“We are told there the West knew already last autumn
that President Milosevic had a plan to ethnically cleanse
all Albanians from the Kosovo province. However, while it is
true that Yugoslav forces have exploited NATO’s bombing
campaign to drive out Albanians in a way and to an extent
that must be morally condemned, the unproved allegation that
there existed a plan tells more about NATO than about
President Milosevic – and what it tells is not to the
advantage of the former,” says TFF director Jan
Oberg.
“The disgusting expulsion of Albanians from Kosovo can’t
be defended. The Yugoslav authorities who carries it out or
lets individuals do it, can not defend such human rights
violations with reference to NATO’ bombing. Sure, Serbs will
see NATO’s destruction of Yugoslavia as work commissioned by
Kosovo-Albanians/UCK, but it is anyhow up to Yugoslavia to
fight NATO, not to take revenge against those who are
innocent civilians.
Having said that, NATO and the West can not be trusted
when it seeks to legitimise its Balkan bombing blunder by
insisting that it has “evidence” of an ethnic cleansing plan
but has still not provided the slightest evidence. Here are
some reasons why this is utterly irresponsible and, thus,
undermines NATO credibility – and the credibility of a free
press that does not ask more critical questions:
First of all, we never heard anybody talk about such a
plan before NATO’s bombs started falling. Second, the
argument for bombing was related to whether or not
Yugoslavia would sign the Rambouillet Dictate. We never
heard anybody saying that NATO would bomb Yugoslavia should
they carry out an ethnic cleansing plan.
Third, if such a plan was known already during autumn,
how could the West invite representatives of a killer regime
to Paris? How could the US send ambassador Richard Holbrooke
to Belgrade to try to make a last-minute deal with such ‘a
serial cleanser’ President?
Fourth – and worst, perhaps of all – if the West knew of
such a plan why did it do absolutely NOTHING to plan for the
humanitarian emergency it would cause? Why did the West/NATO
not actively threaten to prevent it OR initiate bombings
much earlier? Isn’t it simply too immoral to know about such
a plan and do nothing?
Fifth, if Milosevic, Serbia or Yugoslavia wanted to get
rid of all Albanians, why did they choose this particularly
awkward moment – when OSCE verifiers were roaming around
every corner of Kosovo, being the ears and eyes in the
region. (Yugoslavia had discontinued an OSCE mandate already
in 1992 in response to OSCE’s suspension of its membership
of OSCE). Why did it let the Kosovo-Albanian leader Dr.
Rugova and his followers hold elections, set up a
government, travel unrestrictedly in and out of the country,
and build parallel institutions and why did it let the KLA
develop since 1993 to the extent that it could occupy and
control about 30% of territory of Kosovo last autumn? It
could have prevented all of this.
Sixth, how come that neither the OSCE mission nor any of
the numerous humanitarian organizations in Kosovo warned the
world that such an incredibly big and inhuman plan was about
to be implemented?
Seventh, if NATO and the intelligence services of leading
NATO countries which have been in the region all the time
knew about such a plan from about October last year – when
US super-negotiator Richard Holbrooke struck the deal with
Milosevic – why did NATO not make a better planning of the
present air campaign? Diplomatically speaking, it looks a
bit confused and unplanned.
I think NATO’s leaders owe us some good answers to these
7 questions. In contrast,” says Dr. Oberg, “there is
evidence that the US and NATO did know that the bombing
could create havoc. On record we have facts like
these:
Evidence # 1 Macedonia and OSCE warned already in July
1998
The North Atlantic Assembly (NATO Parliamentarians)
held a seminar on “Security in South-Eastern Europe” at Lake
Ohrid in Macedonia (FYROM) from July 4-6 1998 – when the war
was raging between UCK/KLA and Serb-Yugoslav forces and
after NATO’s air exercise – Determined Falcon – over FYROM
in June. The report [AR202. SEM 98 7] was published
in February this year and contains the following interesting
information:
The participants discussed how to stop the fighting in
Kosovo; NATO’s position had ‘crystallised’ in June 1998 and
NATO defence ministers had met on June 10-11 to instruct the
Military Committee to see how the alliance could use the
full range of military capabilities to a) stop the violence,
b) disengage Yugoslav forces and c) provide for
negotiations.
