The Scoop - http://www.bobharris.com/

To new subscribers: thanks for joining up.  Yes, the column really is
free, and you're encouraged to forward it to friends.  That's how our
readership grows.

Sorry this one's long again.  But there's a ton of stuff about the war
that almost nobody is reporting.  If you think other people should know,
send it around.

Thanks for sticking with me as I cope by blithering it all at you at once.

bh



THE SCOOP for May 31, 1999
___________________________

Violating The War Powers Act, Kosovo's Kuwait, and the Rambo-yay Agreement
also, A Memorial Day Prayer
© 1999 Bob Harris
http://www.bobharris.com
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[ ] = italics



["The president is in violation of the law. That is clear. It does not
require an interpretation of the Constitution.  It is the War Powers Act
of 1973."]
        -- Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Calif.)

["The representatives of the American people voted against this war in the
Balkans... Yet the war continues unauthorized, without the consent of the
governed."]
        -- Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)


According to the White House, the United States is not technically at
"war."

Excuse me?  This is Bill Clinton we're talking about.  People are actually
relying on a definition of "war" from a man who claimed that what he and
Monica had wasn't "sex."

This [is] a war, as the rest of the world is acutely aware.

And as such, this war is now quite plainly illegal under U.S. law,
specifically the War Powers Act.

As this space pointed out last week, Article I of the U.S. Constitution
gives Congress the power to decide when and if the nation should go to
war.  As a practical matter, the White House has always had some leeway to
respond to short-term crises, but the War Powers Act mandates clearly that
the White House must notify Congress of military action within 48 hours,
and lacking a resolution of support from Congress, must withdraw the U.S.
military from hostilities withing 60 days thereafter.

According to U.S. federal law, Bill Clinton's war had to end by May 25th.

(I've posted the text of the War Powers Act and Article I, Section 8 of
the U.S. Constitution at http://www.bobharris.com so you can read them for
yourself.)

The White House has so far ignored the law, claiming it's unconstitutional.

Too bad they apparently haven't [read] the Constitution.  The Supreme
Court is the only body that can rule on whether the War Powers Act is
constitutional, and until they say otherwise, it remains federal law,
which Clinton has sworn under oath to uphold.

Which is why on May 26th, a bipartisan group of 26 members of Congress,
led by Representatives Campbell and Kucinich, filed a motion in U.S.
District Court to end the U.S. role in the bombing of Yugoslavia.

How that motion is adjudicated just might set an enormous precedent -- not
just over the practical authority to declare war, but the ability even to
compel the White House to obey the law.

This is a legitimate constitutional crisis.

Not that most reporters seem to care.

The [Washington Post] has mentioned the subject exactly 3 times: twice in
short items on pages A25 and A28 on the day the deadline passed, and then
yesterday in a TV listing in section C.

And as Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting has pointed out, a search of the
[New York Times] database reveals that the War Powers Act has not yet been
mentioned even once.

___________________________

Then again, a lot of things aren't getting reported in the United States.

I'm writing this at about 3:45 pm PST on Sunday, May 30.  European news
agencies have reported all of the following just in the last 24 hours:

• Several civilians have been killed and at least 40 wounded in the town
of Krusevac; early reports state that bombs intended for a bridge over the
Morava river apparently exploded near a street market full of people
celebrating a local religious holiday.

At this moment, CNN is running an interview with a stock analyst
discussing the price of banking shares.

• Two vehicles carrying foreign correspondents from Italy, Portugal, and
England have been heavily damaged by a NATO missile in Rekane.  Two
reporters are wounded.  One person has been killed.  

Fox News is airing a report on the decline in the Euro relative to the
dollar.

• One civilian has been killed, over 30 have been wounded, and at least
130 homes have been damaged or destroyed in the villages of Suvi Do and
Pavlovci.  Also, seven more bodies have been found in the rubble at the
Estok prison, raising the casualty total there to 93 dead and over 200
wounded.

