the
section
of
the
document
dealing
with
military
aspects.[5]
A
closer
examination
of
the
military
clauses
of
the
Rambouillet
Accord
will
show
why
the
United
States
and
its
European
allies
would
have
known
in
advance
that
such
a
condition
would
be
unacceptable
to
any
sovereign
State,
even
a
NATO
member
State!
The
provisions
reduce,
not
only
Kosovo,
but
all
of
Yugoslavia
into
a
colony
of
the
United
States,
the
dominant
NATO
power.
Sections
2,
5
and
7
provide
for
a
permanent
NATO
presence
in
Kosovo.
OSCE
would
control
the
functioning
of
the
police
and
justice.
In
case
of
litigation,
the
two
parties
would
have
appeal
to
NATO
and
only
to
NATO.
Sections
6
and
7
stipulate
that
NATO
forces
will
be
immune
"under
all
circumstances
and
at
all
times"
from
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Yugoslav
Federation
"in
respect
of
any
civil,
administrative,
criminal
or
disciplinary
offenses
which
may
be
committed
by
them
in
the
FRY"
(Federal
Republic
of
Yugoslavia).
Richard
Becker,
Western
Regional
Co-Director
of
the
International
Action
Center,
describes
this
provisions
as
comprising
"the
old,
hated,
colonial
concept
of
`extraterritoriality',
under
which
the
colonisers
were
immune
from
being
tried
by
the
courts
of
the
colonized
country,
even
if
they
committed
--
as
they
often
did
--
rape,
murder
and
mayhem"[6]
exempt
from
all
provisions
of
the
Constitution
and
legislation
of
the
Yugoslav
Federation.
Sections
8
and
9
provide
NATO
forces,
their
vehicles
and
equipment
with
free,
unrestricted
and
unimpeded
access
throughout
Yugoslavia,
including
its
airspace
and
territorial
waters:
Section
8
:
"NATO
personnel
shall
enjoy,
together
with
their
vehicles,
vessels,
aircraft,
and
equipment,
free
and
unrestricted
passage
and
unimpeded
access
throughout
the
FRY
including
associated
airspace
and
territorial
waters.
This
shall
include,
but
not
be
limited
to,
the
right
of
bivouac,
manoeuvre,
billet,
and
utilisation
of
any
areas
or
facilities
as
required
for
support,
training,
and
operations."
Section
9
:
"NATO
shall
be
exempted
from
duties,
taxes,
and
other
charges
and
inspections
and
custom
regulations
including
providing
inventories
or
other
routine
customs
documentation,
for
personnel,
vehicles,
aircraft,
equipment,
supplies,
and
provisions
entering,
exiting,
or
transiting
the
territory
of
the
FRY
in
support
of
the
operation."
Sections
11
and
15
give
NATO
the
right
to
use,
in
all
of
Yugoslavia
and
free
of
cost,
the
country's
transport
infrastructure
and
telecommunications
services,
including
broadcast
services;
Section
11:
"NATO
is
granted
the
use
of
airports,
roads,
rails,
and
ports
without
payment
of
fees,
duties,
dues,
tolls,
or
charges
occasioned
by
mere
use."
Section
15:
"The
parties
(Yugoslav
and
Kosovo
governments)
shall,
upon
simple
request,
grant
all
telecommunications
services,
including
broadcast
services,
needed
for
the
Operation,
as
determined
by
NATO.
This
shall
include
the
right
to
utilise
such
means
and
services
as
required
to
asssure
full
ability
to
communicate
and
the
right
to
use
all
of
the
electromagnetic
spectrum
for
this
purpose,
free
of
cost."
Section
22
gives
NATO
the
right
to
modify
the
country's
public
infrastructure.
Section
22
:
"NATO
may,
in
the
conduct
of
the
Operation,
have
need
to
make
improvements
or
modifications
to
certain
infrastructure
in
the
FRY,
such
as
roads,
bridges,
tunnels,
buildings
and
utility
systems."
The
military
provisions
of
the
Accord
were
in
effect
an
ultimatum
to
the
government
of
Yugoslavia
with
a
conditional
declaration
of
war,
a
violation
of
the
Hague
Convention.
International
law
forbids
the
"use
of
threat
of
force"
which
is
"an
express
or
implied
promise
by
a
Government
to
resort
to
force
conditional
on
non-acceptance
of
certain
demands
of
that
government".
Already
in
1996,
NATO's
General
Secretary,
Javier
Solana,
declared:
"the
experience
acquired
in
Bosnia
could
serve
as
a
model
for
future
NATO
operations".
Ivo
Daalder,
Director
at
the
Brookings
Institution
in
Washington,
echoed
these
sentiments:
"If
NATO
is
unable
to
get
rid
of
a
paper
tiger
in
the
centre
of
Europe,
then
what
purpose
does
the
Alliance
serve?
NATO
cannot
lose
its
first
war
in
50
years.
Kosovo
constitutes
a
determining
moment
for
NATO."
A
War
Based
On
Deceit
The
United
States
and
its
junior
partners
have
sought
to
justify
their
imperialist
war
in
the
name
of
`democracy',
`human
rights',
`moral
values'.
For
the
first
time,
`universality'
of
human
rights
is
being
used
to
give
pseudo
legitimacy
for
military
intervention
in
the
internal
affairs
of
a
sovereign
State,
sabotaging
existing
mechanisms
established
within
the
framework
of
the
United
Nations
and
creating
a
precedent
for
new
interventions
to
come.
They
have
accused
the
Government
of
Yugoslavia
of
`ethnic
cleansing'
of
its
Kosovo
Albanian
population.
In
reality,
however,
prior
to
the
bombardment,
the
civilian
population
of
Kosovo,
Albanians
and
Serbs,
were
fleeing
an
armed
conflict
between
the
Yugoslav
armed
forces
and
the
Kosovo
Liberation
Army
(KLA),
which
has
called
for
coordinated
action
with
NATO
forces.
It
is
only
after
the
beginning
of
the
NATO
bombardment
that
the
exodus
took
on
massive
proportions.
OSCE
monitors
and
foreign
reports
in
Yugoslavia
also
exposed
the
lie
about
the
`Racak
massacre'
that
was
`discovered'
by
OSCE
KVM
Chief,
US
Ambassador
William
Walker.
It
was
the
lie
that
would
lead
to
NATO
bombardment
of
the
country
and
provide
justification
for
it
on
"humanitarian
grounds".
On
16
January
1999,
Walker
accused
"Yugoslav
security
forces"
of
massacring
45
civilians
in
the
village
of
Racak,
an
act
of
which
he
was
"personally
convinced"
and
sent
an
ultimative
demand
that
investigators
from
the
Hague
Tribunal
be
permitted
to
come
to
Kosovo
an
Metohija
within
24
hours.
Walker's
version
was
repeated
by
Albanian
reporters
personally
hand-picked
by
Walker
to
accompany
him.
He
had
refused
to
allow
representatives
of
the
domestic
media
to
be
present.
According
to
the
Albanian
"eyewitnesses",
in
the
middle
of
the
day,
the
police
raided
the
village,
separated
women
from
men,
and
subsequently
killed
the
latter.
The
announcement
was
made
before
any
investigation
could
be
carried
out.
The
story
of
the
Racak
`massacre'
is
almost
identical
to
that
of
the
stories
about
the
Sarajevo
marketplace
of
Markale
and
from
Vase
Miskine
Street,
the
truth
of
which
was
learned
only
after
the
Serbs
had
already
been
punished
for
what
they
did
not
do.
Soon
after
Walker's
announcement,
Yugoslav
authorities
refuted
this
version
and
in
a
communique,
the
Foreign
Ministry
reported
that
there
had
been
an
armed
confrontation
in
the
vicinity
of
Racak
on
15
January
when
KLA
fighters
attacked
Serb
police
undertaking
the
arrest
of
terrorists
who
had
killed
a
police
officer,
Svetislav
Przic,
five
days
earlier.
The
KVM
of
the
OSCE
was
duly
informed
about
the
beginning
of
the
arrests
and
arrived
at
the
scene
of
fighting.[7]
William
Walker's
version
and
that
of
Albanian
`eyewitnesses'
was
also
refuted
by
films
shot
both
during
and
after
the
fighting
in
Racak
by
the
American
Associated
Press
and
by
Renaud
Girard,
correspondent
in
Yugoslavia
for
the
French
daily
"Le
Figaro"
on
location
in
Racak.
The
version
was
also
contradicted
by
OSCE
monitors
who
were
present
in
Racak.
On
20
and
23
January,[8]
Renaud
Girard
pointed
out
that
the
Serb
police
had
nothing
to
hide
since
they
invited
a
television
crew
from
the
American
Associated
Press
to
film
their
operation
to
arrest
members
of
the
KLA
group
in
Racak,
known
to
be
a
KLA
base,
and
who
had
carried
out
multiple
criminal
acts
of
terrorism
as
per
Article
125
of
the
Criminal
Code
of
the
Federal
Republic
of
Yugoslavia.
Security
forces
had
also
informed
the
OSCE
Mission
of
the
campaign,
subsequently
confirmed
by
a
British
member
of
the
mission,
Neal
Strechen.[9]
Members
of
the
OSCE
mission,
travelling
in
two
vehicles
with
American
diplomatic
plates,
were
also
present.
Le
Figaro
pointed
out
that
the
available
facts
refute
the
claims
of
OSCE
and
of
the
Albanian
separatists
that
Serbian
security
forces
massacred
45
civilians.
According
to
various
Western
dailies,
it
appears
that
the
bodies
may
be
those
of
KLA
members
killed
in
the
fighting
with
Serb
police
which
were
later
gathered
together
by
KLA
separatists
and
brought
to
the
gully
to
stage
a
massacre.[10]
Inside
the
OSCE
Mission,
the
conclusion
had
been
reached,
on
the
basis
of
evidence
available,
that
the
`massacre'
was,
indeed,
staged
by
the
KLA.
Officials
of
the
Mission,
who
had
asked
to
remain
anonymous,
informed
that
they
had
inspected
15
bodies
and
determined
that
some
of
them
were
moved.[11]
According
to
one
monitor,
most
of
the
bodies
were
brought
from
the
surrounding
area.
Many
were
KLA
fighters
killed
in
an
armed
combat
with
Serb
forces
and
"were
subsequently
dressed
in
civilian
clothes"[12]
Willy
Wimmer,
Vice-President
of
the
OSCE
Parliamentary
Assembly
told
the
private
German
television
NTV
that
he
rejects
with
disgust
manipulation
by
television
pictures
intended
to
provoke
an
intervention
by
NATO
in
Kosovo
and
Metohija:
"Everything
is
directed
toward
provoking
a
certain
reaction
so
that
certain
pictures
create
the
desire
to
immediately
issue
orders
to
our
soldiers
to
go
into
action."[13]
The
US
Chief
of
the
OSCE
KVM
and
NATO
governments
went
out
of
their
way
to
prevent
the
truth
of
the
`massacre'
being
known.
Walker
prevented
the
investigating
judge
from
carrying
out
the
on-site
investigation
on
16
January
by
demanding
that
she
go
without
police
protection.
Having
prevented
the
country's
judicial
and
state
authorities
from
carrying
out
their
duty,
Walker
himself
arrived
at
the
scene
on
the
same
day,
accompanied
by
foreign
and
Albanian
journalists,
and
made
the
dramatic
declaration!
Outraged
by
the
arrogance
of
a
US
Ambassador
behaving
like
an
occupation
force,
the
Yugoslav
government
accused
Walker
of
intervention
in
the
internal
affairs
of
a
sovereign
state:
"such
an
attitude
did
not
come
for
the
first
time
to
the
fore
in
his
statement
and
in
his
preventing
that
the
investigating
judge
carry
out
her
duty
according
to
the
laws
of
her
own
country.
He
probably
forgot
that
he
is
not
a
Governor
or
a
Prosecutor
or
a
judge
in
Serbia
or
in
the
FRY
but
the
representative
of
the
organisation
of
54
equal
states
and
the
head
of
the
mission
whose
task
is
not
to
rule
the
territory
of
a
sovereign
country
but
to
observe
and
report
accurately."[14]
In
addition,
the
21
kilo
report
of
a
forensic
expert
team
sent
by
the
European
Union
to
investigate
the
circumstances
of
death,
which
was
ready
at
the
beginning
of
March,
was
not
made
public.
