Atene 10 - 13 maggio

Assemblea del Consiglio Mondiale per la Pace

Dal 10 al 13 maggio scorso nella capitale greca si è tenuta - ospitata
dall'Associazione greca per la Distensione internazionale e la Pace
(EEDYE) - la Conferenza internazionale e l'Assemblea del Consiglio
Mondiale per la Pace (CMP), con la partecipazioni di delegazioni dei
movimenti per la pace di tutto il mondo, dai cinesi della Associazione
per la Pace e il Disarmo ai cubani del Movimento per la Pace, dai
vietnamiti, ai coreani, dagli statunitensi dell'International Action
Center alle numerose delegazioni europee. Per l'Italia era presente la
Fondazione Pasti, che è entrata ufficialmente a far parte del direttivo.
Nella situazione caratterizzata dall'estrema aggressività
dell'imperialismo, l'Assemblea ha rappresentato anche un momento di
necessaria verifica politica dell'attività passata dell'organizzazione,
e ha visto la messa sotto accusa dell'associazione francese facente capo
al PCF per la responsabilità del governo francese a partecipazione
comunista nella guerra contro la Jugoslavia e l'immobilismo in cui è
stato tenuto il CMP. Riportiamo l'intervento di Thanassis Pafilis ,
segretario generale dell'EEDYE e già coordinatore dei movimenti per la
pace europei, sulla nuova dottrina NATO e il rapporto tra NATO e UE. Il
movimento greco, molto attivo nell'opposizione alla guerra, è stato
incaricato del coordinamento internazionale


