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 comma