Procedural
and
other
arguments
were
used,
especially
by
the
EU
President,
German
Chancellor
Schroder,
to
prevent
the
contents
being
divulged
during
the
Rambouillet
meeting.[15]
The
OSCE,
itself,
admitted
indirectly
to
this.[16]
The
head
of
the
team,
Finland's
Dr.
Helena
Ranta,
was
apparently
instructed
by
Bonn
not
to
reveal
the
contents
and
to
follow
directions
given
by
German
authorities.
However,
the
contents
are
known
within
OSCE
circles:
that
the
massacre
was
substantially
manipulated
on
the
Albanian
side![17]
The
motivation
behind
Walker's
announcement
is
obvious
today:
to
prepare
public
opinion
for
NATO
aggression
and
to
create
a
precedent
for
what
British
Prime
Minister
Blair
calls
`the
new
kind
of
war'!
Immediately
after
the
announcement,
German
Chancellor
Schroder
warned
that,
for
the
first
time
since
54
years,
German
troops
could
be
sent
to
the
Balkans
and
that
the
event
justified
"direct
intervention
on
humanitarian
grounds"
without
a
mandate
from
the
UN
Security
Council.[18]
An
article
in
New
York
Times
shows
that
the
US
Administration
knew
in
advance
of
the
whole
scenario
of
the
`massacre'.
A
week
before,
officers
at
the
highest
levels
had
indicated
that
the
Administration
was
expecting
a
"decisive
moment",
a
"key
event",
in
order
to
take
further
steps.[19]
NATO
General
Secretary,
Javier
Solana,
himself
identified
this
event
as
a
turning
point
in
the
development
of
the
crisis.
It
was
after
Walker's
announcement
of
the
"Racak
massacre"
that
the
governments
of
the
`Contact
Group"
summoned
the
government
of
Yugoslavia
to
Rambouillet
threatening
military
reprisals
should
it
refuse
to
present
itself!
The
sordid
career
of
William
Walker
shows
that
he
was
chosen
to
head
the
OSCE
Kosovo
Verification
mission
not
for
any
commitment
to
human
rights
but
because
of
his
willingness
to
lie
or
to
keep
quiet.[20]
Almost
his
entire
career
in
the
foreign
service
was
spent
in
Central
and
South
America,
including
a
highly
controversial
posting
as
Deputy
Chief
of
Mission
in
Honduras
in
the
early
1980s,
at
the
time
and
place
where
the
Contra
rebel
force
was
formed.
In
1985
he
became
the
Deputy
Assistant
Secretary
of
State
for
Central
America
and
in
the
Reagan
and
Bush
White
Houses
held
responsibility
for
the
operation
to
overthrow
the
government
of
Nicaragua.
According
to
information
contained
in
Independent
Counsel
Lawrence
Walsh's
lengthy
indictment
of
Eliot
Abrams,
Walker
was
responsible
for
setting
up
a
phony
humanitarian
operation
at
an
airbase
in
Ilopanngo,
El
Salvador,
which
was
used
to
funnel
guns,
ammunition
and
supplies
to
the
Contra
rebels
in
Nicaragua.
Despite
being
named
in
the
indictment,
Walter
was
named
US
Ambassador
to
El
Salvador
from
1988
to
1992,
during
the
reign
of
terror
by
the
death
squadrons,
many
of
whom
were
trained
in
US
military
academies.
William
Walker's
career
shows
that
he
is
not
an
ordinary
State
Department
employee.
After
the
Chinese
Revolution,
the
State
Department
enacted
the
Wriston
reform
which
required
the
rotation
out
of
their
posts
every
few
years
to
prevent
the
development
of
"excessive"
sympathies
towards
the
culture
of
host
countries.
As
a
result,
most
State
employees
are
moved
around
to
posts
in
different
parts
of
the
world.
It
is,
however,
well-known
among
career
foreign
service
diplomats
that
one
of
the
few
exceptions
to
this
rule
are
CIA
agents
in
the
embassies.
Until
his
arrival
in
Kosovo,
Walker
spent
virtually
his
entire
career
in
Latin
America.
In
the
light
of
the
Racak
incident
which
was
used
as
an
excuse
for
military
action
in
Yugoslavia,
one
wonders
what
indeed
was
Walter's
role
in
Kosovo!
A
secret
report[21]
by
an
Italian
monitor,
using
the
pseudonym,
`Ulysse',
shows
how
the
United
States
used
the
OSCE
mission
to
provide
partial
and
fabricated
information
for
public
consumption.
The
supposedly
"neutral
and
civilian"
observer
mission
was
in
reality
primarily
a
military
mission
headed
by
US
Ambassador
Walter
who
travelled
in
a
OSCE
vehicle
brandishing
an
American
Flag
and
was
infiltrated
with
several
American
agents.
According
to
`Ulysse',
"the
military
constituted
more
than
70%
of
the
so-called
`civilian'
mission,
moving
around
in
uniforms,
like
NATO
soldiers.
End
November,
only
14
Italians
remained,
of
which
only
two
were
civilian.
To
save
face."
All
information
activities
were
immediately
placed
under
"Anglo-American"
control,
who
then
transmitted
to
the
observers
"carefully
`cleansed'
reports".
Observers
from
other
countries
were
excluded:
"The
Russians
were
immediately
excluded
from
the
intelligence
sector
of
the
head
office.
And
we
noticed
a
clear
contradiction
between
the
Anglo-American
and
the
Franco-German
positions."
Moreover,
the
reports
were
drafted
by
"American
officers
and
local
Albanian
personnel
(sic!).
Italians,
Russians
and
Dutch
were
suspected
of
being
pro-Serb
for
having
reported
cases
of
human
rights
violations
by
the
Albanians
and
members
of
KLA."
Official
German
documents
and
judgements
of
German
tribunals
also
reveal
the
falsity
of
claims
of
`ethnic
cleansing'
and
`massacres'
by
the
Yugoslav
Government.
A
situation
report
of
the
German
Foreign
Ministry
of
18
November
1999
pointed
out
that
there
was
no
evidence
to
prove
the
existence
of
`massacres'
or
`mass
graves'
claimed
by
the
press:
"the
repeated
press
reports
of
`massacres'
and
reports
about
`mass
graves'
contributed
to
alarming
the
refugees,
but
could
not
as
yet
be
confirmed
by
international
observers."[22]
Unpublished
official
documents[23]
sent
to
various
state
tribunals
by
Germany's
Foreign
Ministry
also
state
that
there
is
no
evidence
of
`ethnic
cleansing'
and
no
evidence
of
a
`humanitarian
catastrophe'
facing
the
population
of
Kosovo.
According
to
information
provided
to
the
High
Court
of
Lower
Saxony,
"the
measures
of
the
security
forces
are
primarily
aimed
at
combating
the
KLA,
which
through
terrorist
means
is
fighting
for
the
independence
of
Kosovo
and,
according
to
some
of
its
spokesmen,
even
for
the
creation
of
`Greater
Albania'".[24]
Another
document
of
12
January
1999
sent
to
the
Administrative
Court
of
Trier
states:
"There
is
no
evidence
of
political
persecution
explicitly
aimed
at
the
Albanian
ethnic
group
in
Kosovo.
So
far
the
eastern
part
of
Kosovo
is
not
affected
by
the
armed
conflict,
civilian
life
in
the
cities
Pristina,
Urosevac,
Ginijilan,
etc
is
relatively
normal."
The
"actions
of
the
security
forces
(was)
not
aimed
at
the
Kosovo-Albanians
as
an
ethnically
defined
group,
but
against
the
armed
opponents
and
their
actual
or
suspected
supporters."[25]
Various courts in Germany have concluded that there is no state planned programme of persecution aimed at the Kosovo Albanians as an ethnic group. On 24 February 1999, the High Court of Munster concluded: "There is insufficient evidence to show that there is a secret programme or a silent consensus on the Serbian side to annihilate, expel or to persecute in any other extreme manner as has been projected, the Albanian people…. When the Serbian state power puts into effect its laws and thereby exerts the necessary pressure on those Albanians who depart from or boycott the State, the objective aim of these measures is precisely not a programmed persecution of this ethnic group…. Even should the Serbian State benevolently put up with or even intend that a part of the population, who in such a situation see no future for themselves or seek to escape coercion, evade abroad, this, by no means represents a programme of persecution aimed at the entire Albanian population (in Kosovo) in its majority."[26]
Already
on
29
October
1998,
the
Administrative
Tribunal
in
Bayern,
referring
to
violence
in
Kosovo
since
February
1998,
had
concluded
that
"now
as
before,
there
is
no
State
programme
of
persecution
aimed
at
the
ethnic
Albanians
as
a
group.
Not
even
a
regional
group
persecution
aimed
at
all
ethnic
Albanians
in
a
specific
area
of
Kosovo….The
violent
actions
of
the
Yugoslav
military
and
police
since
February
1998
is
aimed
at
separatist
activities
and
is
not
proof
of
persecution
of
the
entire
ethnic
group
of
Albanians
from
Kosovo
or
a
part
of
it.
Yugoslav
violence
and
excesses
since
February
1998
is
a
matter
of
selective
violent
action
against
the
armed
underground
movement
(particularly
KLA)
and
its
surroundings
in
their
territory
of
operations."[27]
That
the
`humanitarian
catastrophe'
witnessed
today
is
beyond
doubt
one
provoked
by
the
NATO
bombardment
of
Yugoslavia
is
confirmed
in
recent
reports
from
foreign
observers
visiting
Yugoslavia
and
foreign
correspondents
based
in
the
country.
On
his
return
from
a
visit
to
Kosovo,
Paul-Marie
de
la
Gorce,
writer
and
essayist
form
France,
is
categorical
that
the
situation
in
the
province
and
the
subsequent
exodus
of
Kosovo
Albanians
is
not
the
result
of
what
Western
leaders
call
`ethnic
cleansing':
"before
the
launching
of
the
war
the
situation
was
bad,
characterised
by
the
activities
of
KLA
and
by
counter-offensives
of
the
province's
militia
and
later
Yugoslav
forces….there
were
population
movements
provoked
by
the
fighting;
there
were
human
losses
as
always
happens
in
such
situations,
but
it
was
nothing
compared
to
what
happened
afterwards."
He
described
the
reasons
for
the
exodus
as
"diverse
and
complex":
"First,
the
fear
of
reprisals
by
Yugoslav
forces
or
the
Serbian
population.
Second,
obviously,
the
bombardment..it
is
useless
to
deny
it.
We
know
from
experience
of
contemporary
war
that
bombings
force
populations
to
flee
whatever
their
political
sentiments.
The
third
reason
is
the
existence
of
zones
of
combat.
Finally,
perhaps
wherever
there
is
concentration
of
the
Yugoslav
army,
it
does
not
wish
to
see
at
its
side
an
Albanian
population,
reputedly
hostile."[28]
The
thesis
of
`genocide'
advanced
by
NATO
leaders
is
also
rejected
by
Fatmi
Seholi,
spokesman
for
Democratic
Initiative
of
Kosovo,
a
political
party
of
Kosovo
Albanians
opposed
to
KLA's
fight
for
independence.
In
an
interview
with
Paul
Watson,
correspondent
for
`Los
Angeles
Times',[29]
Seholi
declared:
"As
an
Albanian,
I
am
convinced
that
the
Serbian
government
and
its
security
forces
are
not
committing
any
kind
of
genocide.
But
in
a
war,
even
innocent
people
die.
In
every
war,
there
are
those
who
want
to
profit.
Here
there
is
a
minority
who
wanted
to
rob,
but
this
is
not
genocide.
These
are
only
crimes."
Seholi
also
pointed
out
that,
after
the
wave
of
looting,
killings
and
other
types
of
aggression,
the
Government
had
taken
measures
to
restore
order
and
that
Albanians
have
begun
to
return,
often
under
police
protection.
If
more
Kosovo
Albanians
are
not
publicly
questioning
the
accusations
of
`crimes
against
humanity'
made
against
Yugoslav
leaders
and
security
forces,
it
is
also
for
fear
of
being
killed
by
KLA,
as
was
Seholi's
father
who
was
murdered
by
KLA
in
January
1997
apparently
for
having
being
"too
cooperative"
with
Serbian
authorities.
What
NATO
powers
are
also
seeking
to
hide
is
that
the
KLA
is
a
ruthless
clandestine
armed
group
which,
since
1996,
was
equipped
and
trained
by
the
German
secret
service
as
it
did
the
Croatian
militia.