La NATO principale nemico della pace

Intervento di Thanassis Pafilis, segretario generale dell'EEDYE
(Associazione greca per la Distensione internazionale e la Pace)
pronunciato all'Assemblea del Consiglio Mondiale per la Pace, Atene
10-13 maggio.
La NATO, la sua espansione e la sua nuova dottrina strategica sono stati
giustamente al centro dell'attenzione mondiale perchè tutti gli sviluppi
degli ultimi anni dimostrano che la nuova NATO del XXI secolo sarà una
macchina repressiva su vasta scala. E' una potente organizzazione
militare e politica che cercherà di imporre il nuovo ordine
internazionale imperialista con il terrorismo, la minaccia di guerra e
la guerra, schiacciando ogni resistenza.
Dal 1990, e in particolare dopo lo scioglimento del Patto di Varsavia, è
iniziata l'attività volta ad attribuire alla NATO la possibilità di
intervenire al di là della sua area di azione. La prima questione sorta
fu: chi è il nemico e che cosa costituisce una minaccia per l'Alleanza?
Nel testo fondamentale sul nuovo punto di vista strategico della NATO
formulato nell'incontro di vertice del 7-8 novembre 1991 a Roma, il
punto 13 afferma che la sicurezza dell'Alleanza deve essere considerata
in un contesto globale. Vi si dice anche che gli interessi di sicurezza
dell'Alleanza possono essere messi in questione da una serie di minacce
di varia natura, compresa la proliferazione delle armi di distruzione di
massa, l'interruzione del flusso di risorse vitali e atti di "terrorismo
e sabotaggio".
Si è aperta così la strada all'emendamento dell'articolo 4 dello statuto
della NATO, che limitava il suo raggio d'azione al territorio dei paesi
dell'Alleanza, ratificato a Washington (punto 4). In questo modo cinico
e provocatorio vengono "legittimate" operazioni come l'intervento nel
Kosovo perchè si pretende che la sicurezza dell'Europa sarebbe
minacciata. Se poi si considera per esempio il punto sull'interruzione
del flusso di risorse vitali, si vede bene che si ritengono
"legittimati" a intervenire dovunque, con il pretesto del petrolio o di
altre fonti energetiche.
Il primo intervento della NATO in Jugoslavia col pretesto di imporre la
pace ha costituito in realtà l'estensione di fatto della sua area di
azione. Si è trattato di un intervento condotto con l'approvazione
dell'ONU, benchè violasse il diritto internazionale.
Ma la guerra NATO contro la Jugoslavia nel marzo 1999 ha rappresentato
l'applicazione piena della nuova dottrina proprio in forza del fatto che
è stata condotta senza l'approvazione dell'ONU.
La questione fondamentale dell'ONU e della responsabilità di questo
organismo nel mantenimento della pace e della sicurezza viene trattata
nella dichiarazione della NATO firmata a Washington il 23 aprile 1999 al
punto 38, in cui si afferma che i paesi della NATO auspicano lo sviluppo
di ulteriori contatti e lo scambio di informazioni con l'ONU finalizzate
alla prevenzione dei conflitti, al governo delle crisi e agli interventi
(!) in risposta alle crisi. Si conclude poi dicendo che l'Alleanza
stabilirà le possibilità di cooperazione futura in questo senso caso per
caso. Quest'ultima frase, attribuendosi la possibilità di decidere di
fare la guerra, abolisce di fatto il Consiglio di Sicurezza e l'ONU.
Parallelamente a queste decisioni, la NATO ha iniziato a espandersi ad
altri paesi con le seguenti modalità: - Con trattative dirette e la
decisione di accettare nuovi membri (Repubblica Ceca, Polonia,
Ungheria).
- Con la creazione della "Partnership for Peace" (gennaio 1994) tra la
NATO e i paesi ex socialisti.
- Con la creazione del Consiglio di Cooperazione Nordatlantico che
comprende i paesi della NATO più 28 altri paesi dell'Europa centrale e
orientale e dell'ex Unione Sovietica e altri paesi neutrali.
- Iniziando trattative e collaborazioni con paesi del Medio Oriente e
dell'Africa settentrionale (Egitto, Israele, Giordania, Tunisia,
Marocco, Mauritania).
La NATO si sta così allargando ad est verso l'Asia e a sud, in Africa,
diventando così una forza globale. Nel 1999 anche l'Argentina è stata
designata interlocutore privilegiato dell'Alleanza, ponendo così le
premesse per un'espansione in Sudamerica. La NATO sta già pensando a una
formula che le consenta di partecipare all'intervento in Colombia.
Il nuovo ruolo della NATO va di pari passo con la sua rustrutturazione,
i cui tratti essenziali sono stati tracciati nell'incontro dei ministri
della difesa del 2 dicembre 1997 a Bruxelles. Il concetto fondamentale
della nuova struttura militare è la realizzazione delle forze di
intervento, le Combined Joint Task Forces (CJTF). Si tratta di forze
militari puramente offensive, con partecipazione multinazionale, che
combinano in modo flessibile diverse specialità. La ristrutturazione
procede contemporaneamente a promuovere la Identità Europea di Sicurezza
e di Difesa [European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI)] nel quadro
della NATO che comporta il coordinamento con le forze della Unione
dell'Europa Occidentale (UEO).
Oltre a queste strutture militari, ne vengono create altre che
consistono di forze NATO e unità di paesi appartenenti alla Partnership
for Peace (ex paesi socialisti). Un esempio è la creazione della Brigata
Balcanica.
Un altro aspetto importante è il rapporto tra la NATO e l'Unione
Europea.
Se constatiamo, come è necessario, che la guerra contro la Jugoslavia ha
dissolto qualsiasi illusione circa il ruolo della NATO, dobbiamo anche
aggiungere che ha fatto cadere la maschera dall'Unione Europea. L'Unione
Europea non è stata trascinata in una guerra lanciata dagli Stati Uniti.
No! I governi degli USA e dell'UE hanno deciso insieme di fare questa
guerra e perciò l'UE è una delle cause della guerra.
La responsabilità criminale di entrambi i soggetti è dimostrata anche
dal fatto che i ministri degli esteri dell'UE si sono subito affrettati
ad approvare a adottare le decisioni della NATO e hanno preso anche
misure unilaterali come l'embargo, il congelamento dei conti, ecc. La
posizione unitaria dei dirigenti dell'UE - dal conservatore Aznar al
laburista Blair, dal socialdemocratico Schroeder al "socialista"
Simitis, fino al cosddetto centro-sinistra di D'Alema - dimostra che
alla base della UE c'è la costruzione di un'Europa aggressiva e
imperialista delle multinazionali, un'Europa di guerra, di povertà e di
ingiustizia sociale.
Il rapporto tra la NATO e l'UE è chiaramente delineato al punto 9 della
dichiarazione di Washington, in cui si dice che i firmatari salutano la
nuova spinta verso il rafforzamento della politica comune europea di
sicurezza e di difesa venuta dal Trattato di Amsterdam e le riflessioni
fatte in seguito in sede UEO e poi con la Dichiarazione di Saint Malo
nell'UE, comprese le conclusioni del Consiglio Europeo di Vienna. Si
tratta di un processo che ha ripercussioni per tutti gli alleati. Essi
affermano che un più forte ruolo dell'Europa contribuirà alla vitalità
dell'Alleanza, base della difesa collettiva dei suoi membri, nel XXI
secolo.
A questo proposito il testo:
a. Riconosce la ferma decisione dell'UE di mettersi in grado di agire
autonomamente, per poter prendere decisioni e approvare azioni militari
nelle situazioni in cui non ci sia l'impegno di tutta l'Alleanza.
b. Afferma che, con l'avanzare di questo processo, la NATO e l'UE devono
assicurare un efficace sistema di consultazione reciproca, cooperazione
e trasparenza da costruire a partire dai meccanismi già esistenti tra
NATO e UEO.
c. Applaude alla ferma decisione dei membri della UE e di altri alleati
europei di prendere le misure necessarie al rafforzamento delle loro
capacità di difesa, particolarmente in vista di nuove missioni, evitando
inutili duplicazioni.
d. Attribuisce la massima importanza a che venga assicurato, nelle
operazioni condotte dalla UE in risposta a una crisi, il più ampio
coinvolgimento possibile degli alleati europei non appartenenti alla UE
sulla base dei regolamenti e dei progetti discussi in sede UEO.
Per dare un'immagine chiara dell'Europa e dell'Unione Europea che si sta
costruendo vorrei illustrare la nuova struttura della NATO in Europa:
- Comando strategico per l'Europa (sede a Mons, Belgio).
- Due comandi centrali per il Nord e per il Sud.
- La regione Sud (con sede centrale a Napoli, Italia, a cui è
subordinata la Grecia) è suddivisa in due comandi generali: Air Force e
Navy South (anch'essi a Napoli) e quattro comandi subregionali:
Sud-ovest (sede a Madrid, Spagna), Sud (sede a Verona, Italia),
Centro-Sud (sede a Larissa, Grecia) e Sud-est (sede a Izmir, Turchia).
I cambiamenti nela struttura NATO hanno reso necessari anche cambiamenti
nella struttura degli eserciti dei paesi membri e l'avvio di nuovi
programmi di armamento. La grecia per esempio si è impegnata per un
programma di armamenti del valore di 20 miliardi di dollari. Somme
simili e anche molto maggiori saranno spese da altri paesi. Vorrei
richiamare la vostra attenzione sulla azione della NATO in Jugoslavia, e
in particolare in Bosnia, perchè è considerata, come dissero il ministro
della difesa tedesco Volker Rühe e anche esponenti americani, un modello
"pilota" di intervento in situazioni di crisi.
In che cosa è consistito l'intervento della NATO?
1. Attacchi aerei, bombardamenti, intervento militare.
2. Imposizione dell'accordo di Dayton con metodi terroristici.
3. Invasione, presa e occupazione del territorio con un esercito di
60.000 uomini.
4. Imposizione di un sistema politico e scelta delle forze autorizzate a
partecipare alle elezioni.
5. Elezioni sotto tutela armata della NATO.
6. Repressione delle manifestazioni di massa che protestavano contro la
presenza delle truppe straniere.
Il culmine della "democrazia" di marca NATO è stato poi raggiunto con la
rimozione del presidente eletto della Repubblica Serba di Bosnia da
parte del comandante NATO.
La nuova guerra della NATO contro la Jugoslavia e l'occupazione del
Kosovo sono una ripetizione del primo intervento e dimostrano la piena
applicazione della nuova dottrina strategica.
Cari amici, tra il 1991 e il 1998 la NATO ha posto le basi per il nuovo
ruolo che si prepara a svolgere nel XXI secolo. Il 23 e 24 aprile 1999
al vertice di Washington il nuovo concetto strategico e la nuova
dottrina sono stati adottati formalmente.
La nuova strategia, che comporta ufficialmente il rovesciamento di
disposizioni fondamentali del diritto internazionale, è stata approvata
all'unanimità. I principi del non intervento negli affari interni di uno
stato e dell'astensione dalla minaccia o dall'uso della violenza sono
stati abrogati. Al loro posto è stato collocato il nuovo principio per
cui la politica e la diplomazia sono efficaci se sorrette dalla minaccia
della guerra e dalla guerra.
Si ritorna così a una situazione in cui nelle relazioni internazionali
domina il principio per cui tutto è consentito al potente.
Noi pensiamo che la NATO sia oggi il principale nemico per un futuro di
pace dell'umanità, un nemico che tutti i movimenti per la pace e tutti i
popoli si trovano di fronte.
La NATO è sempre più strettamente correlata con la militarizzazione
crescente delle relazioni internazionali e con il rovesciamento del
diritto internazionale. Prima o poi i popoli, nel tentativo di costruire
una società giusta, si troveranno a combattere contro questa
organizzazione imperialista.
Ecco perchè la lotta per l'abolizione della NATO e di tutte le alleanze
militari è più decisiva e necessaria che mai.
Thanassis Pafilis