Deputy head of the OSCE mission in Skopje, Mr. Julian
Peel Yates, argued at the seminar that the June 1998 air
exercise over Macedonia had aroused ambiguous feelings among
the Macedonians, it was perceived as an encouragement to UCK
and divided the population along ethnic lines. Furthermore
it could ‘lead the country on a collision course with
Yugoslavia. ‘Mr. Blagoj Handziski, Minister of Foreign
Affairs of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, also
alluded to these dangers.’ Later, one reads: ‘Mr. Alexandros
Papadogonas (Greece) noted that military intervention could
result in ‘ethnic cleansing’ of the Serbs and lay down a
dangerous precedent. Julian Yates also cautioned against the
temptation to use military force to fill a political
vacuum.’ And ‘Representatives from the region unanimously
demanded to be involved in enhanced consultations prior to
any operation.’
What we see here,” says TFF’s director, “is clear
evidence that government representatives in the region as
well as OSCE warned NATO’s parliamentarians already in July
1998 about some of the risks involved in NATO military
action: destabilisation of Macedonia, Macedonian-Yugoslav
conflict and ethnic cleansing. This was a months after NATO
had started looking into various options.
Evidence # 2 General Shelton warned that ethnic cleansing would increase
Sunday Times reported on March 28, “NATO Attacks,” that
on March 15 ‘Clinton and his cabinet members, including
William Cohen, the defence secretary, and Sandy Berger, the
national security adviser, sat in silence as Shelton
[General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the joint chiefs of
staff] outlined the thrust of the analysis. There was a
danger, he told them, that far from helping to contain the
savagery of the Serbs in Kosovo – a moral imperative cited
by the president – air strikes might provoke Serb soldiers
into greater acts of butchery. Air strikes alone, Shelton
stated, could not stop Serb forces from executing
Kosovars.’
Evidence # 3 President Clinton was occupied with the
Lewinsky affair
Furthermore, New York Times on April 18 and The Times, on
April 19, told their readers that President Clinton took no
part in planning the war: ‘Distracted by the Lewinsky
scandal, President Clinton was not even present at the
fateful meeting last January when a plan was formed to use
the threat of air power to demand Serb acceptance of a peace
deal in Kosovo enforced by Nato ground troops.
The White House meeting on January 19, at which Madeleine
Albright, the US Secretary of State, successfully
argued for a much tougher stance against Belgrade, was a
vital moment in the build-up to war. But Mr. Clinton was
preoccupied with his impeachment trial, according to a
report yesterday in The New York Times that paints a picture
of a President whose attention was focused elsewhere as
Kosovo erupted.
At the January meeting Ms. Albright overcame the
reservations of other senior advisers and the plan,
demanding Serb acceptance of NATO troops in Kosovo under
threat of force for the first time, was sent for approval to
Mr. Clinton, who was at the moment preparing his State of
the Union address while the US Senate listened to
arguments on whether he should be thrown out of
office.’
Jan Oberg comments, “With this in the background and
looking at the febrile rhetoric and failure of the bombing
campaign on its own criteria – creating peace and stability
in Europe, preventing a humanitarian catastrophe and forcing
Belgrade to accept all the West’s conditions – one is
increasingly lead to believe, rather, that the whole
catastrophe we witness now was CAUSED by leading
decision-makers ignoring early warnings from the region and
top-level military expertise, by the US President being
‘distracted’ and by bad judgment and a gross underestimation
of the complexity and of what was at stake. Or, you may say,
by a dangerous combination of hubris and human folly, of too
much military power combined with too little intellectual
power.
Until we are shown empirical evidence of a grand Yugoslav
ethnic cleansing plan and until we get some good answers
from President Clinton, Secretary of State Albright, Prime
Minister Tony Blair, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer and
Danish Prime Minister Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, State Department
spokesman James Rubin and NATO spokesman Jamie Shea to why
NATO chose to go ahead against the above-mentioned warnings
and obvious risks, there is little reason to believe their
words.
The said plan probably exists only in various propaganda
departments in NATO capitals. Truth-seeking journalists
should keep on pounding questions about these matters. Why?
Because a humanitarian NATO mission that has to be explained
and legitimised on such factually lose and morally dubious
grounds, must give cause for grave concern. I am reminded of
what George Braque is believed to have once said: that truth
always exists, whereas in contrast, lies have to be
invented.”
© TFF 1999
• You are welcome to re-print, copy, archive, quote
from or re-post this item, but please retain the source.
• TFF’s website has all the relevant links to Iraq,
the Balkans, including media there + peace research, and
non-violence
• Teacher, activist, journalist?? You’ll always find
something interesting at TFF.
• Get your daily global news from the leading media
on TFF’s site, all in one place.