Meanwhile, MSNBC is hyping a special program tonight, on which Tom Brokaw
will hype his new book.  Fox News is now discussing the renovation of the
Chelsea hotel in New York.  Headline News is running a feature on summer
travel bargains.  

And so it goes.

U.S. media widely reported that the Serbian military was responsible for
2000 deaths in Kosovo prior to the bombings.

This is unquestionably a terrible thing.

However, at its current pace, the bombing campaign might well claim a
similar number of lives -- Serbians, Albanians, Bulgarians, Montenegrans,
Macedonians, Chinese, and others, many of them small children -- just in
time for the 4th of July.

Maybe CNBC can squeeze that tidbit into a stock ticker.

___________________________

The new issue of Counterpunch magazine reports that, according to a
Pentagon procurement auditor, many of America's air-launched cruise
missiles have embedded chips subject to potential Y2K guidance problems.

Conveniently, however, over 200 have been fired into Yugoslavia, and
another 90 have dropped into Iraq.

End of problem.

(Counterpunch is online at http://www.counterpunch.org, although
unfortunately the website often lags the print edition by a couple of
weeks.)

Counterpunch also notes that the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE) war crimes verification team, which in January with great
fanfare accused the Serbs of committing massacres of Albanian peasants,
was led by none other than William Walker, former U.S. Ambassor to El
Salvador in the late 1980s.

Good God.  Something is really wrong here.  A little history:

When the U.S.-backed Salvadoran High Command used paramilitary forces to
kill civilian opponents, Walker was notorious for looking the other way.

In 1989, when Salvadoran soldiers massacred six Jesuit priests, their
housekeeper, and her daughter, this was Ambassador Walker's response:

"Management control problems can exist in these kinds of situations."

Then again, that's pretty much exactly what NATO says about their civilian
casualties.

___________________________

If you asked anybody on the street what the Gulf War was really about,
they often replied with a single word: [oil.]

If you asked anybody in the White House what the Gulf War was about,
they'd say it was about protecting democracy and human rights, even though
Kuwait was a feudal aristocracy which had only recently banned slavery,
and several allied coalition members were at that very moment engaged in
repression elsewhere.  Indeed, while Hussein was certainly worth opposing,
the effect of the war was to entrench his vile regime and bring great
suffering to the people of Iraq, although Western access to Kuwait's
natural resources is now guaranteed.

Fast forward.

Ask anybody in the White House today what the current bombings are about,
and they'll say it's about protecting self-determination and human rights,
even though the KLA has never been much more than a fringe contra
organization which has committed dozens of terrorist acts.  Indeed, while
Milosevic is certainly worth opposing, the effect of the war so far has
been to further entrench his vile regime and bring great suffering to the
people of Yugoslavia.  

So let's ask: as to natural resources, is there anything worth fighting
over in Kosovo?

Yup.

In the heart of Kosovo, just a short drive from the capital of Pristina,
lies Yugoslavia's state-owned Trepca mining complex, called by the New
York Times (July 8, 1998) "a war's glittering prize... the most valuable
piece of real estate in the Balkans... worth at least $5 billion" thanks
to its rich deposits of lead, zinc, cadmium, gold, and silver.

Impressive.  The article also mentions, merely in passing, 17 billion tons
of coal reserves.

To put that number in perspective, only 58 billion tons of coal have been
mined in the U.S. -- [ever].  At current consumption rates, 17 billion
tons of coal would be roughly as much as the United States uses in 20
years.

How much is that 17 billion tons of coal worth?  I'm suddenly damn curious.

Last October, Atlantic-Richfield paid the U.S. government 38 cents a ton
for an undeveloped lode in Wyoming.  That number might be a low measure of
actual value, since the government notoriously gives natural resource
companies in many industries favorable, below-market terms.  I'll do more
research and follow up on this in coming weeks.