---

ATENE, 23-25 GIUGNO 2000

INCONTRO INTERNAZIONALE DEI PARTITI COMUNISTI ED OPERAI

Dal 23 fino al 25 Giugno 2000 il Partito Comunista di Grecia (KKE),
ospiterà per il terzo anno consecutivo l'incontro internazionale dei
partiti comunisti ed operai.
L'incontro avrà come tema centrale di discussione: "Le esperienze di
lotta, le alleanze e le collaborazioni dei comunisti oggi."
L'iniziativa costituisce un impegno comune, mirante all'obiettivo di
contribuire al rafforzamento dell'identità comunista, della solidarietà
e dell' azione comune dei partiti comunisti ed operai.
Al centro del dibattito, si porranno le grandi mobilitazioni e le lotte
a Seattle e a Washington, le lotte contro la NATO e la guerra in
Yugoslavia, le grandi lotte operaie in Sud Africa, America Latina,
India, Corea del Sud, Portogallo, la situazione nei Balcani e negli
ex-paesi socialisti, la sempre maggiore contestazione di massa
dell'imperialismo in Palestina, Colombia, Venezuela, Equador e in altri
paesi, ed i passi necessari da intraprendere per affrontare tale
situazione.
Le questioni riguardanti le zone del Mediterraneo Orientale e del Medio
Oriente occuperanno una sessione specifica.
Fino ad oggi hanno dichiarato la loro partecipazione 64 partiti
comunisti ed operai, provenienti da 53 paesi di tutto il mondo.
Si tratta dei seguenti partiti:

ALBANIA: P.C d'Albania
ALGERIA: Partito Algerino per la Democrazia ed il Socialismo(PADS)
ARMENIA: P.C d'Armenia
AUSTRALIA: P.C d'Australia
AUSTRIA: P.C d'Austria
BAHREIN: Fronte di Liberazione Nazionale del Bahrein
BELGIO: -Partito dal Lavoro di Belgio(PTB)
-P.C del Belgio
BIELORUSSIA:P.C della Bielorussia
BRETAGNA:-Nuovo P.C di Bretagna(NCPB)
-P.C di Bretagna(CPB)

BULGARIA: -P.C Bulgaro-"Georghi Dimitrov"
-P.C di Bulgaria
-Piattaforma Marxista del Partito Socialista
Bulgaro
CANADA: P.C del Canada
CATALOGNA: Partito dei Comunisti della Catalogna
CIPRO: Partito Progressista del Popolo Lavoratore(AKEL)
COLOMBIA: P.C di Colombia
COREA-RPD: Partito Coreano del Lavoro
CUBA: P.C di Cuba
DANIMARCA:P.C in Danimarca
EGITTO: P.C d'Egitto
FILIPPINE: P.C delle Filippine
FINLANDIA: P.C di Finlandia
GERMANIA: P.C Tedesco(DKP)
GIORDANIA: P.C Giordano
GRECIA: P.C di Grecia(KKE)
INDIA: P.C Indiano
IRAK: -P.C Irakeno
-P.C Curdo/Irak
IRAN: Tudeh
IRLANDA: Partito Irlandese del Lavoro
ISRAELE: P.C d'Israele
ITALIA: -Partito della Rifondazione Comunista
-Partito dei Comunisti Italiani
LETTONIA: Partito Socialista di Lettonia
LIBANO: P.C Libanese
MOLDAVIA: Partito dei Comunisti della Repubblica Moldava
NEPAL: P.C del Nepal
NORVEGIA: P.C di Norvegia
OLANDA: Nuovo P.C d'Olanda
PALESTINA: P.C di Palestina
PORTOGALLO: P.C Portoghese
REP.CECA: P.C di Boemia-Moravia
ROMANIA: P.C Romeno
RUSSIA: -Unione dei P.C-PCUS
-P.C della Federazione Russa
-P.C Operaio della Russia
SIRIA: -P.C Siriano
-P.C di Siria
SLOVACHIA: P.C della Slovachia
SPAGNA: -P.C dei Popoli di Spagna(PCPE)
-Sinistra Unita(IU)
SRI-LANKA: P.C Sri-Lanka
SUD AFRICA: P.C Sudafricano
SUDAN: P.C del Sudan
SVEZIA: P.C di Svezia
TURCHIA: Partito del Lavoro(EMEP)
UCRAINA: -P.C d'Ucraina
-Unione dei Comunisti d'Ucraina
USA: P.C Usa
UNGHERIA: Partito dei Lavoratori (MUNKASPART)
VIETNAM: P.C Vietnamita
YUGOSLAVIA: Nuovo Partito Comunista di Yugoslavia

Dal quotidiano "RIZOSPASTIS"-organo del C.C del Partito Comunista di
Grecia (KKE)

Traduzione:Giorgio Apostolou
---

23.6.2000
Fonte:
Macedonia Press Agency
www.mpa.gr

ATENE, 23-25 GIUGNO 2000
INCONTRO INTERNAZIONALE DEI PARTITI COMUNISTI ED OPERAI

Con la relazione introduttiva della segretaria generale del C.C del
Partito Comunista di Grecia(KKE), Aleka Papariga, sono stati aperti i
lavori dell'incontro internazionale al quale partecipano 64 partiti
provenienti da 53 paesi di tutto il mondo.
Alcuni stralci dalla relazione introduttiva:
" Sì alla politica delle alleanze ma la questione di fondo è: con chi,
in quale direzione e per quale obiettivo? "
"Ogni giorno ci convinciamo sempre più, dalle nostre esperienze e da
quelle internazionali, che la base minima d'unità deve esprimere la
decisione e la volontà di controbattere le scelte del capitale
monopolistico e delle unioni imperialiste e la contrapposizione ,fino al
livello del conflitto, al regime dei monopoli."
" La Grecia non fa parte semplicemente di un processo di adattamento
alle organizzazioni imperialiste, Unione Europea e NATO; è già
incorporata e partecipa attivamente ai piani imperialisti riguardanti la
zona Balcanica."
In seguito, la segretaria generale del KKE ha fatto riferimento a
"l'internazionalizzazione della lotta contro l'imperialismo, la quale
non può raggiungere dei risultati positivi, se non esiste a livello
nazionale, un forte movimento popolare, un movimento operaio con
orientamento di classe, un forte Partito Comunista con un'adeguata
politica delle alleanze che conduce alla soluzione della questione del
potere ed allo strappo del paese dal sistema imperialista
internazionale."

Traduzione di Giorgio Apostolou


--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------

k

* U. S. Nationalism is the most dangerous of all nationalisms
* Chronology of 234 U.S. 'Humanitarian Interventions,' 1798-1993
* A Brief History of United States Interventions, 1945 to the Present

* IN ITALIANO: 20 maggio 1999, a "Moby Dick" Luttwak ammette...


