IN THE NAME OF THE VICTIMS
By Tanya Reinhart
This is article appeared in the Hebrew daily
"Yediot", April 8, 1999
The public debate about Kosovo in Israel is influenced by the analogy between Kosovo
and Jerusalem. Both are areas which two nations view as their historical land. Therefore,
paradoxically, Sharon and the right wing are against the US-Nato attack (fearing a similar
intervention against Israeli occupation of Jerusalem), while, the 'enlightened' camp
supports it enthusiastically. This however is a fake debate, since both sides share the
same presupposition that the war is about the rights of the Albanians in Kosovo.
In fact, there is nothing further from the US and NATO than humanitarian motives. Long
before the attack it could be obvious that Milosevic will respond with a massive ethnic
cleansing, just as Israel would have done, had the US and NATO decided to bomb Jerusalem
following, say, a request by the Islamic Jihad. (Official warnings about this scenario
were issued by the head of the CIA, and others in Europe.) If concern about the hundreds
of thousands of Albanian refugees was the motive for this war, one could expect US-NATO to
accept with cheers Yugoslavia's proposal for a cease fire. Though distorted in the reports
of the following days, the proposal as broadcasted on April 6, was to withdraw Yugoslav
forces from Kosovo, to allow the refugees to return and to resume negotiations with the
Albanian Leader Ibrahim Rugova. It was at least possible to give Milosevic a week or two,
to check his intentions, while the US-NATO forces around him stay to make sure he is not
playing tricks.
But US-NATO only needed a few hours to reject this proposal. They announced, first,
that they are unwilling to stop bombing until Milosevic accept also the condition of
letting NATO forces in and, next, that they no longer recognize Rugova as the
representative of the Kosovar Albanians, and they are willing to negotiate only with the
"Kosovo Liberation Army" (KLA). Increased bombing, with civilian casualties and
huge destruction in Kosovo followed directly.
Some background: In 1989 Milosevic cancelled the autonomy the Albanians had in Kosovo
since 1974, and brutally suppressed their political and cultural infra-structure. In
opposition, a mass independence movement has grown, which declared Kosovo a republic, and
elected Rugova, in 1992, as its president. The movement, which adhered to non-violent
struggle, was fiercely repressed by the tyrant Milosevic, without the West even blinking
an eye. In 1996, the KLA was founded. It is a foreign-funded brutal organization with no
recognized leadership or program. It terrorized not only the Serb residents of Kosovo, but
also the political movement, which continued to call for non-violent struggle, and which
elected Rugova again as its president, in 1998. Under the pressure of US-NATO, the KLA was
made partner to the Rambouillet negotiations which preceded the bombing.
While the KLA supports the US-NATO bombing, and the demand to let NATO forces into
Yugoslavia, Rugova issued on April 1st a joint declaration with Milosevic stating their
readiness to search a peaceful solution, without NATO. US-NATO interpreters reacted to the
televised declaration with rumors of all kinds: that he looked tired, that he is wounded
or under house arrest, and that the declaration took place, in fact, two years ago. Now
they announce that only the murderers from the KLA are their partners for negotiations.
This is not how one behaves when one is worried about the Albanian tragedy, or peace in
Europe. What is this war about, then?
Until 1989, the Soviet block was a giant body dominating more than half of Europe. In
1949, US, Canada and West-Europe countries have founded NATO, whose declared role was to
defend the west from the soviet military threat. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a
new struggle has started over the division of its subordinate states. NATO's current
mission is to appropriate as many of them as possible for the benefit of its dominant
members. (Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were already joined to NATO.)
Germany set her eyes on Croatia and Bosnia, which were part of the Austro-Hungarian
empire in the past. It hastened to recognize and support the separation of Croatia in
1990, but It could not get full control over these areas alone, and had to share the loot
with the US and NATO. NATO's bombing of the Serbian areas of Bosnia in 1995 (then still
under the umbrella of the UN) enabled the local ground- forces of Croatia and Bosnia to
evacuate around 200000 Serbs, and take over their land. With this established, new
"independent states", could be formed which are, in fact, territories occupied
by NATO forces.
The agreement signed in the Dayton air-force base in November 1995 establishes a
straight-forward colonial administration of the new "states". As reported in
Chossudovsky's book (1), the Dayton "peace accord" contains, for Bosnia, an
"agreement on High Representative" (HR) which specifies that this HR head of the
administration is a non-Bosnian citizen (article I) who appoints a "joint Civilian
Commission", including the commander of the international forces (article II), with
the right to overrule the government's decisions. The High Representative is also
"the final authority regarding interpretation of this agreement" (article V).
Similar restrictions apply economically: The Dayton agreement specified that the first
president of the central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina is to be appointed by the IMF and
"shall not be a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina or a neighboring State"
(Article VII).
Bosnia and Croatia host now the largest NATO bases on the Adriatic sea, which provides
access to the Mediterranean. The problem remained Yugoslavia (Serbia), a strong country,
and an ally of Russia, which also disables control of the full Adriatic coast. Like many
rulers which the US supports all over the world, Milosevic is a tyrant and a war criminal.
But unlike others, he refuses to let his country become a protectorate of Nato, and follow
the fate of Bosnia. The only way left was to break him by force.
US reasons for joining Germany and Nato on looting the territories of the Russian
allies extend beyond the obvious military and economic control this provides over Europe.
The condition was from the start that NATO gives the US a free hand in the Middle East. In
February 1998, when the US planned one of its attacks on Iraq, Germany tried to stay
neutral. Defence secretary William Cohen, and a delegation of US senators hastened to
Germany to clarify that if Europe does not support Washington on Iraq, the US will
reconsider its support of the "enforcement of peace" in the Balkans. A day later
(February 8), Kohl announced that Germany will allow US planes to use its air bases for
the attack.
In March 24, 1998, the big day has come. Some German sources stressed the significance
of the moment: For the first time since the second world war, German planes are allowed
again to throw bombs over Europe: The shadow of that war is cleared. (How symbolic that
this should happen with the same Serbs that the Nazis massacred in these old past days,
with the same Austro-Hungarian ambition in mind.) At the end of the twentieth century, the
border agreements of the two world wars are being reopened, and the same historical powers
of Europe (Germany, England, France) are going to war over its redivision.
The war, then, is only about power interests. But the only way to sell it to public
opinion is to present it as a humanitarian war to save the Albanians. In his first speech
on March 24, Clinton was still pretty honest about the goals of the war. He mentioned the
importance of maintaining "the credibility of NATO", and the "security of
Europe". Public opinion in the US remained skeptical. A wave of criticism of his
selling tactics has flooded the media, along with some CNN advice for improvements. Two
days later, the war settled on its current line: Saving The Kosovar Albanians from the new
Hitler.
The role of the Kosovar Albanians in this horrible show is to be the victims. Only if
people have a victim they can identify with, it is possible to sell them this corrupt war
as a war of salvation.
===================
(1) Michel Chossudovsky, THE GLOBALIZATION OF POVERTY, Zed books
Ltd: London and New Jersey and Third World Network Penang: Malaysia, 1997.
(Available in book stores in Europe and US).
Document compiled by Dr S D Stein