videresender en artikkel av Tanya Reinhart fra Yediot Aharonot, fra 8.
april 1999
Knut Rognes
************Start******************''
From: MER@MiddleEast.Org
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 02:57:36 +0200 (MET DST)
To: @sn.no
Subject: "NATO'S WAR" -- What's It Really All About?
X-Reply-To: MER@MiddleEast.Org
- _______ ____ ______
/ |/ / /___/ / /_ // M I D - E A S T R E A L I T I E S
/ /|_/ / /_/_ / /\\ Making Sense of the Middle East
/_/ /_/ /___/ /_/ \\ http://www.MiddleEast.Org
News, Information, & Analysis That Governments, Interest Groups,
and the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know!
To receive MER regularly email to INFOMER@MiddleEast.Org
_______________________
Something NEW from MER:
Weekend Reading:
WHAT THE NEW "NATO WAR" IN EUROPE
IS REALLY ALL ABOUT
"US reasons for joining Germany and Nato on
looting the territories of the Russian allies
extend beyond the obvious military and economic
control this provides over Europe. The condition
was from the start that NATO gives the US a free
hand in the Middle East."
- Prof. Tanya Reinhart
MER - Washington - 4/10/99:
Modern warfare is a complicated matter. It involves
economic relationships and public opinion battles as
much as it does military armaments. Today's modern
means of economic imperialism and opinion manipulation
are as sophisticated as are the new "smart" technologies
used by the West, lead of course by the Americans. This
very important and timely article comes from Professor
Tanya Reinhart*. And it helps very much explain why the
Russians are feeling so anxious and so threatened by this
dangerous, ill-conceived, and duplicitously presented
new European War.
Please note this is a quick translation from the
original Hebrew provided by the author.
IN THE NAME OF THE VICTIMS
By Professor Tanya Reinhart
The public debate about Kosovo in Israel is influenced by the analogy
between Kosovo and Jerusalem. Both are areas which two nations view as
their historical land. Therefore, paradoxically, Sharon and the right
wing are against the US-Nato attack (fearing a similar intervention
against Israeli occupation of Jerusalem), while, the 'enlightened' camp
supports it enthusiastically. This however is a fake debate, since both
sides share the same presupposition that the war is about the rights of
the Albanians in Kosovo.
In fact, there is nothing further from the US and NATO than humanitarian
motives. Long before the attack it could be obvious that Milosevic will
respond with a massive ethnic cleansing, just as Israel would have done,
had the US and NATO decided to bomb Jerusalem following, say, a request
by the Islamic Jihad. (Official warnings about this scenario were issued
by the head of the CIA, and others in Europe.) If concern about the
hundreds of thousands of Albanian refugees was the motive for this war,
one could expect US-NATO to accept with cheers Yugoslavia's proposal for
a cease fire. Though distorted in the reports of the following days, the
proposal as broadcasted on April 6, was to withdraw Yugoslav forces from
Kosovo, to allow the refugees to return and to resume negotiations with
the Albanian Leader Ibrahim Rugova. It was at least possible to give
Milosevic a week or two, to check his intentions, while the US-NATO
forces around him stay to make sure he is not playing tricks.
But US-NATO only needed a few hours to reject this proposal. They
announced, first, that they are unwilling to stop bombing until
Milosevic accept also the condition of letting NATO forces in and, next,
that they no longer recognize Rugova as the representative of the Kosovar
Albanians, and they are willing to negotiate only with the "Kosovo
Liberation Army" (KLA). Increased bombing, with civilian casualties and
huge destruction in Kosovo followed directly.
Some background: In 1989 Milosevic cancelled the autonomy the Albanians
had in Kosovo since 1974, and brutally suppressed their political and
cultural infra-structure. In opposition, a mass independence movement
has grown, which declared Kosovo a republic, and elected Rugova, in 1992,
as its president. The movement, which adhered to non-violent struggle,
was fiercely repressed by the tyrant Milosevic, without the West even
blinking an eye. In 1996, the KLA was founded. It is a foreign-funded
brutal organization with no recognized leadership or program. It
terrorized not only the Serb residents of Kosovo, but also the political
movement, which continued to call for non-violent struggle, and which
elected Rugova again as its president, in 1998. Under the pressure of US-
NATO, the KLA was made partner to the Rambouillet negotiations which
preceded the bombing.
While the KLA supports the US-NATO bombing, and the demand to let NATO
forces into Yugoslavia, Rugova issued on April 1st a joint declaration
with Milosevic stating their readiness to search a peaceful solution,
without NATO. US-NATO interpreters reacted to the televised declaration
with rumors of all kinds: that he looked tired, that he is wounded or
under house arrest, and that the declaration took place, in fact, two
years ago. Now they announce that only the murderers from the KLA are
their partners for negotiations.