---

U. S. Nationalism

by Ezekiel Gonzalez
[Patriot and Pro-Independence Activist in Puerto Rico]

U. S. Nationalism is the most dangerous of all nationalisms. It is a
nationalism based on artificial grounds, on the
idolatry of ideals and on the collective trauma brought on by the
barbarism of the civil war. In reality, the united States
is not "one nation" but a federation. The nationalist identity springs
from the identification with a society within its
ecological environment. This is why nations don't have great territorial
areas. As environments change from region to
region, regional identities also change.

The united States cover many different ecosystems, from Alaska to
Hawaii, from Puerto Rico to New England. In a
natural progression, the inhabitants of each of these regions will
develop their own national collective identity. It is an
historical fact that this is what happened when the southern states
developed a different national identity from the northern
states. Unfortunately, the secessionist desire and struggle of these
states was combined with the fight to preserve the
nefarious institution of slavery. A just cause - national independence -
was amalgamated with an unjust cause - the
preservation of slavery.

The civil war was extremely savage. Millions of people died; the
southern states were devastated. The psychological
trauma was terrible. Uncle Sam astutely had the blame for this tragedy
placed not on federal government imperialism, nor
on the slavist philosophy of the southerners, but on "secessionist
nationalism." In that way, this natural nationalism was
turned into "something evil" in itself, in a collective trauma of
historical proportions.

Taking advantage of the situation and to satisfy the need for a
collective national identity, the federal government
invented the great lie of U. S. Nationalism. Before the civil war, for
example, there were two federal flags: a military
one and a civil one. Moreover, the military federal flag only flew over
federal military installations, and the civil federal flag
flew only over federal civil facilities. Over state facilities, the only
flag that flew was the state flag, exclusively, the one with
which the inhabitants of each state identified politically and
emotionally. After the civil war, the federal civil flag was
forgotten and the federal military flag was imposed on every government
facility, whether military, civil, federal or state.

Natural nationality is not based on ideologies, but on the natural
love the individual has for his native soil and the society
established there. U. S. Nationality, however, is based on the adoration
of certain ideals, on the so-called "American
Dream," as if this were the exclusive property of the American union.
This is an idolatrous nationality, based on fear of the
natural nationality, one which has been sold to Americans as the "U. S.
Nationality." It is a great lie, based on a terrible
historical trauma.

Due to the fear that sustains it and the mistaken idea that the
united States is the "headquarters for liberty and justice
in the world," U. S. Nationality has become an irrational force that
cannot look at itself objectively, but fanatically claims
superiority over every other culture or nationality. It is deathly
afraid to look at itself. Suddenly to discover that the
aspirations which supposedly make up the very foundation of U. S.
Nationality are not really the exclusive property of the
American People, but rather that they're part of the cultural heritage
of the world, threatens the very essence of said
nationality. Justice, freedom and the pursuit of liberty are everyone's
property. Every nation of people, including for
example, the Vietnamese, who fought against the United States not so
long ago, have always held these values to be their
own.

If we put aside the pathological fear of natural nationality, if we
accept the fact that the great values of the so-called
American Dream are really the property of all the nations of the world,
then, what do we have left as a U. S. Nationality? If
anything, maybe we could refer to what is called the "pop culture," and
even that isn't an American cultural asset, but rather
is also something common to every industrialized nation, from Japan to
Germany, from Finland to Chile.

When we look at the really defining elements of nationality:
folklore, religion, history, economy, language, etc., we'll see
that each region, and frequently each state of the union, has its own
features which identify it from among the other regions
and/or states. The only thing many of these regions or states are
lacking to become nations, sociologically
speaking, is to break away from "the pathological fear of proclaiming
its own nationality," which originated in
the tragedy of the civil war, which was instigated by Uncle Sam.

The united States, then, due to the tragedy of the civil war, is
made up of a series of nations which due to their historical
trauma do not dare to proclaim their own nationalities, and they
continue to be subjected to the great lie of a "sole
national identity" proclaimed by the Central Government and undergirded
by the great interstate and international
economic interests.

This great lie of the "Sole National Identity" promotes an
artificial nationalism characterized by: (1) the idea that the
united States is the "most just and the most democratic and most perfect
country in the world,"(2) that the rest of the
world is going from bad to worse and (3) consequently the United States
is "justified" in imposing its culture, political
system and domination on the world. Obviously, this nationalism serves
the imperialist interests of the federal government
and it "authorizes" it to impose its dominion internally (over the
states of the union) as well as externally (over supposedly
independent and sovereign nation-states). Due to the pathological fear
of facing up to the tragedy of the civil war and the
errors committed in it, the U. S. Nationality refuses to engage in
self-evaluation and self-criticism. This characteristic
prevents it from overcoming its own defects.

---

http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm.


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER
805 KIDDER BREESE SE -- WASHINGTON NAVY YARD
WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060
(NOTE: The following represents the views of the
author and not necessarily the views of the Naval
Historical Center.)

Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798
- 1993
by Ellen C. Collier, Specialist in U.S. Foreign
Policy,
Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division
Washington DC: Congressional Research Service --
Library of Congress -- October 7, 1993

Summary


This report lists 234 instances in which the United
States has used its armed forces abroad in situations
of conflict or potential conflict or for other than
normal peacetime purposes. It brings up to date a 1989
list that was compiled in part from various older
lists and is intended primarily to provide a rough
sketch survey of past U.S. military ventures abroad. A
detailed description and analysis are not undertaken
here.


The instances differ greatly in number of forces,
purpose, extent of hostilities, and legal
authorization. Five of the instances are declared
wars: the War of 1812, the Mexican War of 1846, the
Spanish American War of 1898, World War I declared in
1917, and World War II declared in 1941.


Some of the instances were extended military
engagements that might be considered undeclared wars.
These include the Undeclared Naval War with France
from 1798 to 1800; the First Barbary War from 1801 to
1805; the Second Barbary War of 1815; the Korean War
of 1950-53; the Vietnam War from 1964 to 1973; and the
Persian Gulf War of 1991. In some cases, such as the
Persian Gulf War against Iraq, Congress authorized the
military action although it did not declare war.


The majority of the instances listed were brief Marine
or Navy actions prior to World War II to protect U.S.
citizens or promote U.S. interests. A number were
actions against pirates or bandits. Some were events,
such as the stationing of Marines at an Embassy or
legation, which later were considered normal peacetime
practice. Covert actions, disaster relief, and routine
alliance stationing and training exercises are not
included here, nor are the Civil and Revolutionary
Wars and the continual use of U.S. military units in
the exploration, settlement, and pacification of the
West.

(...)