Data on the extent of Trepca's current coal production is hard to find,
but if the coal mines are already operational, development costs would be
substantially lower.  In addition, U.S. Bureau of Mines data indicates
that payroll and taxes account for a third of mining costs in the U.S.
Since those costs would be much lower in what Wall Street calls an
"emerging market," the value of the coal in Trepca would be boosted by,
conservatively, another twenty percent.

At a very rough guess of 60 cents per ton, the coal mines would be worth
about ten billion dollars.  Which means that the Trepca mining complex,
alone, is worth, conservatively, fifteen billion dollars.

And even that number might be way low.

The Bureau of Mines estimate I found pegs the nominal cost per ton of
underground mining at a little under 30 dollars.  In the real world, the
figure seems to come in at roughly 25 bucks.  Again, discounting tax and
labor costs in eastern Europe, the cost of production would probably be
even lower.  Instead, however, let's play it conservative and call the
cost of production a full $30 per ton.

The sale price for a ton of coal seems to vary widely, according to its
composition and market conditions, but over the last few years, a rough
average for the going rate seems to be about $36 a ton.

Which means this: unless I've screwed up somewhere here, and God knows
that's possible, there's over $100 billion sitting in a hole in the ground
in Kosovo.  Not even counting other, smaller operations in the region.

Whoa.

(Until somebody else who knows a lot more about mining runs all these
numbers, I'll hold off on drawing any conclusions.  If I've made a
mistake, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I'll eagerly publish
more accurate figures.)

In any case, the question does present itself:

Is it possible that what oil was to the Gulf War, coal and precious metals
are to Kosovo?

Notably, while NATO has bombed machine plants, pharmaceutical factories,
television stations, airports, electrical stations, bridges, tobacco
factories, prisons, car factories, textile plants, wood mills, and even a
shock absorber manufacturer, there is no report I can find that the Trepca
facility has suffered even a scratch.

Meanwhile, American media has been almost completely silent about the
Trepca mines, or any of Kosovo's natural resources, for that matter.  The
Trepca complex hasn't been mentioned in the Washington Post even once.

___________________________

Today's big headline in all the American papers?   The Milosevic
government is willing to allow an international peacekeeping force into
Yugoslavia to monitor an end to the conflict.

The only sticking point is the exact composition of the force: NATO
insists on providing and managing the occupational force, while Milosevic
prefers a non-NATO delegation.

This is manifestly not news.

This is, in fact, the very same disagreement which has existed since the
beginning of the conflict, with only minor changes in the terms.

In the weeks before the bombings began, NATO presented both the KLA and
the Milosevic government a proposed accord which has come to be called the
Rambouillet (pronounced, weirdly enough, like "Rambo-yay") agreement.  

As you've heard in the mainstream press, Rambouillet calls for a return of
Albanian refugees, a cessation of hostilities, and an occupying force to
enforce the agreement.  All of which would be neat.

However, the implementation terms (which we'll discuss in a moment) were
never negotiated, but simply dictated by the U.S. and its NATO allies, as
Madeleine Albright proudly reiterates on a daily basis.  After some
initial reluctance, Kosovar representatives from the KLA/UCK signed.  On
February 21, Yugoslavia agreed to the political portion of the agreement,
but not the military terms.  

Yugoslavia's objections were to occupation by 28,000 NATO troops as
described by a number of enforcement terms outlined in Appendix B.
However, the day before the bombing began, the Serbian parliament adopted
a resolution expressing willingness to review the "range and character of
an international presence" in Kosovo.  An agreement involving UN and
neutral peacekeepers was very likely still possible.

It was -- as they proudly admit -- Madeleine Albright and NATO who would
not negotiate.

This is still essentially the situation, changed only in that Milosevic is
now willing to admit troops from the nine NATO members who are not
currently blowing anything up.  The NATO side still will not negotiate.
Indeed, some American pundits are already citing the change in Milosevic's
position as a reason to step up the bombings still further.

Since the text of the Rambouillet agreement was unavailable at the outset
of the bombing, and it has yet to appear in any mainstream U.S. media,
it's easy for Clinton and Albright to pose as the sole voices of reason in
the pre-war talks.