Shock
troops
of
the
military
secret
service
in
Berlin
(Kommandos
Spezialkrafte)
provided
operational
training,
arms,
transmission
material
and
black
uniforms
taken
from
the
stocks
of
former
East
Germany's
Stasi.
At
the
end
of
1998,
the
US
entered
into
contact
with
KLA
and
decided
to
back,
ie,
instrumentalise,
the
organisation.
Bases
were
established
in
northern
Albania
and
western
Macedonia.
The
KLA
made
itself
known
on
11
February
1996,
when
it
claimed
responsibility
for
bomb
attacks
against
five
Serbian
refugee
camps
in
Krajina.
Alone
in
1997,
the
KLA
carried
out
14
attacks
in
Kosovo
and
one
in
Macedonia.
All
`traitors'
were
systematically
eliminated.
On
7
January
1998,
the
KLA
announced
that
it
will
carry
the
war
to
Macedonia.
In
other
words,
it
was
fighting
not
only
for
the
independence
of
Kosovo
but
for
the
creation
of
a
`Greater
Albania,
which
would
include
Albania,
Kosovo,
one-third
of
Montenegro
and
the
western
half
of
Macedonia.
In
mid-February
1998,
it
launched
its
first
major
offensive
and
within
5
months
`liberated'
some
30%
of
the
territory.
In
the
`liberated'
areas,
KLA
prohibited
all
political
parties,
physically
attacked
other
minorities,
Serbs,
gypsies
and
the
goran
(Macedonian
Muslims),
and
denounced
Ibrahim
Rugova,
his
political
party
and
the
Kosovan
parliament.[30]
Political
leaders,
NATO
and
the
media
have
remained
significantly
silent
about
the
thousands
of
Kosovo
Albanians
who
have
sought
refuge
in
Belgrade
with
Serbian
families.
They
have
also
remained
silent
about
the
fact
that
before
the
bombardment,
more
Serbs
were
fleeing
Kosovo
than
Albanians.
In
the
past
20
years,
the
Albanian
population
in
Kosovo
increased
from
70
to
90
per
cent.
Since
the
war,
alongwith
Albanians,
Serbs
are
fleeting
Kosovo
in
their
thousands.
War,
the
expansion
of
capitalism
by
other
means
The
global
expansion
of
corporate
interests,
manifests
itself
through
the
phenomenon
of
`globalisation'
or
`imperialism',
the
global
expression
of
capitalism
pursued
domestically.
War
in
its
various
forms
is
the
military
means
by
which
capitalism
acquires
vast
markets,
a
permanent
supply
of
cheap
labour
and
ram
materials,
essential
to
counteract
the
inexorable
decline
in
its
rate
of
profit.
In
a
1967
report
that
was
subsequently
published
in
1969
with
the
title
"Undesirable
Peace"
with
a
preface
by
J.K.
Galbraith,
15
American
experts
affirmed
that
war
is
the
sole
technique
available
today
for
the
stability
of
capitalism:
"War
fulfils
certain
essential
functions
for
the
stability
of
our
society….although
we
do
not
affirm
that,
for
the
economy,
it
is
impossible
to
imagine
a
substitute
for
war,
no
set
of
techniques
aimed
at
maintaining
control
over
employment,
production
and
consumption
has
ever
been
tried
that
is
even
distantly
comparable
to
its
efficiency.
War
was,
and
is,
from
far,
the
essential
element
of
stability
in
modern
societies…"
The
global
crisis
of
capitalism,
now
threatening
the
United
States
at
the
very
heart
of
the
system,
characterised
by
a
wave
of
frantic
corporate
mergers,
acquisitions
and
alliances,
could
be
off-set
only
through
an
acceleration
of
its
control
over
the
global
economy.
The
multiplication
of
US
sanctions
is
also
a
reflection
of
a
deflationary
global
economy
which,
in
other
words,
means
that
capitalism
is
undergoing
a
crisis
of
overproduction
--
a
`global
glut'.
Only
two
months
ago,
Time
Magazine
published
on
its
front
page
a
picture
of
Rubin,
Greenspan
and
Summers
describing
them
as
"the
Committee
to
Save
the
World".
At
the
same
time,
meetings
of
G-7,
the
World
Economic
Forum
in
Davos
and
the
Bretton
Woods
institutions
acknowledged
that
a
great
economic
crisis
was
threatening
global
capitalism.
George
Soros
shocked
Congress
recently
when
he
said
bluntly,
"The
global
capitalist
system
…is
coming
apart
at
the
seams".[31]
The
US
economy
is
reaching
the
end
of
an
economic
cycle.
It
is
feared
that
growth
will
transform
itself
into
a
`hard
landing'.
Patrick
Artus,
chief
economist
at
the
`Caisse
des
Depots'
notes:
"The
next
crisis
will
probably
emerge
from
the
financial
bubble
and
indebtedness
of
the
American
economy."[32]
This
end
of
the
cycle
manifests
itself
paradoxically
through
extravagant
figures
in
Wall
Street.
The
capitalisation
of
American
stocks
rose
sharply
from
60%
of
GDP
in
1993
to
120%
in
1998,
and
Dow
Jones
continues
to
increase
without
any
relation
to
profits
to
be
gained.
The
US
must,
therefore,
maintain
the
domination
of
the
dollar.
The
war
management
of
the
end
of
the
American
cycle
is
strongly
supported
by
European
Union
countries.
In
1998,
FF
930
billion
left
Europe
mainly
to
the
United
States.
In
exchange,
the
European
Union
removed
all
trade
and
other
barriers
to
facilitate
mergers
by
global
corporations.
Only
ten
years
after
Western
capitalist
powers
declared
the
`victory
of
capitalism'
following
the
fall
of
the
Berlin
Wall,
the
totality
of
capitalist
postulates
--
markets,
mobility,
transparence,
trade
--
is
being
increasingly
challenged
the
world
over.
The
challenge
to
all
these
`values'
imposed
under
the
guise
of
`modernity'
was
sufficiently
important
that
even
the
influential
financial
magazine,
Business
Week,
could
not
ignore
it
when
the
global
crisis,
after
Asia
and
Russia,
hit
Brazil,
in
the
America's
`backyard':
"The
American
model
is
attacked
everywhere.
The
market
is
increasingly
perceived
as
the
enemy
of
growth.
Nations
are
withdrawing
from
it
in
order
to
respond
to
one
of
the
largest
ever
destruction
of
wealth."[33]
That
this
crisis
was
seen
as
a
serious
threat
to
American
`national
interests'
by
the
political
and
financial
couple,
fathers
of
the
so-called
"American
miracle",
is
reflected
in
a
statement
made
by
one
of
them,
Robert
Rubin,
former
US
Treasury
Secretary
on
3
June
1998:
"I
am
profoundly
concerned
--
and
I
can
tell
you
that
the
President
shares
these
concerns
--
about
the
weakening
of
public
support
for
globalisation
at
a
moment
when
economic
interests,
national
security
and
geopolitics
of
the
country
require
the
opposite…
Never
have
so
many
countries
faced
so
many
difficulties
at
the
same
time."[34]
In
the
US,
the
"high-tech"
industry
is
seen
as
the
engine
of
the
`crisis-free'
new
economy.
With
the
threat
of
a
crisis
looming
ahead,
NATO
could
be
the
aircraft
carrier
for
US
economic
interests
with
the
more
or
less
reluctant
approval
of
the
European
Union.
Western
Europe
and
Japan
are
the
chief
competitors
of
the
Us
in
global
markets.
The
European
Union's
vision
of
global
hegemony
is
seen
as
a
threat
by
Washington
and
the
military
industry,
reflected
in
the
warning
by
Chairman
of
Lockheed-Martin,
Vance
Coffman,
about
the
creation
of
a
"Fortress
Europe"
as
Western
European
defense
industry
consolidates.[35]
In
the
context,
Washington
must
find
bogeymen
to
frighten
these
countries
into
spending
billion
on,
and
investing
in,
America's
military
industry
and
its
products.
This
would
simultaneously
serve
the
purpose
of
rendering
Western
Europes
more
dependent
on
US
imperialism
as
well
as
ensure
the
transfer
of
national
income
through
Wall
Street
to
the
military-industrial
complex.
President
Milosevic's
refusal
to
allow
a
NATO
military
presence
on
Yugoslav
territory
represented
a
challenge
to
US
strategy
to
pursue
the
process
of
integrating
into
NATO,
after
Poland,
Hungary
and
the
Czech
Republic,
also
Albania,
Macedonia,
Romania,
Slovenia
and
Slovakia.
For
those
impoverished
countries,
£
22
billion
weapons
buildup
will
be
required.
The
beneficiaries
will
be
the
world's
dominant
arms
industries
of
the
US
and
Britain
--
the
contract
for
fighter
aircraft
alone
is
worth
£10
billion.
Private
sector
financing
of
NATO's
50th
anniversary
gala
amounted
to
$8
million.
Corporate
chief
executives
paid
$250,000
to
sit
on
a
host
committee
that
included
Ameritech,
Daimler-Chrysler,
Boeing,
Ford
Motor,
General
Motors,
Honeywell,
Lucent
Technologies,
Motorola,
Nextel,
SBC
communications,
TRW
and
United
Technologies.
To
Eastern
European
countries
that
recently
joined
NATO,
they
intend
to
sell
weapons,
form
networks,
elevators,
airconditioners,
heaters
and
many
other
commodities.
To
the
leading
NATO
war-makers
they
want
to
sell
cell-phones,
two-way
radios,
military
supplies,
communication
equipments.
War
provides
the
justification
for
the
transfer
of
public
wealth
to
the
financial
and
economic
elites
through
the
state
military
establishment,
while
reducing
social
spending.
Expanding
the
military
system
is
the
preferred
device
to
force
the
public
to
subsidise
high-technology
industry
and
provide
a
state-guaranteed
market
for
its
production.
After
the
collapse
of
the
Soviet
Union,
the
US
lost
the
main
justification
it
gave
its
people
for
its
huge
military
budget
that
served
to
sustain
a
substantial
portion
of
the
US
economy
and
to
maintain
the
profit
levels
of
the
big
capitalist
corporations.
The
defence
budget
had
to
be
reduced
and
the
American
people
had
to
be
provided
with
fresh
pretexts
for
maintaining
its
military
arsenals
to
cope
with
alleged
threats
to
the
security
of
the
United
States
and
the
protection
of
its
interests
in
other
parts
of
the
world.
Its
military
and
political
experts
worked
out
regional
strategies
and
they
found
regional
bogeys
in
North
Korea
for
East
Asia,
in
Iraq
for
the
Middle
East,
and
of
late,
in
Yugoslavia
for
Europe.
The
last
mentioned
provided
the
pretext
for
the
resuscitation
and
strengthening
of
NATO.
Earlier
the
Gulf
War
provided
the
pretext
for
the
production
and
maintenance
of
aircraft
carriers
and
sophisticated
military
aircraft.
When
India
produced
a
nuclear
device
even
India
began
to
be
held
out
as
a
potential
threat
to
US
security
in
South
Asia.
The
media
and
the
various
groups
of
academics,
journalists
and
others
who
serve
the
economic,
political
and
military
interests
of
the
ruling
class
in
the
United
States,
serve
to
keep
the
US
public
continuously
mis-informed
and
so
misguided
as
to
the
true
purposes
of
the
current
ruling
strata
in
the
US.
They
do
likewise
for
the
rest
of
the
world.
It
is
this
economic
context
that
the
US
State
power,
headed
by
Bill
Clinton,
has
launched
its
military
intervention
in
Yugoslavia.
At
the
end
of
1998,
Pentagon
announced
that
the
financial
crisis
in
Asia
was
a
"core
security
concern"
for
the
US.
On
20
April
1999,
hardly
a
month
into
the
bombing,
the
IMF
declared
that
only
Europe
could
offset
the
inevitable
slowdown
in
the
US
economy
caused
by
"the
adverse
external
environment".[36]
There
can
be
no
doubt
that
the
President
not
only
consulted
his
military
strategic
advisors,
but
also
his
economic
strategic
before
launching
the
war.
