HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
KOSOVO-NATO’S FATAL ERROR –ANNIVERSARY OF
SHAME: MARCH 1999-MARCH 2002
Ambassador Bissett
| ANNIVERSARY OF SHAME: MARCH 1999-MARCH
2002 |
;) |
| Bayronica, March
2002 |
|
| On March 24 Serbian people around the world will recall with
horror the shameful destruction of their country by the US led NATO
Alliance. Three years ago, for 78 days and nights, NATO aircraft
pounded Yugoslavia inflicting terrible damage on the civilian
infrastructure of the country. | |
|
|
|
| The use of cluster bombs
and weapons containing depleted uranium caused hundreds of civilian deaths
and injuries. The psychological scars inflicted on the people may never be
reconciled. This was an illegal and unjustified act of blatant aggression.
That it was carried out by the democratic nations of Western Europe and
North America only added to the bewilderment and horror. |
|
|
|
| The ongoing trial of the
former Serbian President, Slobodan Milosevic, can only be seen as a
desperate attempt to justify NATO’s criminal actions. It will not succeed.
The legacy of Madeline Albright’s war will be the dishonour it has brought
to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Kosovo was NATO’s fatal
error. |
|
|
|
| For more than forty
years, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization protected the West from the
very real threat of aggressive Soviet communism. It was an organization
respected and admired by all free men. NATO was more than just a powerful
military alliance. It was founded on a bedrock of morality and high
principle. It stood for the principles of the United Nations Charter. It
stood for democracy, for the rule of law and for all of those things our
fathers and grandfathers had fought for in two cataclysmic World Wars. All
of this changed in the spring of 1999 when NATO bombers launched its
unprovoked and illegal assault against the sovereign state of
Yugoslavia. |
|
|
|
| The idea for NATO grew out of a
suggestion proposed in 1948 by the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Louis St. Laurent, that the European Defense Alliance of five European
countries be expanded to include the United States and Canada. A year
later in April 1949 the treaty was signed in Washington and NATO was
born. |
|
|
|
| NATO was a defensive
alliance. The first article of the Treaty made this clear. Article 1 read
in part, “ The parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the
United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be
involved, by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and
security and justice are not endangered…and to refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner
inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” |
|
|
|
| After the collapse of
the Soviet Union and the demise of the Warsaw Pact forces in Eastern
Europe the reason for NATO’s continuing existence began to come under
serious scrutiny. Why maintain such a large and expensive military
organization in Western Europe when any threat from the former Soviet
Union had evaporated? Before this question could be resolved, however, a
new role for the Alliance was discovered. The violent breakup of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the early 1990’s provided NATO with a
new mission- that of peace keeping. |
|
|
|
| As violence and bloodshed spread in
Croatia and Bosnia, the peacekeeping role turned into direct
military action. Under the leadership of the United States, NATO
intervened in the civil war in Yugoslavia and carried out air
strikes against Serbian forces in Croatia and Bosnia. These air
strikes were not conducted for defensive purposes. None of the NATO
countries was threatened by the Yugoslav conflict.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| However, the strikes
were carried out with the authority and approval of the Security Council
of the United Nations. Therefore, while clearly in violation of the spirit
of Article 1 of NATO’s Treaty, it could be argued the military action was
in keeping with the purposes of the United Nations.
After Bosnia there was no further talk about dismantling NATO. On
the contrary, the air strikes had given new life to the organization. Now
the talk was of expansion and for new missions to be undertaken. NATO was
on a slippery slope. |
|
|
|
| Armed rebellion in the
Serbian Province of Kosovo, [fomented as we now know by the intelligence
services of at least three of the NATO countries] provided the United
States with the opportunity of employing NATO in an attempt to bring down
the despised Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic. Using as an excuse its
failure to sign the infamous Rambouillet Agreement, NATO began to bomb
Yugoslavia in March 1999. The bombing continued for 78 days until a peace
treaty was brokered by the Russians and the United Nations. |
|
|
|
| The bombing was a
violation of NATO’s First Article, a violation of the United Nations
Charter and contrary to international law. Ironically- and shamefully-
none of the democratic leaders of NATO member countries [with the
exception of Greece] challenged the US led bombing. When Madeline
Albright, the United States Secretary of State, was informed shortly
before the bombing by the British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cooke, that
lawyers in his Ministry believed the bombing to be illegal if done without
UN approval, she abruptly dismissed his concern by telling him to, “Get
new lawyers!” |
|
|
|
While the bombing
continued, NATO celebrated its fiftieth birthday in Washington. This was
the occasion to announce a new “Strategic Concept” for the organization.
Now there was no reference to Article 1 of the Treaty, no mention of
settling international disputes by peaceful means or complying with the
principles of the United Nations. NATO was no longer a “defensive
organization.” It was to be modernized and made ready for the new century.
The niceties of international law and the formalities of obtaining UN
approval before intervening in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state
were to be set aside in favour of, “conflict prevention,” of
“crisis
management,” and “ crisis response operations. ” |
|
|
|
| These are the buzzwords that have
turned the original treaty upside down. But nobody seems to care. We now
have a “treaty on wheels” that can be used for whatever purposes the
United States wants it to be used for. Wheel it out whenever it is
convenient and use it when it is awkward to obtain legislative authority
to wage war. A sad state of affairs and a dreadful indictment of the
readiness of today’s political leaders to mould international instruments
and treaties in whatever image serves their immediate needs. |
|
|
|
| If a Treaty is to be amended or
changed it must be approved and ratified by the legislatures of the
contracting states. This has not been done in the case of the North
Atlantic Treaty and it is unlikely it will be done. NATO has become just
another tool of American foreign policy. It serves as a useful political
cover to justify United States use of military power. |
|
|
|
|
|
| NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia will be
regarded by future historians as the act that completely dismantled
the international security framework so carefully crafted by
democratic statesmen in the aftermath of two World Wars and the
advent of nuclear weapons. It will be marked, as the point in
history when other so-called democratic leaders acted dishonorably
to set the clock back to the days prior to the Second World War when
military might was the only criterion that counted in the conduct of
international
relations. | | http://www.deltax.net/bissett/a-anniversary.htm
---------------------------
ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST
==^================================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
|
trans.gif
430line.gif