I've placed of the full agreement at http://www.bobharris.com, along with
a convenient copy of Appendix B, which contains most of the stuff Belgrade
rejected.  Judge for yourself.

_________________

So what's in this Rambouillet deal, anyway?  Here's the Cliffs Notes
version:

The agreement begins with a group hug preamble and a "Framework" which
elaborates the need for everybody to stop shooting and play nice.  The
right noises are all made.  Cool so far.

>From there, the main body of the agreement begins with essentially a
shopping list of political goals that have never been in serious dispute,
to wit:

Chapter 1 is a constitution for Kosovo.

Chapter 2 is about civilian law enforcement and criminal justice.  

Chapter 3 is about holding elections.

All is still good.  But then things get interesting.

Chapter 4, on economic issues, starts out with this blunt assertion as its
very first sentence: "The economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance
with free market principles."

Whuh?

That's nice and all, but why does NATO need to specify the Kosovar
economic system, of all things, so early in the agreement, if their only
interest is in returning refugees to their homes?

There hasn't been a single word yet about the transport of displaced
persons, expediting of food, clothing, medicine, and other assistance,
finding of the missing, economic reconstruction, adjudication of war
crimes claims, or any of the other stuff the U.S. and NATO claim to be so
concerned with.  Just this: "The economy of Kosovo shall function in
accordance with free market principles."

That means stuff like the Trepca mines and other mineral resources in
Kosovo will inevitably be privatized while under NATO control.  And the
wealthy investors who front the cash and make the profits won't be coming
from anywhere in Yugoslavia.  

Article 2 confirms the point.  Section 1: "The Parties agree to reallocate
ownership and resources in accordance insofar as possible with the
distribution of powers and responsibilities set forth in this Agreement,
in the following areas: (a) government-owned assets (including educational
institutions, hospitals, natural resources, and production facilities)..."

Couple that with Section 2: "The Parties agree to the creation of a Claim
Settlement Commission (CSC) to resolve all disputes... (a) The CSC shall
consist of three experts designated by Kosovo, three experts designated
jointly by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia,
and three independent experts designated by the CIM."

Aha.  The Kosovo protectorate government and its NATO protectors receive 6
out of 9 votes over control of Kosovo's resources.

Hmm.  Maybe there really are a hundred billion reasons for the West to
care about Kosovo.

Still not a single word yet about all those hungry Albanians.

_________________

Chapter 4A is entitled "Humanitarian Assistance, Reconstruction and
Economic Development."

Finally we get to feed somebody, right?  Nope.

Chapter 4A is only 352 words long.  There are seven paragraphs here,
placing all such matters in the hands of "the international community."
Not a single specific is mentioned.

This is almost unimaginable.

Remember, as this was composed, there were already thousands of refugees
and internally displaced people within Kosovo.  It was Serbia's "ethnic
cleansing" of these people that was presented to the world as the [whole,
sole] reason this document had to be drawn up in the first place.  U.S.
leaders were even casually tossing around the term "genocide."  

Yet including its lengthy title, the Rambouillet agreement's entire game
plan for all the starving refugees is exactly 53 words longer than an
earlier subsection specifying the details of police uniforms.

This is just a guess, but the curious designation "Chapter 4A" is the kind
of thing you tack on a term paper the night before it's due, when the rest
of it is already done and printed and you suddenly remember something
you're pretty sure the professor is going to want to hear in the morning.

_________________

Chapter 5 is called "Implementation I."  Now we're getting to the nuts and
bolts of who really gets to order everybody else around.

Article 1, section 2 creates a 7-member Joint Commission chaired by the
Chief of the Implementation Mission (CIM).  Serbia gets one
representative.  The CIM is empowered to carry out not just the stuff in
the agreement, but anything else "as may be later agreed."  Agreed by
whom?  Presumably, as agreed by the Joint Commission the CIM chairs.  In
other words, there is no check on his power.