There
can
also
be
no
doubt
that
Blair,
Chirac,
Schroder
and
the
rest
of
the
European
allies
and
collaborators
of
the
US
state
in
Europe
would
themselves
have
been
aware
of
the
economic
crisis
in
which
they
were
called
upon
to
collaborate
with
the
US
decision
on
military
intervention.
The
economic
crisis
has
not
been
resolved
and
it
will
continue
to
underlie
the
development
of
the
US
war
in
Europe.
Hence,
the
war
against
Yugoslavia
is
a
manifestation
of
a
major
crisis
of
capitalism.
Today, the war-mongers are in full cry and the war production industries are being geared for full production which may help to sustain the US military-industrial complex in the first place to stave off the crisis of capitalism that has been threatening. While the war itself creates more business in the short term for the industry, winning the war will ensure the continuous flow of ever greater profits as more countries are brought into the system.
The
foreign
policy
of
the
United
States
is
intricately
linked
to
the
construction
of
a
global
system
of
domination
subordinated
to
the
needs
of
its
own
economy:
"Our
interests
and
our
ideals
compel
us
not
only
to
undertake
but
to
direct…
We
must
promote
democracy
and
market
economy
in
the
world
because
it
protects
our
interests
and
our
security,
and
because
it
reflects
values
which
are
at
once
American
and
universal."[37]
Hence,
American
values
of
markets
and
democracy
are
the
sole
and
inseparable
values
of
a
universal
character.
They
must
therefore
be
imposed
on
the
rest
of
the
world
for
their
own
sake.
"What
is
good
for
General
Motors
is
good
for
America",
and
what
is
good
for
America
is
……
Once,
referring
to
the
world
order,
Winston
Churchill
declared
that
the
"defense
of
democracy
and
human
rights"
and
"democracy"
is
successfully
achieved
once
government
is
in
the
hands
of
"the
rich
men
dwelling
at
peace
within
their
habitations".
The
political
histories
of
the
United
States
and
its
allies
shows
that
the
concept
of
democracy
promoted
by
the
elites
in
power
--
whether
from
the
right
or
from
the
left
of
the
political
mainstream
--
differs
from,
and
is
incompatible
with,
that
aspired
to
by
ordinary
working
people
within
these
same
countries.
In
capitalist
democracies,
politics
is
effectively
reduced
to
interactions
among
groups
of
investors
who
compete
for
control
of
the
State.
Hence,
when
governments
and
politicians
speak
of
defending
"national
security
interests",
they
mean
those
special
interests
of
one
sector
only:
corporations,
financial
institutions
and
other
business
elites.
The
governments
that
are
at
war
outside
are
simultaneously
fighting
another
war
against
their
own
people
inside
their
countries:
dismantling
social
programmes,
public
enterprises
and
services,
transferring,
through
the
military
system,
public
funds
to
advanced
industry
and
to
the
wealthy
sectors
generally:
aircraft
industry
and
its
by-products
along
with
steel
and
metal
generally,
electronics,
chemicals,
machine
tools,
automation
and
robotics
and
other
central
components
of
the
industrial
economy.
Unemployment,
under-employment,
homelessness,
disease,
illiteracy
is
growing
rapidly
in
all
these
countries.
The
US
concept
of
democracy
is
"closely
identified
with
private,
capitalistic
enterprise"
and
`free
markets'.
According
to
Samuel
Huntington,
"the
United
States
must
maintain
its
international
primacy
for
the
benefit
of
the
world
because,
alone
among
nations,
its
national
identity
is
defined
by
a
set
of
universal
political
and
economic
values,
namely
liberty,
democracy,
equality,
private
property,
and
markets,
accordingly
the
promotion
of
democracy,
human
rights
and
markets
are
(sic)
far
more
central
to
American
policy
than
to
the
policy
of
any
other
country."[38]
In
line
with
these
`values',
the
United
States
has
not
hesitated
to
sue
force
wherever
the
interests
of
its
corporate
elite
have
been
threatened.
The
historical
record
of
the
US
and
its
Western
European
allies
shows
that
a
solicitous
concern
for
democracy
and
human
rights
may
go
hand
in
hand
with
tolerance
for
large-scale
slaughter,
or
direct
participation
in
it,
as
in
Latin
America,
Marcos
in
the
Philippines,
enthusiastic
backing
for
General
Suharto's
mass
murder
in
East
Timor
and
Indonesia,
Mobutu
in
Zaire.
Yesterday,
elected
governments
were
subverted
and
overthrown
in
Gautemala,
Brazil,
the
Dominican
Republic,
Chile,
Laos,
and
large-scale
terror
organised
against
democracy
and
independence
in
Nicaragua,
Cuba
and
elsewhere![39]
The
enemies
are
invariably
`rogue
states',
`Communists',
`nationalists',
`fascists',
`fundamentalists',
`psychopaths',
etc.,
but
never
`democrats'!
The
double-standard
of
Western
capitalist
democracies
does
not
allow
them
to
act
in
favour
of
800,000
Kurds
who
have
fled
a
war
with
almost
30,000
dead,
or
in
favour
of
855,124
children
who,
according
to
UNICEF,
have
died
in
Iraq
between
1991
and
1997
because
of
the
embargo.
Today,
two-thirds
of
the
world's
population
is
under
one
form
or
other
of
US
sanctions.[40]
What
credibility
can
then
be
accorded
when
`moral
values'
and
`humanitarianism'
is
invoked
by
the
US
and
its
European
collaborators
to
justify
the
aggression
against
the
peoples
of
the
Balkans:
"this
campaign
is
being
fought
for
a
set
of
human
values
--
to
assert
that
there
are
some
crimes
so
heinous
that
the
community
of
nations
will
act
to
punish
them
even
when
they
occur
within
national
borders."[41]
Under
the
guise
of
safeguarding
Europe
against
so-called
`ethnic
cleansing'
in
Yugoslavia,
NATO
is
engaged
in
`political
cleansing'
of
an
intractable
ruling
regime
in
Yugoslavia.
So
far
Milosevic
remains
while
the
country's
economic
infrastructure,
industrial
base
and
civilian
infrastructure
is
being
demolished
and
its
peoples
--
irrespective
of
ethnic
origins
--
terrorised.
After
the
fall
of
the
Berlin
Wall,
the
unification
of
Germany,
the
disintegration
of
the
former
Soviet
Union,
and
with
former
socialist
countries
of
Eastern
Europe
eager
to
join
the
Western
club,
the
US
strategy
for
domination
had
to
adapted.
The
Clinton
Doctrine
announced
in
September
1993
by
National
Security
Adviser,
Anthony
Lake,
reflected
this
shift
from
`containment'
to
`enlargement'
(`roll-back'
in
the
case
of
Russia),
`consolidation'
and
`perfection':
"Throughout
the
Cold
War,
we
contained
a
global
threat
to
market
democracies:
now
we
should
seek
to
enlarge
their
reach'.
A
year
later,
he
expanded
this
concept:
the
"new
world"
opening
before
us
"presents
immense
opportunities"
to
move
forward
to
"consolidate
the
victory
of
democracy
and
open
markets".
Salina
Khan,
writing
in
USA
Today,
pointed
out
that
many
US
corporations,
particularly
defense
contractors
such
as
Lockheed
Martin
Corp
have
played
"an
active
role….in
the
move
to
enlarge
NATO
beyond
its
traditional
US-Western
European
axis."
In
the
view
of
the
Americans,
the
Eurasian
continent
which
extends
upto
China
and
including
India,
constitutes
the
pivot
of
the
world.
The
importance
of
controlling
this
region
is
justified
by
the
fact
that
"it
contains
approximately
75%
of
the
world's
population
….the
greater
part
of
the
physical
wealth
in
the
form
of
corporations
or
raw
material
deposits.
The
global
GNP
of
the
continent
amounts
for
some
60%
of
the
global
total.
Three-quarters
of
the
world's
known
energy
resources
is
concentrated
there….
After
the
US,
six
of
the
most
prosperous
economies
and
six
largest
defence
budgets
are
to
be
found
there,
including
all
holders
of
nuclear
weapons…
All
the
political
and/or
economic
rivals
of
the
United
States
as
well.
Their
cumulative
power
far
surpasses
that
of
the
United
States.
Happily
for
the
latter,
the
continent
is
too
vast
to
realise
its
political
unity."[42]
In
the
words
of
Zbigniew
Brzezinski,
Security
Adviser
to
former
US
President
Carter
and
member
of
the
Center
for
Strategic
and
International
Studies,
"Eurasia
remains
the
chess-board
upon
which
the
struggle
for
global
primacy
takes
place….
As
Eurasia
is
situated
in
the
centre
of
the
world,
whoever
controls
this
continent
will
control
the
planet…
The
appearance
of
a
rival
in
Eurasia
capable
of
dominating
this
continent
and
defying
America
will
put
into
question
its
objectives."[43]
This
concern
is
part
of
US
strategic
objectives
to
`roll-back'
the
influence
of
Russia,
which
it
intends
to
continue
to
isolate.
Brzezinski
see
three
reasons
for
this.
First,
it
is
the
region
that
links
the
Eurasia
from
East
to
West.
Secondly,
Russia
and
the
former
Soviet
Republics
still
under
its
influence
contain
vast
deposits
of
natural
resources.
Thirdly,
political
instability
in
Russia
is
such
that
there
could
be
a
threat
of
nationalists
or
Communists
taking
power.
Weakening
Russia,
even
a
capitalist
one,
is
the
condition
for
the
unrivalled
pillage
of
Eurasia.
Brzezinski
proposes
that
Russia
be
dismantled
in
three
parts,
European,
Asian
and
Central.[44]
Controlling
Yugoslavia
would
also
deprive
Russia
of
its
principal
support
in
the
Balkans
as
well
as
important
access
to
the
Mediterranean
Sea.
In
1992,
Caspar
Weinberger,
former
US
Defence
Secretary,
wrote
"if
Moscow
succeeds
in
dominating
the
Caspian
Sea
(and
its
petrol),
this
victory
could
be
more
important
than
the
enlargement
of
the
West
was
for
the
Occident".
Rolling
back
Russia
is
part
of
strategy
of
global
domination
to
impose
control
over
a
vast
`Eurasian'
region
representing
75%
of
the
world's
population
and
60%
of
global
production.
Controlling
this
vast
region
to
guarantee
US
leadership
is,
according
to
Brzezinski,
to
ensure
domination
of
the
whole
world.
Despite
promises
made
by
the
Western
capitalist
countries
to
bring
prosperity
to
Eastern
Europe
and
countries
of
the
former
Soviet
Union,
the
objective
of
the
imperialist
powers
--
United
States
and
Germany,
in
particular
--
is
to
turn
this
vast
region
of
the
world
into
suppliers
of
cheap
labour
force
and
to
exploit
its
vital
raw
material
for
the
benefit
of
transnational
capital.
Russia's
potential
resources
in
ram
material
alone
is
estimated
at
US
$140,000
billion![45]
NATO's
warning
in
1991
to
the
rising
challenge
to
its
economic
model
was
clear:
"we
will
continue
to
support,
with
all
means
available
to
us,
the
reforms
undertaken
in
the
East
and
efforts
aimed
at
creating
market
economies"![46]
The
hostility
of
China
and
Russia
toward
NATO
intervention
in
Yugoslavia
under
US
leadership
must
be
seen
in
this
context.
The
region
coveted
by
the
America
is
of
strategic
importance
for
both
these
countries.
In
an
unprecedented
recent
acknowledgement
in
an
official
newspaper,
China
indicated
that
it
will
need
to
import
40%
of
its
oil
by
2010,
up
from
less
than
20
now.[47]
Hence,
securing
a
stable
supply
of
oil
and
gas
will
become
a
central
factor
in
China's
foreign
policy.
The
basis
of
China's
energy
security
strategy
is
to
diversify
sources
of
supply
increasingly
toward
Russia,
Central
Asia,
Iran
and
the
Middle
East.
The
strategic
importance
for
China
of
the
republics
of
Central
Asia,
especially
Kazakhstan,
goes
beyond
the
fact
that
they
are
rich
in
oil.
They
also
border
China's
Moslem
dominated
north-west
region.
Hence,
the
view
among
many
Chinese
officials
that
NATO
aggression
against
Yugoslavia
is
aimed
at
expanding
its
sphere
of
affluence:
"Where
will
NATO
stop?