This is not how one behaves when one is worried about the Albanian
tragedy, or peace in Europe. What is this war about, then?
Until 1989, the Soviet block was a giant body dominating more than half
of Europe. In 1949, US, Canada and West-Europe countries have founded
NATO, whose declared role was to defend the west from the soviet military
threat. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new struggle has
started over the division of its subordinate states. NATO's current
mission is to appropriate as many of them as possible for the benefit of
its dominant members. (Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were
already joined to NATO.)
Germany set her eyes on Croatia and Bosnia, which were part of the
Austro-Hungarian empire in the past. It hastened to recognize and support
the separation of Croatia in 1990, but it could not get full control over
these areas alone, and had to share the loot with the US and NATO.
NATO's bombing of the Serbian areas of Bosnia in 1995 (then still under
the umbrella of the UN) enabled the local ground-forces of Croatia and
Bosnia to evacuate around 200,000 Serbs, and take over their land. With
this established, new "independent states", could be formed which are, in
fact, territories occupied by NATO forces.
The agreement signed in the Dayton air-force base in November 1995
establishes a straight-forward colonial administration of the
new "states". As reported in Chossudovsky's book (1), the Dayton "peace
accord" contains, for Bosnia, an "agreement on High Representative"
(HR) which specifies that this HR head of the administration is a non-
Bosnian citizen (article I) who appoints a "joint Civilian Commission",
including the commander of the international forces (article II), with
the right to overrule the government's decisions. The High Representative
is also "the final authority regarding interpretation of this agreement"
(article V). Similar restrictions apply economically: The Dayton
agreement specified that the first president of the central Bank of
Bosnia and Herzegovina is to be appointed by the IMF and "shall not be a
citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina or a neighboring State" (Article VII).
Bosnia and Croatia host now the largest NATO bases on the Adriatic sea,
which provides access to the Mediterranean. The problem remained
Yugoslavia (Serbia), a strong country, and an ally of Russia, which also
disables control of the full adriatic coast. Like many rulers which the
US supports all over the world, Milosevic is a tyrant and a war criminal.
But unlike others, he refuses to let his country become a protectorate of
Nato, and follow the fate of Bosnia. The only way left was to break him
by force.
US reasons for joining Germany and Nato on looting the territories of the
Russian allies extend beyond the obvious military and economic control
this provides over Europe. The condition was from the start that NATO
gives the US a free hand in the Middle East. In February 1998, when the
US planned one of its attacks on Iraq, Germany tried to stay neutral.
Defence secretary William Cohen, and a delegation of US senators hastened
to Germany to clarify that if Europe does not support Washington on Iraq,
the US will reconsider its support of the "enforcement of peace" in the
Balkans. A day later (February 8), Kohl announced that Germany will allow
US planes to use its air bases for the attack.
In March 24, 1998, the big day has come. Some German sources stressed
the significance of the moment: For the first time since the second
world war, German planes are allowed again to throw bombs over Europe:
The shadow of that war is cleared. (How symbolic that this should
happen with the same Serbs that the Nazis massacred in these old past
days, with the same Austro-Hungarian ambition in mind.) At the end of the
twentieth century, the border agreements of the two world wars are being
reopened, and the same historical powers of Europe (Germany, England,
France) are going to war over its redivision.
The war, then, is only about power interests. But the only way to sell it
to public opinion is to present it as a humanitarian war to save the
Albanians. In his first speech on March 24, Clinton was still pretty
honest about the goals of the war. He mentioned the importance of
maintaining "the credibility of NATO", and the "security of Europe".
Public opinion in the US remained skeptical. A wave of criticism of his
selling tactics has flooded the media, along with some CNN advice for
improvements. Two days later, the war settled on its current line:
Saving The Kosovar Albanians from the new Hitler.
The role of the Kosovar Albanians in this horrible show is to be the
victims. Only if people have a victim they can identify with, it
is possible to sell them this corrupt war as a war of salvation.
------
(1) Michel Chossudovsky, THE GLOBALIZATION OF POVERTY,
Zed books Ltd: London and New Jersey and Third World Network
Penang: Malaysia, 1997.
*This article was originally published in the Israeli Hebrew daily
"Yediot Aharanot" on 8 April and an expanded version was published
by Z/net commentaries. Tanya Reinhart is Professor of Linguistics
and Cultural Studies at Tel Aviv University.
___________________________________________________________________
To receive MER regularly email to INFOMER@MiddleEast.Org
MER@MiddleEast.Org / Fax: 202 362-6965 / Phone: 202 362-5266
© Copyright 1999
Contact MER 24-hours daily with your comments and suggestions:
Phone: 1800 724-6644, ID: 202 362-5266 - Email: MER@MiddleEast.Org
***********Slutt********************