---

> Subject: Fw: Blum - A brief history of US interventions
>
> Author William Blum offers us a very brief account of US
> interventions since they took over the role of world predators from
> Adolf's legions of Waffen SS and Gestapo terrorists. The history is
> well known to the managers of Western information control, but like
> the Goebbels gang, such realities must remain behind the iron
> curtain of omission - the propagandists' favorite weapon. RR --
>
> http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/blum.htm
> Content-Type: text/html;
> A Brief History of United States Interventions, 1945 to the Present
> By William Blum
>
> The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a
> devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to
> serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
>
> 1) making the world safe for American corporations;
>
> 2) enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home
> who have contributed generously to members of congress;
>
> 3) preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a
> successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
>
> 4) extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as
> possible, as befits a "great power."
>
> This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what
> cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the
> existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in
> fact never existed, evil or not.
>
> The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into
> more than 70 nations in this period. Among these were the following:
>
>
> China 1945-49: Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang
> Kai-shek against the communists, even though the latter had been a
> much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used
> defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The communists
> forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.
>
>
> Italy 1947-48: Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in
> the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power
> legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name
> of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few
> decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to
> intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of
> dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was
> haunting Europe.
>
>
> Greece 1947-49: Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the
> neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis
> courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal
> regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency,
> KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of
> secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.
>
>
> Philippines 1945-53: U.S. military fought against leftist forces
> (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese
> invaders. After the war, the U.S. continued its fight against the
> Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as
> president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.
>
>
> South Korea 1945-53: After World War II, the United States suppressed
> the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had
> collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt,
> reactionary, and brutal governments.
>
>
> Albania 1949-53: U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow
> the communist government and install a new one that would have been
> pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators
> with Italian fascists and Nazis.
>
>
> Germany 1950s: The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of
> sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against
> East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building
> of the Berlin Wall in 1961.
>
>
> Iran 1953: Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S.
> and British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by
> a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake
> of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil
> company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored
> the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of
> repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to
> foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent,
> other nations 20 percent.
>
>
> Guatemala 1953-1990s: A CIA-organized coup overthrew the
> democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz,
> initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass
> executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000
> victims -- indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th
> century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company,
> which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As
> justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had
> been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had
> so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain
> diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in
> addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social
> democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.
>
>
> Middle East 1956-58: The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United
> States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East
> country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any
> country controlled by international communism." The English
> translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or
> have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields
> except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by
> definition, "communist." In keeping with this policy, the United
> States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged
> several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements
> opposed to U.S.-sported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed
> 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate
> Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.
>
>
> Indonesia 1957-58: Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World
> leader the United States could not abide by. He took neutralism in
> the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China
> (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private
> holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. And he refused to
> crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the
> legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such
> policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas."
> Thus it was that the CIA began throwing money into the elections,
> plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phoney
> sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage
> a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.
>
>
> British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64: For 11 years, two of the oldest
> democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went
> to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from
> occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who
> tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times.
> Although a leftist -- more so than Sukarno or Arbenz -- his policies
> in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for
> he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that
> might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist
> model. Using a wide variety of tactics -- from general strikes and
> disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U.S. and
> Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a
> direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.
>
>
> One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by
> the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became
> people.
>
>
> Vietnam, 1950-73: The slippery slope began with siding with the
> French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese,
> against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the
> Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was,
> after all, some kind of communist. He had written numerous letters to
> President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help
> in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a
> peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored.
> For he was some kind of communist. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new
> Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it
> with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator
> with ... " But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi
> Minh was some kind of communist.
>
>
> Twenty-three years, and more than a million dead, later, the United
> States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say
> that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core,
> and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington
> had in fact achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have
> been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was,
> after all, some kind of communist.
>
>
> Cambodia 1955-73: Prince Sihanouk, yet another leader who did not
> fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards
> his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous
> Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington
> finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was
> needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray.
> Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing
> had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia
> had been destroyed forever.
>
>
> Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery upon
> this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported
> Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat
> by the Vietnamese.
>
>
> The Congo/Zaire 1960-65: In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the
> Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But
> Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province,
> prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to
> the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a
> host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well
> as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices
> against the natives by the white owners of the country. The poor man
> was obviously a "communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.
>
>
> Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September Lumumba was
> dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States,
> and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of
> Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and
> chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger
> to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30
> years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his
> CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the
> plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.
>
>
> Brazil 1961-64: President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual
> crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming
> relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against
> Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits
> multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of
> ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And
> Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing
> "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man
> was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who
> wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not
> enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup
> which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington
> line was ... yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown
> in Brazil ... but, still, the country has been saved from communism.
>
>
> For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship
> which Latin America has come to know and love were instituted:
> Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual
> extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended,
> criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were
> taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by
> police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned
> down, priests were brutalized ... disappearances, death squads, a
> remarkable degree and depravity of torture ... the government had a
> name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.
>
>
> Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and
> became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin
> America.
>
>
> Dominican Republic, 1963-66: In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office
> as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican
> Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-
> communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only
> military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought
> "showcase of democracy" that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He
> was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took
> office.
>
>
> Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform; low-rent
> housing; modest nationalization of business; and foreign investment
> provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country; and
> other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World
> leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about the
> thing called civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such,
> were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.
>
>
> A number of American officials and congressmen expressed their
> discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence
> from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always
> touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is
> made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.
>
>
> In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United
> States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with
> a frown, did nothing.
>
>
> Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the
> exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to
> help crush it.
>
>
> Cuba 1959 to present: Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of
> 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of 10 March 1959
> included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another
> government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist
> attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargos,
> isolation, assassinations ... Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable
> Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in
> Latin America.
>
>
> The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind
> of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly
> under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its
> control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent, the
> internationalism were all there. But we'll never know. And that of
> course was the idea.
>
>
> Indonesia 1965: A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup
> attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with
> American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the
> ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup
> led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately -- of
> communists, communists sympathizers, suspected communists, suspected
> communist sympathizers, and none of the above -- was called by the
> New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern
> political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course
> of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.
>
>
> It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of
> "communist" operatives, >from top echelons down to village cadres, as
> many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then
> hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then
> check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It
> really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of
> people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one
> U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have
> to strike hard at a decisive moment."
>
>
> Chile, 1964-73: Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for
> a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than
> a Marxist in power -- an elected Marxist in power, who honored the
> constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very
> foundation stones upon which the anti-communist tower was built: the
> doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can
> take power only through force and deception, that they can retain
> that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.
>
>
> After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to
> do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of
> the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their
> attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three
> years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility.
> Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government,
> Allende dying in the process.
>
>
> Thus it was that they closed the country to the outside world for a
> week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the
> stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up
> along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers
> opened for business; the subversive books were thrown to the
> bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In
> Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state;
> and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of
> international finance opened up their check-books. In the end, more
> than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.
>
> Greece 1964-74: The military coup took place in April 1967, just two
> days before the campaign for national elections was to begin,
> elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader
> George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected
> in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of
> modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had
> begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek
> military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The
> 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law,
> censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims
> totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the
> equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save
> the nation from a "communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive
> influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were
> miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for
> the young would be compulsory.
>
> It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year
> Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by
> Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative
> estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of
> people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with
> equipment supplied by the United States.
>
> Becket reported the following:
>
> Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by
> Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the
> red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to
> show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make
> yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is
> divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this
> side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else.
> What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the
> government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we
> are Americans."
>
> George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-
> communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a
> little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take
> Greece out of the cold war, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or
> at least as a satellite of the United States.
>
> East Timor, 1975 to present: In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East
> Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago,
> and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had
> relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after
> U.S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had
> left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms,
> which, under U.S. law, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia
> was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.
>
> Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with
> the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people
> out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States
> consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN
> and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at
> the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and
> training it needed to carry out the job.
>
> Nicaragua 1978-89: When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza
> dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well
> be that long-dreaded beast -- "another Cuba." Under President Carter,
> attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic
> forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight
> terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by
> Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious
> National Guardsmen and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-
> out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic
> programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics,
> raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were
> Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in
> Nicaragua.
>
> Grenada 1979-84: What would drive the most powerful nation in the
> world to invade a country of 110 thousand? Maurice Bishop and his
> followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual
> policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again
> driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public
> appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region
> met with great enthusiasm.
>
> U.S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon
> after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of
> disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October
> 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or
> wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84
> Cubans, mainly construction workers. What conceivable human purpose
> these people died for has not been revealed.
>
> At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by
> a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the
> human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported
> that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency
> forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and
> abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.
>
> In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books
> which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the
> prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-
> confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an
> increasingly authoritarian style."
>
> Libya 1981-89: Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state
> of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would
> have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what
> Libya regarded as its air space. The U.S. also dropped bombs on the
> country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter.
> There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to
> overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions,
> and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any
> good evidence.
>
> Panama, 1989: Washington's mad bombers strike again. December 1989, a
> large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left
> homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian
> forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S.
> and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other
> sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died;
> 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.
>
>
> Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to
> their death for this? To get Noriega?"
>
> George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer,
> yes, it has been worth it."
>
> Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years
> until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only
> motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the
> people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months,
> that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush
> also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress
> the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent
> dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the
> American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had
> known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.
>
> Iraq 1990s: Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights,
> against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East,
> devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds
> of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial
> onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons
> incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological
> weapon storages and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a
> degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive,
> deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on
> health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health
> problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these
> things, even more adults.
>
> Iraq was the strongest military power amongst the Arab states. This
> may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: It's been a
> leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that
> the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be
> effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and,
> crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to
> have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production
> and price.
>
> Afghanistan 1979-92: Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of
> women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even
> before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late
> 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed
> to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century,
> including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that
> the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible
> war against this government, simply because it was supported by the
> Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased
> the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In
> the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of
> Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled,
> five million refugees, in total about half the population.
>
> El Salvador, 1980-92: Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the
> system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible,
> using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protestors
> and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.
>
> Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to
> an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played
> a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were
> killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying
> reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable
> evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The
> war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the
> U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social
> change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own
> the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to
> fear right-wing death squads.
>
>
> Haiti, 1987-94: The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship
> for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand
> Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death
> squads, torturers and drug traffickers. With this as background, the
> Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to
> pretend -- because of all their rhetoric about "democracy" -- that
> they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been
> ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more
> than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide
> to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he
> would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would
> stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would
> continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its
> workers receiving literally starvation wages.
>
>
> Yugoslavia, 1999: The United States is bombing the country back to a
> pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its
> intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses. Perhaps
> the above history of U.S. interventions, can help one decide how much
> weight to place on this claim."