Will
they
next
intervene
in
Azerbaijan
or
may
be
in
Tajikistan
on
China's
border?",
as
one
Chinese
official.[48]
The
People's
Liberation
Army
has
also
recently
called
for
a
review
of
its
military
strategy
in
the
light
of
the
war
against
Yugoslavia.
Over
time,
control
over
the
South
China
Sea
through
which
oil
tankers
supplying
its
ports
must
pass,
would
also
become
crucial
for
China.
Control
over
the
evolution
of
a
new
international
order
constitutes
one
of
the
challenges
of
the
war.
Yugoslavia
holds
a
strategic
position
in
the
Balkans,
a
region
that
is
vital
for
the
further
expansion
of
capital.
US
control
over
the
region
will
be
guaranteed
through
the
imposition
of
its
military
bases
in
the
Balkans.
The
region
not
only
represents
a
market
to
be
conquered
and
source
of
raw
material
to
be
pillaged.
It
also
controls
key
points
of
access
to
the
Near
and
Middle-East
through
its
main
navigation
routes
and
infrastructure
to
major
oil
resources
in
the
region
of
growing
tension
for
the
United
States.
Kazakhstan,
Turkemenistan
and
Azerbaijan
are
reported
to
contain
oil
and
gas
reserves
equivalent
to
that
of
the
Gulf
region
today.
Already
in
1992,
the
US
Senator,
Robert
Dole,
declared
that
the
frontiers
of
American
concern
to
control
oil
and
gas
resources
had
advanced
from
the
Gulf
region
"towards
the
North
and
including
the
Caucasius,
Siberia
and
Kazakhstan!"
Access
to
the
Caucasius
through
the
Black
Sea
is
possible
through
the
Danube,
where
Yugoslavia
occupies
a
strategic
position,
and/or
Kosovo
through
which
a
new
US
sponsored
pipeline
project
is
planned.
In
the
logic
of
imperialist
expansion,
Yugoslavia
represents
an
obstacle
in
the
region
for
the
United
States
and
its
main
allies.
Although
the
Government
of
Yugoslavia
has
been
open
to
privatisation
of
public
enterprise,
it
has
remained
opposed
to
a
radical
change
in
social
property.[49]
Quentin
Peel
points
out
that
"with
the
one
glaring
exception",
practically
all
countries
of
the
former
Soviet
bloc
in
Central
Europe
have
either
joined
or
are
seeking
to
join
the
European
Union.
Peel
continues,
"NATO
leaders
will
undoubtedly
be
obsessed
with
this
exception"[50]
presented.
The
aim
of
European
Union
leader
Germany's
"stability
pact"
for
the
Balkans
is
precisely
to
bring
Yugoslavia
within
its
orbit
of
control:
to
create
"lasting
conditions
for
democracy,
a
market
economy
and
regional
cooperation"
that
would
tie
south-eastern
European
countries
"firmly
in
the
Euro-Atlantic
structures".[51]
In
a
similar
vein,
at
its
recent
summit,
NATO
announced
that
it
planned
to
upgrade
its
security
relations
with
Balkan
countries
through
its
partnership
for
peace
programmes.
This
must
be
taken
into
account
in
taking
a
broader
approach
to
geo-strategic
concerns
for
global
domination.
The
eruption
of
China
in
the
diplomatic
process
since
the
attack
against
its
Embassy
in
Belgrade
reflects
not
only
the
international
character
of
the
war
and
the
stakes
involved,
but
also
the
place
held
by
China
not
only
as
permanent
member
of
the
UN
Security
Council.
As
cynically
stated
by
Brzeznski,
"the
fact
is
that
the
stakes
are
infinitely
more
than
simply
the
future
of
Kosovo".[52]
Beyond
the
credibility
of
NATO's
action
in
Yugoslavia
and
NATO
itself,
there
is
fear
about
the
emergence
of
a
potential
danger
in
the
near
future:
the
birth
of
a
large
coalition
between
China
and
Russia
and
perhaps
Iran,
in
an
anti-hegemonic
coalition.
"In
order
to
avoid
this
eventuality,
unlikely
today,
the
US
must
deploy
all
its
geo-strategic
abilities
along
the
perimeters
of
Eurasia
or,
at
least,
in
the
West,
East
and
South".
"But
a
Sino-Japanese
axis,
even
a
localized
one,
would
have
greater
consequences.
It
could
only
emerge
from
a
collapse
of
the
US
defence
system
in
the
Far-East
and
out
of
a
radical
re-orientation
of
Japanese
foreign
policy."[53]
It
is
easy
to
understand
why,
right
in
the
middle
of
the
war
against
Yugoslavia,
the
Diet
approved
new
legislation
on
military
cooperation
between
US
and
Japan
re-orientating
the
objectives
of
the
alliance
to
enlarge
the
possibility
of
intervention
and
logistical
support
for
Japan's
military
self-defence
system
and
in
case
of
crisis
that
could
affect
American
`security'
in
the
region!
When
President
Milosevic
refused
to
permit
NATO
troops
to
occupy
Yugoslavia,
it
was
clear
that
the
total
subordination
of
the
country
could
be
achieved
only
through
the
massive
destruction
of
its
economic
base.
Where
politics
fail
to
bring
a
country
to
its
knees,
war
becomes
the
necessary
means.
Seen
in
its
global
context,
Yugoslavia
is
not
just
a
part
of
the
Balkans
but
a
part
of
Western
Europe,
i.e.,
capitalist
Europe,
which
next
to
the
United
States,
is
a
principal
supporter
of
global
capitalism.
In
effect,
Yugoslavia
has
been
chosen
as
the
pretext
for
the
US
military
intervention
in
Europe.
The
destruction
of
the
economic
base
of
Yugoslavia
would
permit
the
entry
of
American
and
Western
European
capital
to
`re-build'
the
country.
But
that
is
not
all.
The
war
also
shows
that
US
capital
must,
in
order
to
counteract
decline
in
profit
rates,
gain
or
re-gain
control
over
the
production,
distribution
and
consumption
of
goods
and
services.
Not
surprisingly
public
enterprises
or
recently
nationalised
private
enterprises
have
become
targets
for
NATO
bombs,
justified
by
Pentagon
spokesman,
Kenneth
Bacon,
because
of
the
"control"
by
President
Milosevic
of
"the
entire
economic
sector"!
Hence,
among
the
targets
of
NATO
are
Galenika
(the
recently
nationalised
pharmaceutical
company
owned
by
US
corporation
ICN
of
Pasadena,
California),
the
automobile
company
Zastava,
a
cigarette
factory
and
tobacco
warehouses
in
Nis,
the
C-chain
of
food
stores,
the
Beopetrol
chain
of
petrol
outlets,
Technogas
and
Progres
which
imports
Russian
gas,
Jugopetrol
which
refines
and
distributes
petroleum
products,
Sartid
steel
plant
of
Smederevo,
etc
etc.
The
steel
industry
is
a
significant
example
of
how
the
war
will
enable
the
US
steel
industry
to
counteract
declining
profit
rates
by
wielding
control
over
global
production.
The
steel
industry
is
facing
profound
challenges
in
the
global
economy.
Declining
profits
with
growing
global
overcapacity
and
prices
plunging
in
a
deflationary
spiral
have
sparked
the
erection
of
tariff
walls
and
`anti-dumping
measures'.
Much
of
the
growing
global
overcapacity
is
concentrated
in
Eastern
Europe,
then
Asia,
then
Western
Europe.
In
1998,
the
US
urged
the
European
Union
to
impose
duties
on
Serbian
steel,
imports
of
which
increased
by
77%
in
the
first
six
months.
Paul
Wilhelm,
President
of
US
Steel
Group,
speaking
for
his
industry
at
a
high-level
meeting
at
the
White
House
in
November
proclaimed,
"we
are
in
a
crisis",
a
warning
that
is
being
echoed
in
Europe.
A
war
on
American
terms
The
American
strategy
of
global
expansion
and
domination
requires
that
it
be
"inside"
not
against
Europe.
Zbignew
Brezenski
writes:
"the
central
problem
for
America
is
to
build
an
Europe
founded
on
viable
relations
linked
to
the
United
States
in
order
to
extend
the
international
system
of
democratic
cooperation
upon
which
will
depend
the
exercise
of
global
hegemony
of
America.
The
`Washington
Consensus'
on
the
subject
reflected
in
a
report
of
the
new
US
Council
on
Foreign
Relations
is
that:
"the
United
States
should
draw
Europe,
over
time,
much
further
into
a
global
strategic
partnership
to
help
shape
the
international
system
in
the
new
era".
William
Wallace,
professor
of
international
relations
at
the
London
School
of
Economics
points
out
that
"this
is
to
be
a
partnership
on
American
terms".[54]
Hence,
in
relation
to
the
NATO's
war
against
Yugoslavia,
the
date
and
hour,
the
strategic
objectives,
the
use
of
airpowers
and
missiles,
were
all
decided
by
the
US
President
and
his
chiefs
of
staff![55]
The
`new
strategic
concept'
adopted
the
recent
NATO
Summit
allows
the
US
to
preserve
peace
and
reinforce
security
and
stability
"throughout
the
Euro-Atlantic
region",
which
includes
the
19
alliance
members
and
28
other
countries
with
him
it
has
partnership
arrangements.
That
the
`partnership'
whether
with
Western
Europe
or
Japan
will
be
on
American
terms,
with
the
latter
playing
the
role
of
`junior
partner'
is
evident
in
measures
that
the
United
States
continues
to
take
against
its
economic
rivals
that
seek
to
cash
in
on
the
crisis.
Sanctions
against
European
partners
aimed
at
forcing
open
their
markets
for
genetically
modified
organisms
and
dollar-bananas.
Threats
to
the
Japanese
steel
industry
to
impose
tariffs
of
upto
17,86
to
61,14
per
cent
of
the
value
of
certain
products.
Even
before
the
decision
is
taken
by
the
US
International
Trade
Commission,
exporters
are
being
obliged
to
pay
the
tariff.
On
the
military
front
the
United
States
has
sought
to
prevent
the
emergence
of
an
independent
Western
European
military
force.
A
crucial
consideration
for
the
US
is
to
ensure
that
any
potential
threat
is
brought
first
to
NATO,
giving
it
a
right
of
"first
refusal".
The
creation
in
June
1996
of
an
European
group
of
a
multinational
military
force
within
NATO
in
June
1996
ensured
that
all
military
decisions
taken
by
Europe
is
authorised
by
Washington.
Although
the
Group
is
under
the
authority
of
the
Western
European
Union
(WEU),
it
can
only
be
used
with
the
approval
of
NATO,
ie,
only
with
the
approval
of
Washington.
At
the
recent
NATO
summit,
agreement
was
reached
that
the
European
build
up
their
military
unity
primarily
within
NATO
and
not
separately
under
the
EU.
The
recognition
by
Western
Europe
of
US
leadership
within
NATO
applies
also
in
the
domain
of
logistics,
infrastructure
and
in
research
and
development.
The
share
of
the
defense
budget
spent
by
the
United
States
on
research
and
development
is
almost
four
times
superior
to
that
spent
by
the
EU
countries,
with
the
latter
spending
US
$10
billion
and
the
former
US
$36
billion.
The
shared
economic
and
political
interests
between
the
United
States
and
its
Western
European
allies
manifests
itself
in
the
`New
Transatlantic
Marketplace'
and
the
related
`Transatlantic
Partnership
on
Political
Cooperation',
in
which
agreement
extends
to
even
the
use
of
force
and
unilateral
coercive
measures
wherever
their
economic
interests
are
threatened.
The
military
machinery
to
`defend'
these
shared
interests
is
NATO.
In
other
words,
the
Transatlantic
Economic
Partnership
is
to
the
economy
what
NATO
is
to
the
military.
NATO
today
has
transformed
itself
from
a
defensive
arm
of
the
alliance
to
an
offensive
arm.
The
message
is
clear.
Any
challenge
to
American
interests,
even
neutrality
reflected
in
a
refusal
to
be
incorporated
within
its
area
of
power,
as
in
the
case
of
Yugoslavia,
will
be
met
with
bombs!
The
`new
strategic
concept'
adopted
at
the
NATO
Summit
in
April
1999
in
Washington
for
the
first
time
enlarges
its
scope
of
intervention
to
include
`crisis
management',
providing
a
new
justification
for
its
existence
and
perenniality.
In
other
words,
intervention
in
the
internal
affairs
of
a
State
when
a
crisis
in
that
country
threatens
the
interests
of
the
United
States
and
its
`junior
partners'.