Which is codified explicitly in Article 4, section 5: "The CIM may
recommend to the appropriate authorities the removal and appointment of
officials and the curtailment of operations of existing institutions in
Kosovo if he deems it necessary for the effective implementation of this
Agreement.  If the action recommended is not taken in the time requested,
the Joint Commission may decide to take the recommended action."  In other
words, the CIM rules by executive fiat.

Article 5, a summary sentence which stands by itself, is even clearer:
"The CIM shall be the final authority in theater regarding interpretation
of the civilian aspects of this Agreement, and the Parties agree to abide
by his determinations as binding on all Parties and persons."

Chapter 6 creates an Ombudsman to monitor the protection of human rights
and such.  The Ombudsman is to have unimpeded access and whatnot.  He also
has no power.

Moving on...

Chapter 7 is called "Implementation II."  It doesn't say so up front, but
this is where we get into who gets to hold the big guns.

Right off the bat, Article 1, Section 1a: "The Parties invite NATO to
constitute and lead a military force to help ensure compliance..."
Section 1c: "Other States may assist... those States' participation will
be the subject of agreement between such participating States and NATO."
NATO and only NATO runs the show.

Then comes language elaborating timetables for a cease fire, a
demilitarized zone along the Yugoslav/Kosovo boundary, Serbian withdrawal,
and demilitarization.  All fine, but strangely, the KLA/UCK isn't
mentioned by name even a single time.  And while the agreement generally
forbids crossing borders for military purposes, there is virtually nothing
in the agreement to impede KLA/UCK training operations in Albania and
elsewhere.

After which, as in Chapter 5, Chapter 7 concludes authority in military
matters with Article 15: "...the KFOR (NATO's occupation force) Commander
is the final authority in theater regarding interpretation of this Chapter
and his determinations are binding on all Parties and persons."

Again, the power of the NATO occupying authority will be absolute.

_________________

Chapter 7 has two appendices.  Appendix A details where and how Serbian
units are allowed to position themselves.  Appendix B pertains to the
"Status of Multi-National Military Implementation Force," which means
NATO's occupying troops and personnel.

However benevolent the motive may be, the language of Appendix B rather
strikingly grants NATO nothing less than complete occupational power over
the whole of Yugoslavia.

Keep in mind as you read on: Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton, and NATO
are bombing Yugoslavia because the Belgrade government would not agree
irrevocably to the following terms:

Section 6a: "NATO shall be immune from all legal process, whether civil,
administrative, or criminal."

Section 6b: "NATO personnel, under all circumstances and at all times,
shall be immune from the Parties' jurisdiction in respect of any civil,
administrative, criminal or disciplinary offenses which may be committed
by them in the FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia)."

Section 7: "NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest,
investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY."

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, maneuver, billet and utilization of any areas or facilities as
required for support, training, and operations."

Section 10: "The authorities in the FRY shall facilitate, on a priority
basis and with all appropriate means, all movement of personnel, vehicles,
vessels, aircraft, equipment, or supplies, through or in the airspace,
ports, airports, or roads used."

Section 15: "The Parties 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 utilize
such means and services as required to assure full ability to communicate
and the right to use all of the electromagnetic spectrum for this purpose,
free of cost."

Section 16: "The Parties shall provide, free of cost, such public
facilities as NATO shall require to prepare for and execute the
Operation..."

Section 17: "NATO and NATO personnel shall be immune from claims of any
sort which arise out of activities in pursuance of the operation..."

Section 19: "Commercial undertakings operating in the FRY only in the
service of NATO shall be exempt from local laws and regulations..."

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."

This bears repeating: bombs are falling and people are dying because
Yugoslavia wouldn't agree -- surrender, in essence -- to all of the above.
But no nation in the world would imaginably consent to all of these terms
willingly.