---

Scandalo a Moby Dick. Luttwak ammette:
bombardiamo apposta il popolo Serbo (20 maggio 1999)

Durante la trasmissione odierna di Michele Santoro, Moby Dick su
Italia 1, escono vari retroscena inquietanti. Tra gli invitati: Brutti,
D'Amato, Luttwak, i pescatori dell'Adriatico.

La prima parte della trasmissione è dedicata all'omicidio di
D'Antona e si capisce lo scopo destabilizzante nei confronti del
Governo tant'è che D'Alema ribadisce: non ci lasceremo intimidire.

Subito dopo, i pescatori dell'Adriatico che temono incidenti e la
contaminazione dal contatto con le armi. Le bombe a grappolo
(e non solo) contengono l'Uranio (DU), mentre poco si dice su
eventuali armi chimiche impiegate. Brutti rassicura: le ripescheremo.
Tuttavia emerge che le bombe sono state sganciate dalla Nato anche
in zone non previste. I pescatori, per paura, non escono a pescare.
Inoltre emerge qualcos'altro: la Nato è restia a dare i dati all'Italia
su dove vengono sganciati gli ordigni: ma insomma, nella Nato,
ci siamo o non ci siamo anche noi? Perché se ne parla come
di un'entità separata? [Siamo allo scollamento istituzionale.
Probabilmente ormai la NATO rappresenta solo Blair e Clinton.]

Interviene una Serba. Il popolo Serbo non si farà imporre un
governo dall'esterno. Ribatte Luttwak: infatti il nostro nemico
è il popolo Serbo, non Milosevic. "Se uccidessimo lui, chissà chi
potrebbero ancora eleggere i Serbi..." e continua: "La guerra
l'abbiamo fatta per smembrare la Serbia... e contro il popolo
Serbo (sic!)". [E qui ormai siamo al terrorismo puro.] D'Amato
e poi Santoro chiedono a Luttwak se per caso Luttwak si sente
bene, se è ubriaco o drogato. Luttwak ribatte debolmente che in
fondo non sono poi così cattivi, tant'è che un po' di bombe finiscono
in mare invece che sulla testa dei Serbi. - break pubblicitario e
la trasmissione non viene ripresa senza nemmeno che siano
mandati i titoli di testa. Che sarà successo?

Non è che il terrorismo USA sta un po' esagerando?

(fonte: Marco Saba)


--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------

E' recentemente uscita la terza edizione del libro

"IO ACCUSO - Note critiche sul ruolo della Unione Europea, della NATO e
degli USA in Jugoslavia - Scandali ed inganni in Kosovo"

di Rajko Dolecek, Ed. Dauphin / Studio Forma, Praga 2000 (in lingua
inglese: "I ACCUSE!").

Il testo e' disponibile anche in lingua ceca - ZALUJI! - Ed. Futura,
Praga 1999, oppure in lingua serbocroata - OPTUZUJEM! - Ed. Rivel Co.,
Belgrado 1998. Dolecek, medico e professore universitario, nel suo paese
e' anche un noto saggista e scrittore: ha pubblicato centinaia di
articoli scientifici ma persino tre libri di fantascienza, ed e' stato
spesso presente sui media. Negli ultimi sette anni si e' dedicato in
particolare alla crisi jugoslava, anche per i vincoli affettivi che lo
legano a quel paese e a quei popoli.