As
a
global
power
with
economic
interests
to
defend
all
over
the
world,
the
US
considers
that
it
is
directly
responsible
for
maintaining
global
"stability"
which
it
alone
is
capable
of
guaranteeing.[56]
That
the
concept
is
not
new
but
is
part
of
US
imperialist
strategy
is
reflected
in
the
joint
declaration
of
1996
of
Clinton
and
the
Prime
Minister
of
Japan,
Hashimoto,
re-orientating
the
objectives
of
the
US-Japanese
military
alliance
to
enlarge
the
possibility
of
intervention
in
case
of
crisis
that
could
affect
American
`security'
in
the
region!
The
recent
NATO
summit
only
provides
`post
facto'
legitimisation
for
the
concept
put
into
effect
in
US
aggression
in
Iraq,
Sudan,
Afghanistan
and
Yugoslavia.
Winners
and
losers
In
USA
Today
of
15
April
1999,
Salina
Khan
wrote,
"The
US's
defence
equipment
such
as
the
satellite-guided
smart
bombs
has
stolen
the
international
spotlight
as
NATO
airforces
pound
Serbian
forces.
That
could
mean
increased
foreign
interest
in
US
military
equipment."
Stock
prices
of
the
large
military
manufacturers
shot
up
in
the
first
few
weeks
of
the
war.
Raytheon
was
up
17%,
Boeing
12%,
Lockheed
Martin
8%.
On
16
April
1999,
Boeing,
only
recently
in
trouble,
announced
a
surprising
ninefold
rise
in
first-quarter
profits
and
a
further
sharp
rise
in
its
stock
prices!
Dassault
saw
its
capitalisation
on
the
stock
market
jump
by
Francs
700
million!
Raytheon
spokesperson,
David
Shea,
said
"We
are
expecting
the
Kosovo
conflict
to
result
in
new
orders
downstream".
Out
of
the
extra
emergency
funds
for
the
war
effort,
Raytheon
will
be
siphoning
off
approximately
$420
million.
This
is
why
the
US
Administration
continues
to
insist
that
military
security
and
international
competitivity
of
the
economy
are
linked.
Mostly
unreported,
the
bombing
of
Serbia
and
Kosovo
provides
a
valuable
laboratory
for
the
Anglo-American
arms
business.
More
arms
contracts
have
already
been
approved
by
the
Blair
Government
than
by
the
Tories,
with
two-thirds
of
the
arms
exports
going
to
regimes
with
a
paling
human
rights
record
such
as
the
dictatorship
in
Jakarta.
The
new
strategic
concept
of
NATO
will
allow
Washington
to
impose
upon
its
allies,
i.e.,
to
sell
its
vision
of
the
war
baptised
"Joint
Vision
201".
At
present,
the
total
defense
budget
of
the
EU
member
states
only
half
that
of
the
US.
In
electronic
information
and
common
system
which
are
increasingly
becoming,
the
dominant
weapon,
most
European
countries
are
considerably
behind.
This
must
hence
be
remedied
through
the
encouragement
of
mergers,
modernisation
of
equipment
and
diversification
of
the
weapons
system,
which
will
be
led
by
large
US
corporate
groups.
They
will
also
be
imposed
upon
new
members
and
future
candidates
that
the
NATO
Summit
decided
to
rapidly
incorporate,
ie,
all
countries
of
Central
Europe,
former
Soviet
Republics
and
the
Balkans
with
the
exception,
of
course,
of
Yugoslavia.
"Money
must
go
to
those
who
cooperate,
those
who
combat
the
nationalist
logic
and
share
a
basic
philosophy
compatible
with
Europe"
affirms
Jacques
Rupnik.[57]
The
intangible
principle
will
be
`conditionality'.
"It
is
necessary
to
be
concrete
and
create
joint-ventures
everywhere."[58]
On
the
basis
of
these
considerations
and
these
principles,
the
door
is
largely
open
for
enterprises,
many
of
which
have
already
been
mobilised.
This
is
case
of
German
corporations
already
on
the
spot
to
evaluate
the
market.
The
Americans
have
at
their
own
disposal
an
efficient
arm,
the
Civilian
Military
Cooperation
(CIMIC).
This
structure
brings
together
reserve
officers
and
senior
executives
who
have
been
sent
to
the
field
to
build
action
programmes
for
reconstruction.
In
fact,
they
are
there
to
prepare
for
the
arrival
of
US
corporations.
The
damage
caused
by
the
war
to
the
economies
of
the
countries
of
the
Balkans
gives
an
indication
of
the
profits
to
be
made
by
these
corporations
in
that
region.
NATO
targets
have
not
been
limited
to
military
machinery
of
the
Yugoslav
Government.
Targets
have
included
industrial
plants,
warehouses,
airports,
electricity
and
telecommunication
facilities,
television
stations,
drinking
water
facilities,
railways,
bridges,
fertiliser
and
other
chemical
factories,
oil
refineries,
fuel
depots,
schools,
hospitals,
day
care
centres,
a
refugee
camp
housing
several
hundred
Serb
refugees
from
Croatia,
public
transport,
residential
areas
in
all
major
cities,
villages,
thousands
of
dwellings,
government
buildings,
museums,
monasteries
and
churches.
According
to
Michel
Chossudovsky,
thirteen
of
the
country's
major
hospitals
were
among
hospitals
and
health-care
institutions
bombed.
More
than
150
schools,
including
pre-primary
day
care
centres,
had
been
damaged
or
destroyed
and
more
than
800,000
pupils
and
students
were
not
able
to
attend
schools.
Historical
and
cultural
landmarks
on
the
UNESCO
Heritage
list
which
have
been
targeted
by
NATO
included
the
14th
century
Gracanica
monastery,
the
13th
century
Pec
Patriarchate,
the
Rakovica
monastery
and
the
Petrovarardin
Fortress.[59]
According
to
the
Yugoslav
news
agency,
Tanjug,
500,000
people
have
lost
their
jobs.
In
a
total
population
of
ten
million,
two
million
are
without
any
source
of
income
to
ensure
even
minimum
living
conditions.
Guy
Dinmore
reports
that
most
state
workers
are
receiving
only
half
their
salaries
and
payments
of
pensions
are
delayed.[60]
Alarming
reports
point
to
imminent
threats
of
starvation
in
Yugoslavia.
FAO
and
the
World
Food
Programme
have
raised
the
alarm
that
soon
the
people,
again
only
referring
to
Kosovo
(!)
will
be
starving.
The
war
has
devastated
agriculture
production,
destroyed
farming
equipment
and
fertiliser
factories,
rendered
useless
agricultural
machinery
without
fuel,
devastated
transport
infrastructure
leading
to
the
collapse
of
internal
food
distribution.
The
planting
of
2,5
million
hectares
of
land
has
been
halted
as
water,
soil
and
air
have
become
poisoned
as
more
than
a
hundred
highly
toxic
chemical
compounds
have
been
released
by
the
NATO
bombings
of
refineries,
fertiliser
facilities
and
other
chemical
plants.
Yugoslavia's
New
Green
Party
scientist,
Luka
Radoja,
pointed
out
that
"the
NATO
bombings
is
happening
just
as
many
crops
vital
for
survival
are
supposed
to
be
planted:
corn,
sunflower,
soy,
sugar
beets
and
vegetables."[61]
The
collapse
of
agricultural
production
within
the
country
raises
the
spectre
of
absolute
dependence
of
the
people
of
Yugoslavia,
for
a
long
time
to
come,
on
the
very
criminals
blasting
them
with
bombs!
Food
would
soon
become
a
new
weapon
in
the
hands
of
the
imperialist
powers,
prohibited
by
international
law.
On
17
May
1999,
the
Government
of
Yugoslavia
announced
that
it
had
been
able
to
identify
the
bodies
of
over
1,300
civilians
killed
by
NATO
bombs.[62]
The
real
figures
will
however
be
higher.
All
ethnic
groups
have
suffered
civilian
casualties.
Kosovo
Albanians
have
not
been
spared.
According
to
the
Decany
Monastery
in
Kosovo,
a
NATO
Cruise
missile
hit
the
old
town
of
Djakovic,
mostly
inhabited
by
Albanians,
and
several
Albanian
houses
were
destroyed.
Even
vehicles
carrying
Albanian
refugees
have
not
been
spared.
Since
NATO
attacks
began
against
Kosovo,
Serbia
and
Montenegro,
some
785,000
refugees
are
estimated
to
have
fled
the
country,
according
to
UNHCR.
Thousands
of
others
have
been
displaced
within
the
country
itself.
Western
media
have
ignored
the
number
of
Serbs
who
have
fled
Kosovo
or
other
parts
of
the
country
being
bombed
or
who
have
become
refugees
inside
the
country.
The
extent
of
damage
caused
to
the
health
of
the
population
and
the
environment
by
poisonous
gas
emissions
or
by
radioactive
weapons
used
by
NATO
cannot
even
begin
to
be
estimated.
People
in
places
like
Belgrade
have
been
asked
to
wear
gas
masks
to
protect
themselves
from
poisonous
gas
emitted
by
chemical
and
pharmaceutical
industries,
refineries
and
warehouses
storing
liquid
raw
material
and
chemicals,
which
have
been
destroyed
by
NATO.
Furthermore,
the
bombing
of
drinking
water
facilities
have
totally
cut
off
drinking
water
supplies
in
Novi
Sad
and
vastly
reduced
the
supply
in
Belgrade.
Many
parts
of
the
country
are
without
electricity
or
heating.
Hospitals
are
reported
to
be
using
emergency
generators.
In
addition,
internationally
banned
weapons
such
as
cruise
missiles
with
depleted
uranium
(DU)
are
being
used.
According
to
radiobiologist,
Dr.
Rosalie
Bertell,
President
of
the
International
Institute
of
Concern
for
Public
Health,
"When
used
in
war,
the
DU
bursts
into
flame…releasing
a
deadly
radioactive
aerosol
of
uranium,
unlike
anything
seen
before.
It
can
kill
everyone
in
a
tank…
This
radioactive
ceramic
can
stay
deep
in
the
lungs
for
years,
irradiating
the
tissue
with
powerful
alpha
particles
within
about
a
30
micron
sphere,
causing
emphysema
and/or
fibrosis.
The
ceramic
can
also
be
swallowed
and
do
damage
to
the
gastro-intestinal
tract.
In
time,
it
penetrates
the
lung
tissue
and
enters
into
the
blood
stream….
It
can
also
initiate
cancer
or
promote
cancers
which
have
been
initiated
by
other
carcinogens".
In
southern
Iraq,
where
Americans
used
the
depleted
uranium
missile,
leukemia
in
children
and
birth
deformities
have
risen
to
match
the
levels
after
Hiroshima.
According
to
Paul
Sullivan,
Executive
Director
of
the
National
Gulf
War
Resource
Center,
"In
Yugoslavia,
it
is
expected
that
depleted
uranium
will
be
fired
in
agricultural
areas,
places
where
livestock
graze
and
where
crops
are
grown,
thereby
introducing
the
spectre
of
possible
contamination
of
the
food
chain."[63]
Despite
the
Blair
Government's
ban
on
landmines,
the
Royal
Air
Force
is
using
the
BL
755
`multi-purpose'
cluster
bomb
which
is
an
air
dropped
land-mine.
Dropped
from
the
air,
the
Bl
755
explodes
into
dozens
of
little
mines
shaped
like
spiders.
Those
are
scattered
over
a
wide
area
and
kill
and
maim
people
who
step
on
them,
children
especially.
The
case
of
Montenegro,
member
of
the
Yugoslav
Federation,
reveals
to
some
extent
the
human
tragedy
triggered
by
the
imperialist
powers.
Out
of
a
total
labour
force
of
120,000
-
75,000
are
unemployed,
30,000
receive
wages
only
episodically,
a
large
majority
of
the
80,000
retired
have
neither
social
security
coverage
nor
pensions.
The
average
monthly
wage
is
between
DM
120
and
150,
when
the
vital
minimum
is
estimated
at
DM
450.
The
pressure
of
117,000
refugees
for
a
population
of
650,000,
would
equal
14
million
refugees
for
a
country
like
France.
Hepatite-C
and
tuberculosis
is
rapidly
propagating,
especially
in
Podgorica.
And
the
social
budget
in
Montenegro
has
been
exhausted.
