the war - another view
Kjell S Johansen (kjellsjo@online.no)
Tue, 13 Apr 1999 14:21:43 +0200
>Return-Path: <owner-lbo-talk@dont.panix.com>
>X-Sender: dhenwood@popserver.panix.com
>Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 01:24:32 -0400
>To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood@panix.com>
>Subject: the war - another view
>Sender: owner-lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
>Reply-To: lbo-talk@lists.panix.com
>
>[From the mass Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot via Michael Eisenscher.]
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
>