Il testo inglese della precedente edizione di "I ACCUSE", che e'
aggiornata al marzo 1999 e dunque non contiene le vergogne sulla
aggressione della NATO e sulla occupazione coloniale della provincia del
Kosmet, si puo' leggere in internet alla URL:

http://www.srpska-mreza.com/ddj/Kosovo/articles/Dolecek.html

Di seguito riproduciamo invece un suo articolo che puo' essere
considerato quasi una sintesi dell'intero libro.

---

http://www.inaffairs.org.yu
Review of International Affairs
April-June 2000

THE LOSS OF CREDIBILITY BY THE WEST AND BY ITS INSTITUTIONS AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF NATO AGGRESSION

By Prof. Dr. Rajko Dolecek Ostrava, Czech Republic

I am now almost 75 and, to be frank - in spite of many disappointments
(e.g.
Vietnam) - I dreamt the dream of Western democracy all the way to 1991.
But
the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, a campaign of denigration of the Serbs,
so
wholeheartedly prepared and supported by the official West
(NATO, the European Community, later Union, the USA), taught me really a
harsh lesson. It started with all this fantastic disinformation, even
lies
about the events in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, spread by
Western leaders and media, including all those frame-ups about the three
big
explosions in Sarajevo, about rape and death camps run by the Serbs,
about
Srebrenica, etc. In the sad story about refugees, the western
politicians
and media almost forgot that around a million Serbs had been expelled
from
Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Then came the illegal and unjust
sanctions,
the expulsion of Yugoslavia from the World Health Organization. The ad
hoc
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was
created, mainly to show how bad the Serbs are. However, nobody here
argues
that some were innocent in the civil-ethnic-religious war in Yugoslavia,
but
it was utterly unfair, almost criminal, to blame just one side for all
the
crimes that happened there. The Dayton dictate opened the door to the
despotism of the occupiers of Bosnia-Herzegovina who undemocratically
manipulated the elections there; whose high civilian representatives
even
sacked the freely elected president of the Republika Srpska.

But the final blow to the credibility of the present official West was
its
dirty role in Kosovo and Metohija, which culminated in the NATO
aggression
against the sovereign state of Yugoslavia.

The tragedy of Kosovo and Metohija, of its inhabitants, was meticulously
prepared by a part of the West, by a part of its leadership. Germany as
a
front-runner helped organize and train the "KLA" (Kosovo Liberation
Army) or
"UCK" terrorists whose aim was to destroy and kill in Kosovo and
Metohija,
to expell all non-Albanians from there, to secede the province from
Serbia,
Yugoslavia. The Germans had the full support of the USA - they finally
accepted the "KLA" terrorists as their allies, with a lot of support
from
the British, the official European Union (EU) as a whole. Nobody stopped
the
continuous flow of money, volunteers, uniforms and weapons from the West
(and from some Islamic countries) to the "KLA". To prepare the terrain
ideologically, most Western media started their work, even historians in
vogue successfully manipulated history to show inconspicuously the need
to
re-assess the situation in Kosovo, to present its Albanian population in
bright colors, to make the Serbs bad guys. The book by Noel Malcolm
KOSOVO -
A Short History1 of 1998 may be used as an example. It is intelligently
written, but it manipulates history. Some historians even used glaring
lies
to denigrate the Serbs. The British historian David Price-Jones wrote
such a
flat-out lie when he published his article "Kosovo, from Scratch".2 He
wrote
there that the Serbs had operated the most notorious concentration camp
Jasenovac in the fascist, Ustasha Croatia (1941-1945). It is the same as
if
he would write that the Jews had operated the Auschwitz concentration
camp
where they tortured and killed the poor SS soldiers. Even now, when many
fabrications of the Western media and leaders about Kosovo had been
exposed,
the well known National Geographic magazine published two absolutely
biased,
one-sided articles3, without objectivity, about Kosovo: "Albanians", and
"Eyewitness Kosovo" spreading desinformation and ignorance of history.

But let us turn now to the events of 1999. It is quite clear that NATO
committed a criminal act of aggression when its air planes started to
rain
bombs on civilian and military targets throughout Yugoslavia, Serbia,
killing and wounding many civilians and destroying a lot of property and
facilities. Western leaders and media, bragging about democracy,
nicknamed
that crime a "humanitarian", "just", even "ethical" war. (Hitler used to
call the war he had started in 1939, a "just" war too). The pretext for
the
NATO aggression was the alleged protection of the Albanian civilians,
threatened by ethnic cleansing carried out by the Serbs all over Kosovo
and
Metohija. The Rambouillet fraud, engineered by Mrs. Albright, had the
same
objective. The Racak affair, so aptly orchestrated by the "KLA" and Mr.
William Walker ("the veteran of criminal intervention of the State
Department in Central America"4) should have helped to persuade the
world
public of the criminal behavior of Serbs in Kosovo. Thus the criminal
NATO
aggression started. As a consequence of heavy aerial bombardment, day
and
night, and due heavy fighting between the Yugoslav army and police
against
the "KLA" terrorists, hundreds of thousands of refugees started to flee
from
Kosovo and Metohija, not only Albanians, but Serbs, Montenegrins, Roma,
ethnic Turks, Goranies, as well. To make palatable the heavy losses of
civilian lives, called "collateral damage", Western leaders and media
started to talk about an incredible genocide that was taking place in
Kosovo
and Metohija, some of them even talked about a holocaust. The Albanian
refugees, in refugee camps in Albania and Macedonia, well indoctrinated
by
the omnipresent "KLA" members, told hair-raising stories about
atrocities
perpetrated by the Serbs in Kosovo (alas, there were atrocities
perpetrated
by all sides in the Kosovo conflict, not by one side only and not in the
monstrous proportions as misrepresented by the refugees). Hardly anyone
ever
mentioned the plight of the pro-Yugoslav Albanians who were especially
cruelly killed by "KLA" squads.

A really terrifying "eyewitness account" told about the bodies of 700
Albanians that the Serbs dumped in the shafts of Trepca mines. That
story
was officially accepted by the West, by NATO. The British Daily Mirror
even
wrote: "Trepca - the name will live alongside those of Belsen, Auschwitz
and
Treblinka", while the New York Times (to give its report more
authenticity)
informed about an "unusual, pungent bitter-sweet smell... to be burning
bodies... the bodies were disposed of entirely in the mine's huge vats
of
hydrochloric acid". The above information was spread when the bombs were
still being dropped on Kosovo. But, alas, when the investigators from