Rambouillet finally concludes with Chapter 8, which promises that three
years hence the "final status" of Kosovo will be resolved in some
unspecified manner.  The earlier language, however, guarantees that such
resolution would be fully under the control of NATO.

Notice that throughout the treaty, the UN is hardly even mentioned,
although the Security Council is "invited" to endorse the Agreement.
Reading closely, however, we find that whether the UN approves or not is
immaterial.

Just as whether or not you and I, as citizens of the United States,
approve has become immaterial.

___________________________

I've been writing all day.  It's about 10:45 pm.  Headline News just
reported, with no comment or rebuttal, NATO's assertion that the civilian
deaths in Krusevac were the result of bombing a legitimate military
target.  Now they're repeating the piece on summer travel bargains.

European press reports state that, in addition to power plants and an oil
refinery, a retirement home has just been hit.  The first reports say that
eleven civilians are dead and many more are missing.

CNN, meanwhile, is (I swear this is all true) profiling the guy who draws
Bugs Bunny.  MSNBC is studying the body language of people flirting in
restaurants.  And Fox News is holding a roundtable discussion of sexy
undergarments for senior citizens.

I'm going to bed now.

___________________________

Tomorrow, Monday the 31st, is Memorial Day.

We're supposed to remember America's veterans.

OK.  And let's do it right.  Let's remember the ones who need us most.

Vietnam veterans account for 35% of America's homeless population.  The
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans in Washington estimates that over
270,000 Vietnam veterans are homeless.  Roughly three-quarters are
suffering from mental health problems, drug addictions, or both.

Meanwhile, over 100,000 Desert Storm veterans, in addition to many of
their spouses and children, have registered with the VA or Defense
Department with symptoms of Gulf War Syndrome.  And 1995 survey by the VFW
found that only about half of veterans who were ill had registered, so the
actual number afflicted is surely much higher.  Including family members,
well over a quarter of a million Americans are likely affected.

While no single cause has been found, the sheer variety of harmful crap
that troops had to slog through explains a lot of the mystery.  Gulf War
servicemen were exposed variously (and sometimes simutaneously) to extreme
stress, a cocktail of compulsory untested vaccinations, parasitic
infections, nerve gas, radioactive dust from depleted uranium weapons
(currently in use in Yugoslavia), toxic fumes from oil fires, and much
more.

Direct cause-and-effect in that glorious fantasia would be harder to find
than a Chinese embassy.

All told, there are probably over a half a million American veterans and
family members who need our help.

On this Memorial Day, let's remember them.

And let's pray that Bill Clinton's war doesn't provide us with even more
to remember next year.
 
___________________________

Bob Harris is a radio commentator, political writer, and stand-up comedian
who has spoken at almost 300 colleges nationwide.

To receive a free email subscription to The Scoop, just send a blank email
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___________________________

Bob's Big Plug-O-Rama™ (updated 5/24/99):

The new book, [Steal This Book And Do Life Without Parole], is finally
finished, with cartoons by Tom Tomorrow and a foreword by Paul Krassner.
You can visit the fine publisher at http://www.commoncouragepress.com.

http://www.bobharris.com will be expanding with a bit of a makeover soon,
beyond the big picture of a cluster bomb.  If all goes according to plan,
you'll be able to access radio, stand-up comedy, and other clips, along
with a gallery of really goofy headshots.

Syndication of "This Is Bob Harris," the daily radio feature, is rolling
along: almost 70 stations and counting, with a new station signing up
every few days now.  Call your favorite station and ask for the feature.
They pay attention, honest.

Cool and strange: the radio stuff is also broadcast in over 140 countries
by Armed Forces Radio -- and during the Rush Limbaugh program at that!
Partly as a result, this column now has regular subscribers in 32
countries all over the world.

The Scoop is also available online in RealAudio at
http://www.webactive.com/webactive/soapbox/monday.html

Finally, Mother Jones online (http://www.motherjones.com) now carries The
Scoop.  I am honored to be associated with these people.  They rule.


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/



Reply via email to