Today,
the
market
of
its
principal
partner
Serbia
is
closed
for
upto
90%
of
its
products.
Economic
production
is
functioning
only
at
15-20%
of
its
full
capacity.
Railway
transport
has
come
to
a
halt.
Road
transport
is
at
a
standstill.
Telephones
function
only
rarely.
NATO
has
prohibited
activities
of
shipping
companies
and
fishermen
cannot
leave
the
ports
of
Montenegro.
The
threat
of
famine
looms
ahead
for
the
winter
of
1999.
Civil
war
is
imminent.
Western
sources
estimate
the
destruction
of
property
at
more
than
US
$100
billion.
On
25
April
1999,
NATO
officials
evaluated
the
cost
of
reconstruction
of
bridged,
routes
and
buildings
bombed
in
Serbia
at
DM
13
billion
(6,64
billion
Euros).
In
mid-May,
the
Yugoslav
government
estimated
damages
in
Belgrade
alone
at
US
$10
billion.[64]
According
to
the
Vienna
Institute
for
the
International
Economy,
should
the
war
end
today,
the
recession
will
rise
to
20%
in
1999.[65]
After
one
and
a
half
months
of
bombing,
the
repercussions
on
economic
activity
in
the
Balkans
are
already
considerable.
If
the
loss
in
GNP
is
27%
for
Serbia
and
Montenegro,
it
will
be
20%
for
Bosnia-Herzegovina,
9%
for
Albania,
8%
for
Macedonia,
4%
for
Bulgaria
and
3,3%
for
Rumania.[66]
Neighbouring
countries
and
peoples
have
not
been
spared
the
`punishment'.
Imperialist
aggression
has
also
created
a
`humanitarian
catastrophe'
in
countries
neighbouring
Yugoslavia.
Economic
dislocation,
political
destabilisation
and
social
disruption
is
part
of
a
strategy
for
which
a
heavy
cost
must
be
paid
by
the
peoples
of
the
Balkans.
The
consequences
are
not
simply
an
indirect
by-product
of
the
war
against
Yugoslavia.
Destruction
and
dislocation
is
an
intended
objective
of
imperialist
strategy
to
enable
a
permanent
occupation
of
the
region
as
a
guarantee
for
the
expansion
of
Western
capital
into
`Euro-Asia',
a
region
that
extends
up
to
China
and
Japan
and
which
first
of
all
implies
control
over
the
Mediterranean
Sea,
the
Near
and
the
Middle
East
and
their
vast
wealth
of
natural
resources,
raw
material
and
cheap
labour
for
a
capitalist
system
facing
near-collapse.
The
neighbouring
countries
are
confronted
with
the
disruption
of
trade
flows
and
flight
of
investment
capital.
The
already
fragile
economies
of
the
Balkans
are
at
risk
of
breakdown,
one
after
another,
under
the
shock
of
the
war
in
Yugoslavia.
With
their
economies
in
a
state
of
near-collapse,
most
countries
are
turning
to
the
IMF
and
the
World
Bank
for
new
loans;
the
accompanying
conditionalities
will
bring
the
peoples
of
these
countries
to
their
knees.
The
human
and
environmental
catastrophe
awaiting
the
peoples
of
the
Balkans
cannot
as
yet
been
estimated.
Yugoslavia's
New
Green
Party
scientist,
Luka
Radoja,
warned
that
"the
entire
Balkan
ecosystem"
is
in
danger
as
a
result
of
the
bombings
by
NATO
of
refineries,
fertiliser
facilities
and
other
chemical
plants
in
Yugoslavia.
With
regard
to
the
costs
of
the
war
and
the
aftermath,
the
only
recent
reference
available
to
experts
is
the
Gulf
War.
That
war
cost
US
$61
billion
for
the
Americans,
but
they
were
reimbursed
US
$54
billion
by
countries
of
the
Gulf,
Japan
and
Germany.
According
to
Gavin
Davis,
economist
at
Goldman
Sachs,
on
this
basis,
a
ground
operation
of
six
months
would
cost
around
US
$80
billion.[67]
Three-quarters
of
the
bill,
around
Francs
360
billion,
will
be
paid
by
the
EU.
Obviously
that
cost
will
increase
budget
deficits
and
consumer
morale
will
be
affected
as
it
happened
with
the
Gulf
War.
The
war
will
have
a
major
impact
on
the
economies
of
NATO
member
countries.
The
average
cost
of
the
war
is
estimated
on
20
April
1999
by
Merrill
Lynch
at
US
$200
million
a
day.
But
these
figures
under-estimate
the
real
cost
of
the
war,
that
is
the
cost
of
establishing
a
protectorate
in
Kosovo.
According
to
Mr.
Schmieding,
economist
at
Merrill
Lynch,
"the
real
risk
is
in
fact
a
degradation
of
consumer
confidence
in
Europe
anxious
about
the
duration
of
the
war,
the
reaction
of
Russia
and
eventually
Western
losses
on
the
ground."
Should
consumer
confidence
and
internal
demand
decline
in
Europe
before
a
revival
of
exports,
then
growth
in
the
Euro
Zone
could,
instead
of
rising
upto
2.5%,
decline
upto
1%
by
the
end
of
1999:
"the
risk
is
worth
considering."
According
to
the
IMF
and
the
World
Bank,
the
prejudice
to
Yugoslavia's
neighbours
would
be
approximately
US
$1,6
billion
should
the
war
continue
until
the
end
of
the
year,
and
US
$800
million
if
its
stops
in
a
few
weeks.
This
has
led
Michel
Camdessus,
Director
General
of
IMF,
to
launch
the
idea
of
a
`Marshall
Plan'
to
finance
Yugoslavia's
neighbours.
The
European
Union
has
already
released
Francs
1,6
billion
(250
million
Euros).
Although
no
figures
exist
at
present
for
the
costs
of
the
plan,
the
Times
of
London
estimates
it
at
22
billion
Euros.
The
US
Congress
has
just
approved
a
substantial
US
$112
billion
increase
in
its
defence
budget
for
the
next
five
years,
the
largest
since
the
beginning
of
the
1980s.
President
Clinton
has
received
an
additional
US
$6
billion
to
cover
military
operations
for
the
rest
of
this
fiscal
year.
As
at
19
April
1999,
France
was
spending
an
extra
Francs
250
to
300
million
per
month
for
its
war
effort,
covering
only
expenditure
for
some
6,000
personnel
placed
at
NATO's
disposal,
several
warships
and
over
50
aircraft.
The
figures
do
not
include
costs
related
to
maintenance
of
material,
replacement
of
used
munition,
humanitarian
operations
and
France's
contribution
to
NATO's
expenditure.
Varying
estimates
from
military
and
other
sources
to
cover
the
war
costs
against
Yugoslavia
between
now
and
30
September
range
between
US
$4
and
8
billion.
The
cost
of
the
F-117
lost
over
Yugoslavia
was
estimated
at
US
$70
million!
Its
European
NATO
allies
spent
US
$10
billion
of
their
defence
budget
on
research
and
development
compared
with
US
$36
billion
in
the
US.
All
this
at
the
expense
of
public
services,
social
programmes
and
employment.
Peace
will
cost
more
than
the
war.
As
of
now,
one
question
is
posed.
Who
will
finance
the
`Marshall
Plan'
for
the
Balkans?
What
Western
experts
call
"the
building
project
of
the
century"
is
expected
to
last
ten
years
and
cost
approximately
US
$30
billion.
Thirty-three
countries
are
concerned
and
seven
institutions,
from
the
World
Bank
to
the
EBRD,
all
meeting
in
the
so-called
Balkan
Committee
since
April
1999.
The
new
President
of
the
European
Commission,
Romano
Prodi,
has
proposed
a
first
annual
plan
of
aid
amounting
to
Francs
34
billion
to
be
financed
from
the
EU
budget.
However,
parameters
such
as
the
duration
of
the
war
and
the
extent
of
damage
cannot
be
controlled.
As
stated
simply
by
the
Bulgarian
President,
Peter
Stojanov:
"It
is
necessary
to
get
the
Balkans
out
of
the
Balkans
in
order
to
integrate
it
into
the
dynamic
of
Europe".[68]
The
European
Central
Bank
and
Brussels
Commission
have
imposed
budgetary
disciplines
on
European
Union
members.
On
16
April
1999,
the
European
Central
Bank
issued
a
sharp
warning
that
governments
in
the
Euro-zone
are
close
to
breaching
the
budget
deficit
limit
and
priority
should
now
been
given
to
making
structural
reforms,
particularly
to
remove
"structural
rigidities"
in
the
labour
market!
For
instance,
Germany's
budget
deficit
for
1999
is
DM
4,7
billion,
that
is,
just
below
the
ceiling.
At
the
same
time,
the
value
of
the
Euro
has
declined.
The
reasons
include
withdrawal
of
American
and
Asian
investors
from
a
Europe
at
war
to
safer
markets,
fear
that
economic
consequences
of
the
war
will
result
in
a
crisis
in
consumer
confidence,
and
fear
for
the
budgetary
consequences
of
European
member
States.
The
behaviour
of
financial
markets
will
further
reduce
the
margin
of
manoeuvre
to
raise
the
necessary
finances
for
the
Plan.
All
the
remaining
options
available
to
the
European
Union
will
imply
that
the
costs
of
the
war
will
have
to
be
borne
by
the
working
people
and
marginalised
social
groups:
increasing
interest
rates
for
loans
or
decreasing
the
discount
rate,
increasing
the
tax
burden
on
the
general
public,
diverting
public
funds
from
social
expenditure
or
reducing
labour
costs;
or
doing
all
three
simultaneously.
Already
on
8
April
1999,
the
European
Central
Bank
reduced
its
discount
rate
by
half
a
point.
France
meanwhile
raised
the
10
year
interest
rates
for
State
loans
by
from
3.90%
to
3.99%.
The
costs
of
these
measures
will
be
borne
by
working
people
as
the
money
available
for
economic
activity
declines.
In
any
event,
in
the
capitalist
West,
whether
Europe
or
North
America,
the
working
people
will
be
called
upon
to
bear
the
costs
of
a
war
waged
on
behalf
of
corporate
power!
The
call
for
`sacred
national
unity'
in
the
countries
participating
in
the
aggression
is
aimed
at
suppressing
any
opposition
to
the
war
and
frightening
the
domestic
enemy
(the
general
population)
sufficiently
so
that
they
would
agree
to
bear
the
costs
of
programmes
to
which
they
are
opposed.
The
war
will
serve
to
obtain
consensus
on
the
dismantling
of
social
programmes,
public
enterprises
and
services.
The
war
has
created
an
unprecedented
`humanitarian
market'
for
transnational
corporations
as
working
people
buy
thousands
of
tonnes
of
food
and
consumer
products
from
supermarkets
to
send
to
the
refugees
from
Kosovo.
Aid
in
whatever
form
--
individual,
government
or
NGO
--
is
eventually
paid
out
of
the
pockets
of
ordinary
working
people.
With
rising
unemployment,
declining
real
incomes
and
growing
impoverisation
in
the
Western
capitalist
countries,
transnational
capital,
the
war
is
the
ideal
device
to
extract
profits
from
the
working
people
--
of
course,
all
in
the
name
of
`democratic'
values!
The
IMF
and
the
World
Bank,
using
public
funds,
have
been
mobilised
to
win
over
Yugoslavia's
neighbours
in
support
of
the
war
effort.
A
US
$450
million
deal
has
been
struck
by
IMF
with
Romania,
paving
the
way
for
a
US
$250
million
World
Bank
loan
and
US
$150-200
million
loans
from
Western
banks.
The
World
Bank
has
opened
a
line
of
credit
of
up
to
Francs
600
million
for
Albania
and
Macedonia.
The
Paris
Club
has
already
decided
on
a
moratorium
on
the
debt
owed
by
Albania
and
Macedonia.[69]
However,
Albania
has
estimated
the
loans
it
will
need
to
maintain
its
economy
at
US
$820
million.
Bulgaria
will
ask
for
US
$300
million
in
extra
balance
of
payments
support.
But,
Serbia
and
Montenegro
are
excluded
from
international
aid
because…they
don't
belong
to
the
Bretton
Woods
institutions.
Along
with
their
larger
involvement
in
the
Balkans
with
the
EU,
the
role
of
these
institutions
in
seeking
to
neutralise
Russia
has
been
significant.
