A very decent analysis in my opinion...
Eva
.....
Nato's New Lies
by Alan Woods
"It was a fumbling war, probably unnecessary, largely futile, certainly
extravagant, yet rich in unintended consequences"
(D. Thomson, Europe since Napoleon, on
the Crimean War)
History repeats itself, wrote Karl Marx. First as tragedy, then as farce. After the
most inept military campaign since the
Crimean War, we are now treated to the spectacle of the most ridiculous diplomatic
bungling in history.
>From the beginning of this war we have consistently explained that NATO could not
>achieve its objectives by air power
alone, and that, in the end, some kind of compromise would have to be stitched up,
with the aid of Russia. Thus, on May
13 we wrote: "Faced with the threat of a bloody and protracted war, the US will be
finally compelled to reach a
compromise and sell it to world public opinion as best they can." (NATO looks for the
nearest exit, p. 6) This is exactly
what has happened. Of course, if we are to believe the press and television, NATO has
won a famous victory. The Serbs
have been defeated, and Milosevic is on the point of being overthrown by an angry
people. However, a careful
examination of the facts shows that any resemblance between this version of events and
the truth is purely accidental.
The bombardment of Yugoslavia has inflicted terrible damage on the economy. But it has
not succeeded in its principal aim:
the destruction of the Yugoslav army. This is admitted by all serious observers. The
Economist (5th June) commented:
"Serbia's forces could not indefinitely go on absorbing punishment at the rate NATO
has recently been meting it out, with
up to 400 air attacks per day by bombers now sweeping in from Hungary and Turkey as
well as from Nato bases in Italy.
But nor, it appeared, have Serb forces been reduced to the ruined shell that would
force Mr Milosevic to sue for a
humiliating peace"
Propaganda is an arm of diplomacy, and diplomacy is an arm of war. The present barrage
of propaganda was worked out
a long time ago. Like all NATO's propaganda, it is designed to mislead public opinion
as to the aims, strategy and conduct
of the war, and to convince the public that everything is for the best in the best of
all possible NATO worlds. NATO's
original war aims were spelled out in the infamous Rambouillet agreement. As we have
explained in previous documents,
this amounted to the occupation, not of Kosovo, but of all Yugoslavia by NATO forces
under the most humiliating terms.
This aim has now had to be abandoned. There is no more talk of occupying Yugoslavia.
The terms of the proposed
settlement are limited exclusively to Kosovo.
As far as Kosovo is concerned, the new deal completely abandons the idea of a
referendum in three years' time to decide
the future status of the province. The sub-text of this agreement was the possibility
of independence for Kosovo. Let us
recall that only on this basis did the Americans manage to pressurise the KLA into
signing up to the Rambouillet agreement.
Now this offer is off the agenda, and the KLA is muttering darkly about a NATO
sell-out of the Kosovars. This we also
predicted. On May 1 we wrote: "The conclusion is inescapable. The Kosovars will have
to be sacrificed. These, in any
case, were always expendable from the standpoint of imperialism. Milosevic could offer
a return to the kind of autonomy
they had before 1989." (One month into the bombing campaign, p. 10)
What were the terms of the deal put together to end the war? Under the terms of the
peace document agreed by the EU's
envoy, Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari, and Russia's Viktor Chernomyrdin, agreement
should be reached on the
following principles to move toward a resolution of the Kosovo crisis: Points one and
two call for an "immediate and
verifiable end of violence and repression in Kosovo." and a "verifiable withdrawal
from Kosovo of all military, police and
paramilitary forces according to a rapid timetable." However, the document allows for
the presence in Kosovo for an
unspecified number of Yugoslav troops.
Point three refers to the "deployment in Kosovo under UN auspices of effective
international civil and security presences,
acting as may be decided under Chapter VII of the Charter, capable of guaranteeing the
achievement of common
objectives." The force, which is clearly referred to as a UN force, although with
substantial Nato participation, must be
deployed under unified command and control, and authorised to establish a safe
environment for all people in Kosovo and
to facilitate the safe return to their homes of all displaced persons and refugees."
And it specifically states that Russian
troops will not be under NATO command:
"It is understood that Russia's position is that the Russian contingent will not be
under Nato command and its
relationship to the international presence will be governed by relevant additional
agreements."