Suspended
in
August
1998
after
the
Russian
debt
moratorium,
the
IMF
and
the
World
Bank
have
decided
to
resume
their
loans
to
Moscow.
The
Agreement
of
Principle
will
enable
the
release
of
US
$7.5
billion
fresh
liquidity
from
private
creditors,
the
IMF
and
the
World
Bank
and
open
the
way
for
rescheduling
of
Russia's
foreign
debt
by
the
Paris
Club.
This
will
increase
the
total
amount
of
financial
aid
to
Russia
to
US
$23
to
24
billion.
Oppose
NATO's
War
On
23
April
1999,
NATO
celebrated
its
50th
anniversary
in
Washington
with
the
objective
of
receiving
endorsement
for
its
new
strategic
concept.
On
this
occasion,
the
organisation
was
determined
to
claim
victory.
According
to
Zbignew
Brezenski,
"it
is
not
unreasonable
to
affirm
that
the
failure
of
NATO
will
simultaneously
mean
an
end
to
the
credibility
of
the
Alliance
and
weaken
global
American
leadership.
The
consequences
will
be
devastating
for
the
stability
of
the
planet."
Brent
Scowcroft,
former
national
security
adviser
for
George
Bush,
pointed
out
that
NATO's
very
survival
is
at
stake.
Warning
that
failure
in
Kosovo
could
result
in
"tensions
that
could
lead
even
to
a
rupture"
among
allies,
Scowcroft
argued
in
favour
of
sending
ground
forces
to
Yugoslavia.
Ivo
Daalder,
Director
of
Brookings
Institute
in
Washington,
added
that
the
failure
of
NATO
to
bend
President
Milosevic
would
question
its
capacity
to
fight
against
"global
threats
such
as
nuclear
proliferation,
international
terrorism
or
the
interruption
of
energy
supplies".
What
is
stake
in
Yugoslavia
is
also
whether
"the
United
States
and
its
allies
have
the
will
to
shape
the
world
in
conformance
without
interests
and
our
principles?"[70]
All
objectives
that
the
Clinton
Administration
intends
to
assume!
For
a
long
time,
the
US
Administration
has
been
seriously
envisaging
the
Constitution
of
`pure
ethnic
entities'
to
solve
the
problem
of
the
Balkans.
The
project
is
not
totally
foreign
to
the
idea
of
a
new
federation
of
the
Balkans
which
could
extend
to
a
re-designing
of
the
frontier.
The
Dayton
Accord
for
Bosnia
has
been
described
as
containing
the
premises
of
such
a
project:
"A
Muslim
Bosnia
under
US
tutelage,
a
Serbian
enclave
under
NATO
military
control,
the
creation
of
a
`Great
Albania'
under
US
tutelage,
which
would
leave
the
North
of
Kosovo
with
its
mineral
resources
to
the
Serbs
and
the
South
to
an
Albanian
entity."[71]
But
what
will
be
the
consequences,
when
in
Macedonia
a
quarter
of
the
population
is
Albanian?
What
will
happen
in
Greece
where
the
nationalists
consider
Macedonia
as
their
own?
What
will
happen
in
Bulgaria
where
the
authorities
claim
that
a
third
of
the
Macedonian
population
is
ethnically
Bulgarian?
Hence,
the
realisation
of
the
US
project
for
the
Balkans
will
inevitably
require
a
massive
and
permanent
presence
of
NATO
forces
in
the
region.
It
also
requires
that
the
present
Government
of
President
Milosevic
and
Milosevic
himself
must
go.
This
was
confirmed
by
Madeleine
Albright
on
NBC:
"I
consider
that
this
is
more
and
more
the
real
question
and
is
something
we
are
concentrating
on."
The
imperialist
war
against
Yugoslavia
is
the
military
manifestation
of
the
logic
of
capitalism,
the
expansion
of
which
has
become
more
than
ever
urgent
today
with
an
imminent
threat
at
home
of
the
financial
crisis
that
hit
South-East
Asia,
Latin
America
and
Russia.
With
the
development
of
the
crisis,
the
dominant
system
is
increasingly
forced
to
intervene
in
order
to
control
and
to
orient
national
policies
in
strategic
areas:
economic,
financial,
monetary,
trade.
This
is
the
mission
now
imparted
on
the
World
Bank,
the
International
Monetary
Fund
and
the
World
Trade
Organisation,
which
in
its
forthcoming
Millennium
Round
will
focus
on
this
new
mission.
The
war
against
Yugoslavia
is
the
first
war
waged
by
the
`new
global
Robocop'
for
so-called
`universal
values'
on
behalf
of
the
`international
community'.
As
such,
it
poses
a
challenge
not
only
to
the
peoples
of
Europe,
on
whose
soil
it
is
being
fought;
it
also
poses
a
challenge
to
all
peoples
of
the
world,
in
whose
name
it
is
being
waged.
The
challenge
posed
is
whether
humanity
should
live
under
conditions
dictated
by
imperialist
powers
or
whether
it
should
mobilise
and
join
forces
in
order
to
resist
the
logic
of
a
global
order
designed
to
meet
the
needs
of
corporate
interests
and
to
build
a
society
that
can
harness
the
world's
productive
forces
to
meet
social
needs.
*Tania
Noctiummes
is
an
Economist
attached
to
the
United
Nations.
**
Jean
Pierre
Page
is
a
trade
unionist
and
member
until
1999of
the
Executive
Committee
of
CGT.
He
is
also
member
of
the
Executive
Council
of
Espace
Marx,
Chief
Editor
of
`Syndicalisme
et
societe'
and
member
of
the
Editorial
Committee
of
`Recherches
Internationales'.
[1] Rupert Cornwell, "Diplomacy staggers out of the rubble", The Independent on Sunday, 9.5.99.
[2] "Washington veut confiner l'ONU dans un role strictement humanitaire," Le Monde, 10.5.99
[3] Arnaud Leparmentier, "Gerhard Schroder assure que 'le role de l'Allemagne dans la monde a change", Le Monde, 21.4.99
[4] de la Gorce, Paul-Marie, "Histoire secrete des negociations de Rambouillet", in Le Monde Diplomatique, May, 1999.
[5] The existence of the military section of the Rambouillet Accord was first revealed by the German daily, Tageszeitung, on 6 April 1999, two weeks after NATO aggression. The full text, which was extracted from NATO's electronic server, appeared in the daily's website. Since then, the document is said to have `mysteriously' disappeared from NATO's server! In France, which co-presided Rambouillet with the British, the Foreign Ministry under pressure from parliamentarians to release the text responded first that the text was not available in French, and later that "in virtue of a position of principle adopted with the British, we have decided not to publish the text. Since it was not signed by one of the two parties, we cannot in effect consider it to be final" (L'Humanite, 30 April-2 May, 1999)
[6] Becker, Richard, "A Declaration of War disguised as a peace agreement", International Action Center, http://www.iacenter.org
[7] Yugoslav Daily Survey, No. 2004, Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Belgrade, 16 January 1999
[8] Le Figaro, 20 and 23 January 1999
[9] "Bodies of those killed at Racak were moved", Guardian, 22 January 1999
[10] "Kosovo: obscure areas of a massacre, Figaro, 20.1.99; "Les morts de Racak ont-ils vraiment ete massacres froidement?" Le Monde, 21.1.99; "Neuf questions sur les mort de Racak", Liberation, 21.1.99; "Die Krieg um die 40 Toten von Racak im Kosovo Massaker oder `nur' die opfer eines Tages?" Die Welt, 21-22.1.99; Guardian, 22.1.1999; Los Angeles Times
[11] Guardian, 22.1.1999
[12] Roland Heine and Thomas Gutz, `OSZE-Vertreter widerlegen Walker', Berliner Zeitung, 13 March 1999
[13] NTV contact programme "Schlagzeilen"
[14] Yugoslav Daily Survey, No. 2005, Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Belgrade, 17 January 1999
[15] Ronald Heine, "Fragwurdiger Umgang mit einer Tragodie", Berliner Zeitung, 12 March 1999; Claudius Technau, `der brisante Bericht der Pathologin', Berliner Zeitung, 16 March 1999; Genaues will man nicht wissen", Junge Welt, 18 March 1999, Nr. 65
[16] "Ob es ein Massaker war, will keiner mahr wissen", Welt, 8 March 1999
[17] Claudius Technau, `der brisante Bericht der Pathologin', Berliner Zeitung, 16 March 1999
[18] Otto Kohler, `Mass Murder Inc.", Konkret, 3/99
[19] New York Times, 19 January 1999
[20] William Walker's background described by Gary Wilson the New Yorker `Workers World newspaper of 28 January 1999 and various other newspaper reports.
[21] Cited in Michel Collon, `A secret Italian report reeals : OSCE observers prepared NATO bombardment', 3 May 1999.
[22] Z.: 514-516. 80/3 YUG, p.18
[23] All quotations cited below from these documents are taken from a Press Release of 22 April 1999 issued by the German Section of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms
[24] Az: 514-616. 80/32 Yug
[25] Az: 514-516. 80/32 426
[26] Az: 14 A 3840/94.A, S. 44 f
[27] Az: 22 BA 94.34252, p.9
[28] "Les deux camps OTAN et Yougoslavie, dans I'impasse", L'Humanite, 18 May 1999
[29] Los Angeles Times, 17 May 1999
[30] The information on KLA is taken from Christophe Chiclet, `Aux origines de l'Armee de liberation du Kosovo', Le Monde Diplomatique, May 1999
[31] George Soros, USA Today, 16.9.98
[32] "Les Apaches de Wall Street", L'Humanite, 6.4.99
[33] "Time to Act", Business Week, 14.9.98
[34] International Herald Tribune, 7.9.98
[35] Gerald Horne, "US imperialism besieged on all fronts", in Political Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 12, December 1998
[36] Financial Times, 21.4.99
[37] Anthony Lake in Remarks, 21 September 1993, Washington, D.C.
[38] Friedman, New York Times Week in Review, 2.6.92. Huntington, International Security, Vol. 17, April 1993.
[39] Noam Chomsky, Powers and Prospects, Pluto Press, London, 1996
[40] William Wallace, "Meeting of minds", Financial Times, 15.4.99
[41] Philip Stephens, "Staying power", Financial Times, 14.5.99
[42] Zbigniew Bazezinski, The Grand Chess Board, Harper Collin Publishers, 1997
[43] Ibid
[44] Ibid
[45] Michel Collon, Solidaire, 13.4.99
[46] NATO Review, June 1991, cited in Michel Collon, ibid.
[47] James Kynge, "Beijing anxious to ensure oil supplies are more secure", Financial Times, 6.5.99
[48] James Kynge, "Walking a tightrope", Financial Times, 10.5.99
[49] Catherine Samary, "Sursis precaire pour M. Milosevic", Geopolitique du chaos, Maniere de voir 33, Le monde diplomatique, February 1997
[50] Quentin Peel, Financial Times, 22.4.99
[51] Peter Norman, "EU aims to take heat off ethnic cauldron," Financial Times, 16.4.99
[52] Z. Brzezinski, "Guerre totale contre Milosevic", Le Monde, 17.4.99
[53] Ibid
[54] William Wallace, "Meeting of minds", Financial Times, 15.4.99
[55] Michael Klare, "Washington veut pouvoir vaincre sur tous les fronts," Le Monde Diplomatique, May 1999
[56] Michael Klare, op.cit.
[57] L'Expansion, op.cit.
[58] Ibid
[59] Information provided during a press conference held in Ottawa, Canada, on 11 April 1999.
[60] Guy Dinmore, `Serbs draw on all their experience of hard times', Financial Times, 20 April 1999
[61] Mitchel Cohen, "Ecological Catastrophe Hits Yugoslavia", Green Party of New York.
[62] France 2, 17 May 1999
[63] Cited by Prof. Chossudovsky during a press conference held in Ottawa, Canada, on 11 April 1999
[64] Borba, 17 May 1999
[65] L'Expansion, No. 597, 12-26 May 1999
[66] L'Expansion, op.cit
[67] Ibid
[68] Le monde, 3.5.99
[69] L'Expansion, op.cit
[70] Robert Kagan and William Kriston, cited in "Grand Strategy: Round and Round on American Interests", The New York Times, 24.4.99
[71] Michel Muller, "Derriere l'operation militaire, que projette l'OTAN," L'Humanite, 8.4.99