Point five calls for the "establishment of an interim administration for Kosovo, as
part of the international civil presence,
under which the people of Kosovo can enjoy a substantial autonomy within the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, to be
decided by the Security Council of the United Nations." So that, while provision is
made for Kosovar autonomy, it is also
made clear that the province will remain part of Yugoslavia. No provision is made for
a referendum in three years, or any
other time. And point 9 specifically calls for "the demilitarisation of the KLA.."
Point seven calls for the "safe and free
return of all refugees and displaced persons under the supervision of the UNHCR and
unimpeded access to Kosovo by
humanitarian aid organisations."
The NATO propaganda machine constantly repeats the idea that the present deal could
have been arrived at two months
ago, thus saving many lives and avoiding the frightful devastation of Yugoslavia. This
is another lie. The truth is that
Belgrade already offered a deal long ago which envisaged a withdrawal of most of the
Serbian army, the return of all
refugees, autonomy for Kosovo and the presence of an international "peacekeeping"
force. The offer was ignored by
NATO, which was intent upon inflicting the maximum damage on the Yugoslav people. The
prolongation of the bombing
campaign has led to the most catastrophic results for Serbs and Kosovars alike. About
one million Kosovars have been
forced to leave their homes, partly by intimidation by Serb extremists, but in large
measure from fear of the bombing which
does not discriminate between the homes and workplaces of Serbs or Kosovars. Far from
defending the Kosovars,
NATO's war has reduced them to the most appalling misery and suffering--with no end in
sight.
NATO moves the goalposts
All the talk about defeating the Serb army and "saving the Kosovars" was just so much
hypocritical demagogy. So long as
a ground war was ruled out, such a solution was impossible. Now, at the eleventh hour,
Clinton and Blair are talking big
about the commitment of ground troops--up to 150,000 on some estimates. But such
rhetoric rings hollow. There is no
stomach for a war on the ground, with its inevitable consequence of heavy casualties,
anywhere--except maybe in Number
Ten Downing Street. Having failed in its objectives, as we predicted, NATO was
compelled to seek some kind of
compromise. Hence the continuous too-ing and fro-ing of Chernomyrdin for the last few
weeks. After what must have
been quite difficult and complex negotiations, a deal was eventually worked out which
Milosevic seemed prepared to
accept.
But once the two sides were brought together in Macedonia, things rapidly began to
unravel. Facing the Yugoslav officers
was the British general Sir Michael Jackson. This was the first mistake. There was a
time when British diplomacy was
considered to be the best in the world. Not any more. Instead of trying to get the
Serbs to sign as quietly and gracefully as
possible, the British, in a blatant attempt to squeeze the maximum propaganda benefit
from the occasion, deliberately set
out to humiliate the Serbs and rub salt in an open wound.
When the talks started, the Serb officers got a shock. The terms that were put before
them differed in important respects
with what they had been led to expect. The TV cameras showed pictures of British
soldiers carrying piles of maps under
their arms, in order to tell the Serbs by which roads they must leave, or else be
bombed. NATO's spokesmen made it
clear that "there would be no negotiation." The Observer of June 6 published on its
front page an article under the headline:
"Humbled army gets marching orders." All that was expected of them was to sign and
leave. This is the kind of thing one
would expect a defeated army to be subjected to. But the Yugoslav army has not been
defeated. It remains in place,
dug in in Kosovo and preparing to repulse a ground war. Thus, the conduct of the NATO
representatives was
provocative in the extreme.
NATO produced old maps of Kosovo, showing the province divided up into five NATO
zones, with no mention of the
presence of Russian, or any other non-NATO forces. This was an explicit violation of
the deal brokered by Chernomyrdin
and sold to the Serbs. There was also the question of a buffer zone, outside Kosovo in
Serbia proper. This had been
mentioned in the original deal, but only in the vaguest way. There was no
specification of the size of it. Yet NATO
unilaterally wanted to impose a zone that extended 25 kilometres into Serb territory.
Then what would be left of the
sovereignty of Serbia?
Whereas the deal stated that some Serb troops would be allowed in Kosovo, this point
was ignored, thus leaving the
Kosovar Serbs, their homes and monuments, at the mercy of a revenge-seeking KLA.
Instead of the ethnic cleansing of
Albanians, there would be the ethnic cleansing of Serbs. Worse still, the whole thing
was to be presented as an exclusively
NATO affair, with no participation of the United Nations. That is: the Russians (and
Chinese) were to be frozen out
altogether. This was a blatant violation of both the letter and spirit of the
agreement so painstakingly cobbled together by
Chernomyrdin. In such a form it was acceptable neither to Serbia nor to Russia. Small
wonder, then, that the talks broke
down.
The obtuseness of "Bomber Blair"
NATO's diplomatic bungling has produced a no-win situation. The breakdown of the talks
means a total impasse. NATO
will not stop its bombing until the Yugoslav army withdraws from Kosovo. The Yugoslavs
will not withdraw until the UN
passes a resolution. There will be no UN resolution until Russia is satisfied. And
Russia will not be satisfied until NATO
first stops its bombing. Thus, we are back to the starting-point, having achieved
nothing.
But the starting-point was that NATO cannot inflict a decisive defeat on Belgrade
without first engaging in a ground war.
Tony ("Bomber") Blair is all in favour of this. From his comments, and those of Cook
and Robertson, issuing stern
warnings even before the talks had begun not to expect too much, not to trust
Milosevic, etc., one could be excused for
believing that they actually want a ground war in Kosovo.
British foreign secretary Robin Cook told the BBC: "There can be no suggestion of us
slipping in a compromise or
accepting any retreat from the document they signed last week. They agreed to the
withdrawal of all forces. We want them
to proceed with the withdrawal of all forces." This kind of sabre-rattling stuff goes
down well with the gutter press in
London, but bears no relation to the real problems of war and diplomacy. As usual, the
right reformist leaders, in trying to
be more imperialist than the imperialists, only succeed in making themselves look
ridiculous. All of which confirms the old
Greek saying: "Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad."
Puffed up with his success in the polls, Tony Blair now seems to be suffering from a
severe attack of megalomania. He
evidently sees himself as a new Churchill, leading the Nation to Victory. Actually,
this is putting it mildly. Mr. Blair sees
himself as leader, not just of little Britain, but of the entire Western world. His
insistent demand for more bombing, no
compromise and ground troops in Kosovo have gone much further than the tepid
statements of the man in the White
House, who is showing a manifest lack of enthusiasm for the whole business, and whose
most fervent desire is to get it all
over as soon as possible.
The British press has spared no effort to cover up for Blair's blunders and stupidity.
This is no accident. The British ruling
class recognises in Mr. Blair their most reliable representative--at least for the
moment. They will require his services in the
future, and therefore do not want to expose him just yet. But despite all the sound
and fury, this would-be Churchill has
understood precisely nothing, and is rapidly becoming an embarrassment even to the
Americans. A ground war in Kosovo
would not be like D-day. It would be a nightmare for the British people, and an even
bigger nightmare for the Americans,
who would have to do most of the fighting--and take the bulk of the casualties. No
wonder some people on the other side
of the Atlantic are getting a bit fed up of Mr. Blair and his intolerable pretensions
as a great war leader.
In a letter to a recent edition of the Economist, an American correspondent ridiculed
the British Prime Minister's
pretensions: "like other British politicians before him, Mr Blair nourishes notions of
Britain being able to "fight above its
weight". However, at the very least this requires that you be able to fight. Britain's
diminished military capabilities, however,
leave it unable to make more than a token contribution to the war effort.
"In economic terms, this policy produces a negative externality - Mr Blair gets the
moral benefit but bears none of the
costs. Just as the air war has been largely an American show, So would be a ground
war. American troops would do most
of the fighting, American taxpayers will pay most of the bills, and American soldiers
will do most of the dying. In light of
these unalterable facts, Mr Blair's hectoring is morally indefensible." (The
Economist, June 5 1999)
At the end of the day, Britain's role in world affairs is negligible. All the main
decisions are taken in Washington. And
Congress has already served notice on the White House that it is not in favour of US
troops fighting a European war. Thus,
while one cannot be sure that the obtuseness of the leaders of Britain and America can
land them in a ground war in
Kosovo, this remains the least likely option. Even if they were to decide in favour of
it (which is not likely, despite all the
propaganda), it is already probably too late to achieve a sufficiently large build-up
of troops before winter sets in.
Moreover, the political repercussions would be incalculable. It would provoke
revolutionary movements in countries like
Greece and Italy, and eventually in the USA itself.
A confirmation of this is shown in a recent article in The Daily Express: "As the
build-up of British and other NATO troops
continued in Macedonia, plans for them to be joined by 2,200 US marines were scuppered
by the Greek government," it
explained, "Greece, an ally of Milosevic's homeland because of their shared Orthodox
roots, said it feared that if it allowed
the Marines to land, it would face anti-NATO protests from the public at a politically
sensitive time--the eve of the
European elections." (Daily Express, 7/6/99) An invasion of Yugoslavia--for that is
what a ground war would
mean--would transform the entire international situation in a way not seen since 1945.
Even the most obtuse
representatives of imperialism (with the exception of Tony Blair) can see that, and
therefore, will move heaven and earth to
avoid it.
What now?
The break-down of talks may or may not be long-lasting, but it is certainly not a
trivial matter. The threat of a further
intensification of the bombing--maybe even a ground war at the end--has set the alarm
bells ringing in Paris and Bonn. The
French and Germans, while publicly maintaining a show of unity with NATO, want to find
a way out of this mess as quickly
as possible. They have their own interests and agenda in the Balkans and Eastern
Europe, which does not entail devastating
Yugoslavia and antagonising Russia. They will be anxiously negotiating a new
compromise with Russia.
In Russia itself, the events in Yugoslavia are causing turmoil. Having temporarily
succeeded in defeating his enemies in the
Duma, Boris Yeltsin was desperate to obtain two things--a deal in Kosovo and hard cash
from the West. The two are
inextricably linked. Clearly, Chernomyrdin put pressure on Milosevic to agree to a
deal which, by denying NATO outright
victory, offered him enough room for manoeuvre to sell it to the Serb parliament. But
now all these carefully laid plans lay in
ruins, after Sir Michael Jackson put his heavy army boot through them. Chernomyrdin
and Yeltsin are not amused. The
Russian generals still less so.
By its arrogance and heavy-handed stupidity, NATO has infuriated the Russians. The
fall-out in Moscow is already
considerable. There were doubts in the Duma (and still more in the barracks) even over
the first deal. Many Russian
officers considered it a sell-out of their "Serb brothers". Now Yeltsin will be in a
far more difficult position to sell out a
second time. His position remains extremely unstable. If he pushes his luck too far,
he could even provoke a coup.
NATO has forced Moscow to come out in support of Belgrade. Russian foreign minister
Ivanov commented angrily:
"NATO is trying unilaterally to say that an international peacemaking force will be
based on NATO forces, and have the
right to use force. This is the UN Security Council's prerogative and we, the G8
foreign ministers, have come here
specifically for working out the future Security Council resolution." He correctly
pointed out that NATO had raised "the
levels of its demands" during the weekend talks at Kumanovo."
In effect, NATO (that is, the Americans) do not want the Russians to control the
situation. They want a free hand in
Yugoslavia. They foolishly imagined that the murderous bombing campaign can allow them
to establish a protectorate, not
just over Yugoslavia, but over the Balkans in general. That is why they do not want
the United Nations in control. They
want to impose their own settlement before the UN has a chance to pass a resolution
which may not be to their liking. The
real intention here is to marginalise Russia and China, both of which, as members of
the Security Council, have a right to
veto.
NATO wants to squeeze Russia out altogether. There is no provision for any
Russian-controlled zone in Kosovo. Instead
NATO insists that any Russian troops will be under NATO control. This is a blatant
provocation. Even Boris Nemtsov, the
pro-Western "reformer" has stated on BBC television that Chernomyrdin, or any other
Russian politician who agreed to
place Russian soldiers under NATO command, would commit political suicide. There is no
question of the Russians
accepting such a proposal. From the very beginning the position was clear. Before
setting out for talks in Belgrade on 2nd
June, Mr Chernomyrdin said that "Nato will command the Nato force, Russia the Russian
forces" in Kosovo. These words
implied the possibility of the partition of Kosovo, something which Milosevic has long
considered as a possible solution to
the problem. This idea is being resisted by the West (at least for the moment) because
it would provoke a violent reaction
from the KLA. But in the long run, it may come about.
The obtuseness of the NATO spokesmen was shown by their insistence that their forces
should be allowed to enter
Kosovo under a NATO flag, as a typical Blair-Clinton "photo-opportunity". For such
trivialities they were prepared to
antagonise Russia and put the whole peace process in jeopardy! Particularly nauseating
is the hypocritical and lying
propaganda in the Western media, which tries to put the blame on the Serbs for the
breakdown in the talks. They bluster
about Milosevic's manoeuvres and "Serb trickery", when, in reality, it was NATO that
resorted to trickery, trying to change
the terms of the agreement, and thus precipitating the breakdown. They calculated that
once the Serbs stopped fighting and
started to withdraw, they would not be able to start again.
With Russia taking Serbia's side, the G8 foreign ministers held another
meeting--without Russia. This underlines the
disarray in the Western camp. The G8 meeting had already been postponed once because
of the delay in the talks between
NATO and Yugoslavia. What NATO wants is to bring Serbia to its knees as a warning to
others who might wish to
challenge its might in the future. But NATO's manoeuvre has failed. It will cause a
wave of anger in Serbia and all over the
Balkans. The people want peace and will not be happy at the sight of NATO bombers
continuing to bomb Serbia back
into the stone age. The cracks within NATO will start to widen. Probably, the British
and Americans will be forced to drop
their demands and sign an agreement more to the liking of the Russians and Serbs.
The US General, Brent Scowcroft (National Security Councillor under George Bush and
military adviser to both Ford and
Nixon) revealed this possibility in an interview he gave to the Italian newspaper,
Corriere della Sera, published on 7th June.
He pointed out that, "The Alliance (i.e. NATO) set off on this adventure, convinced
that Milosevic would have quickly
surrendered. Its strategy had already failed over a month ago, but in order to save
its face it was forced to continue, up to
the point of being on the verge of a break up with of each of its members having a
different opinion. Milosevic and the
Russians have played at, and continue to play at, the game of splitting the Alliance.
If the war had continued we would have
witnessed an official and total split in its ranks. That is why we have arrived at
this so-called 'peace'." The same newspaper,
as opposed to the British press, also pointed out that rather than a "victory" any
agreement now would represent a
compromise on both sides.
If a peace is signed, it will be implacably opposed by the hard-liners of the KLA.
This will cause new and bloody
contradictions. As the Economist commented: "If there is a breakthrough towards peace,
the KLA will in any case become
increasingly awkward for the West, as well as for the Serbs, to handle. Hashim Tashi,
the young KLA man who is the
declared prime minister of a provisional Kosovo government, instantly sniffed a
sell-out when it emerged from the talks in
Belgrade that Russian and western peacekeeping forces might occupy different zones of
the province.
It is an open secret that the KLA have set up recruiting and training centres in the
refugee camps in Albania where some
100,000 Kosovars eke out a miserable existence. Although the United Nations denies the
presence of guerrillas in the
camps, this is common knowledge to aid workers and other observers. For this reason,
the Yugoslav army has been
bombing these areas inside Albania in recent weeks. Having built up the KLA, the West
will now have to live with the
consequences.
No matter what is signed, the KLA will wage a terrorist campaign which can be a
poisonous ulcer for years, adding to the
instability not only of Kosovo but also of Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. Again
The Economist comments:
"Albania's 3 million pre-war residents could be forgiven if they secretly fear that
Kosovars will take over their country." The
government of Albania has been reluctantly forced to back the KLA, but in reality is
under the control of NATO and the
Americans. Any attempt to disarm the KLA or limit its activities could cause civil war
in Albania, leading to further
breakdown and the possibility of the return of Berishaite reaction. Above all, the
unresolved conflict in Kosovo can have
disastrous results in Macedonia, where the uneasy relation between Slavs and Albanians
have been seriously aggravated
and, under certain conditions, could lead to the break-up of Macedonia. This is
precisely the scenario which the West has
been desperate to avoid, since it can plunge the whole of the Balkans into war.
Despite all the propaganda, NATO's Kosovo adventure has been an expensive disaster.
Its main war aims have not been
achieved. It has caused a serious rift within the ranks of Nato itself, and aggravated
the crisis in Russia. The problem of
Kosovo has not been resolved and the Balkans are more unstable now than they were
before the war started. The
devastation of Yugoslavia is very poor compensation for all this. And to make things
worse, Milosevic remains firmly in
power. If he is removed in the future, it will not be by American bombs or NATO's
intrigues, but by the movement of the
masses in Serbia itself. As for the cost of the war, this has already reached the
figure of at least three billion pounds, and
will continue to rise as the costs of reconstruction will have to be met by the West.
As always, it is the working class which will pick up the bill for the crimes of
imperialism. There will never be peace or
stability in the Balkans until the working people take power into their own hands and
carry out the socialist transformation
of society.
Alan Woods
London, 8th June 1999
PS: As we publish this article, talks have been re-started and the UN is drafting a
resolution.
Read the other material about the crisis in the former Yugoslavia at:
Crisis in the Balkans - A Socialist Analysis
[Back to In Defence of Marxism] [Back to Europe]
----- End of forwarded message from Eva Durant -----