ICTY, from The Hague came there, their spokeswoman Ms. Kelly Moore had
to
say that nothing was found there, no corpses. What a fantastic
fabrication!
But there were many such fabrications. The "eyewitnesses" told during
the
aggression, that in Ljubenic, near Pec, Serbs killed 350 Albanians and
that
their dead bodies were buried in a mass grave. When the investigators
went
there, they found just 7 bodies. In Pusto Selo, another "eyewitness
account"
referred to about 106 villagers killed by the Serbs, whose bodies may be
found in mass graves there - but nothing was found. An American
journalist,
Mr. Alexander Cockburn, listed such "eyewitness accounts" in his article
"Where's the Evidence of Genocide of Kosovar Albanians?"5 The Spanish
forensic and police experts went to Kosovo and published (Mr. Pablo
Ordaz)
an article in El Pais (September 23, 1999), with the headline "Crimes of
war-Yes; Genocide-No". They were told that they were going to the worst
zone
in Kosovo, that more then 2,000 autopsies awaited them - but they found
only
187 bodies, in nine villages, in individual graves, turned towards
Mecca,
there were no signs of torture. Mr. Emilio Perez Pujo, a forensic
expert,
ridiculed the successive counts of the dead in Kosovo by the "allies".
The
UN started with 44,000, then it lowered it to 22,000, and still later to
11,000. But the official count (not yet from all the graves) was in
November
1999, is just 2,108, including the Serbs and other nationalities.6

The eyewitness accounts from Kosovo are incredibly exaggerated, but,
unfortunately, people died there, not in thousands but in hundreds,
because
the "KLA" terrorists started there their bloody campaign at the
beginning of
1998 that prompted the authorities to restore law and order. And people
died, because the NATO bombs were killing them, destroying their
property
and infrastructure, because NATO used prohibited weapons, such as
cluster
bombs and depleted uranium ammunition.

However, the real records in disseminating disinformation were achieved
by
the top leaders of the West, Mrs. Albright's gang being one of the most
successful. The US Defense Secretary said (May 16, 1999) on CBS' "Face
the
Nation", about the Kosovo Albanians: "We've now seen about 100,000
militarily-capable men missing. They may have been murdered". Mrs.
Albright's "speaking-trumpet", Mr. J. Rubin, was even more outspoken:
"Based
on past practice, it is chilling to think where those 100,000 men are.
We
don't know, but what we do know is that civilian casualties are the
objective of president Milosevic's policy".7 But the real climax of all
this
disinformation (lies) was reached by Mr. David Scheffer ("Ambassador at
large for War Crimes Issues", from the State Department). He said in
mid-May
1999:8 "A total of 225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59
(it is
strange how he got those figures) are missing". Then the lie continued:
"With the exception of Rwanda in 1994 and Cambodia in 1975, you would be
hard pressed to find a crime scene anywhere in the world since World War
II
where a defenceless civilian population has been assaulted with such
ferrocity and criminal intent", blah, blah, blah. Mr. Robin Cook was
also
among those who spoke about those 100,000 feared dead. Mr. Robertson
(the
British Minister of Defense) spread more fabrications of the eyewitness
accounts, like Mr. R. Scharping, the German Defense Minister. President
Clinton wasn't narrow-minded either. During a press conference (June 25,
1999) he spoke about tens of thousands of people (Albanians) killed in
Kosovo on Yugoslav president Milosevic's orders. What epithets could a
normal man or woman give to all those Clintons, Albrights, Cooks,
Cohens,
Blairs, Robertsons, Scharpings, etc.

If somebody would like to portray briefly a big part of the Western
activities in Kosovo (EU, USA, NATO, and even OSCE during 1998-99), he
would
need only three letters to begin with: LIE, then disinformation, fraud,
one-sidedness, frame-ups. It must be stressed again that nobody is
innocent,
with bloodless hands during the Kosovo ordeal. But the spectacle,
masterminded by the so-called West, in addition to all those lies,
disinformation, fabrications, deceptions, etc., was followed by murder
and
devastation, well orchestrated in advance - just to get bases in Kosovo
and
Metohija.

As for the excessive and more or less absurd use of emotion laden
expressions like genocide and even holocaust, those who use them,
including
presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, journalists and their
editors, ought to consult dictionaries about their meaning beforehand,
or
read the words of Mr. Ellie Wiesel, the Nobel Prize winner: "Serbian
acts in
Kosovo do not constitute genocide... Genocide is the intent and desire
to
annihilate a people..." He continues: "As early as 1992, media coverage
of
the war in Bosnia mistakenly compared Serbian ethnic cleansing to the
Holocaust... Holocaust was conceived to annihilate the last Jew on the
planet. Does anybody believe that Milosevic and his accomplices
seriously
planned to exterminate all the Bosnians, all the Albanians, all the
Muslims
in the World?" That is why, "the Kosovo genocide" appears now to be the
most
outrageous lie, not only in the last two years, but even in the last
decade.
But a sort of genocide did start in Kosovo, after the NATO-led KFOR took
over from the Yugoslav army. When talking about the "KLA" leaders, the
well
known American journalist, Chris Hedges (Foreign Affairs, May-June
1999),
had this to say: "... they are wary of the outside world and given to
secrecy, paranoia and appalling mendacity..."

It is strange that all those framers, disinformers, liars, etc. never
mentioned the fact, that during the bloody "KLA" campaign in the spring
of
1998, the Serbian Ministry of Health (with some help from WHO)
vaccinated
100,000 children of all nationalities in Kosovo and Metohija against
poliomyelitis (there had been an epidemic of polio in Albania during
1995-96). Would the government in Belgrade have done this,
time-consuming
and dangerous, (the "KLA" squads were roaming around and shooting
indiscriminately), had it planned to commit genocide?

Isn't it funny - and very sad, that the NATO's chief executioner in
Yugoslavia, general Wesley Clark, accused the Serbs and the government
in
Belgrade, and president Milosevic, naturally too, of being responsible
for
the troubles in Kosovska Mitrovica, because the nasty Serbs did not want
to
allow the return of the Albanians, expelled from the northern part of
the
town. Neither the general nor the media have ever mentioned that more
than
500 Serb families had been expelled from the southern part of Kosovska
Mitrovica. But, who cares for them?! Nobody talks about their ordeal,
nobody
tried to do something about their return.

The NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, that made it into a criminal
organization (it was a honest organization until the 1990s), has
affected
various levels of the Western community.

1. The people - too many people swallowed quite easily the hook of the
propaganda machine in the West. Nobody defended the poor people from
various
frame-ups and lies, or from crazy articles like the article in the most
popular British tabloid, The Sun, of April 14, 1999, which proclaimed
that
Serbian soldiers should be killed like mad dogs.

2. Media - a big part of the media failed the exam in the Yugoslav
tragedy.
Their lack of objectivity was a consequence of ignorance, arrogance,
"received wisdom", or it was for - money. They did not want to hear the
other side.

3. The leaders - who could trust them after all the disinformation that
they
had spread, after all those criminal acts they had committed, after so
many
international conventions, agreements, treaties that they had violated.
Who
could trust president Clinton who lied under oath during the Lewinsky
affair?

4. Institutions - The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) is incredibly one-sided, biased, paid and organized by
the
USA (and some Islamic countries), whose partiality for the Muslims, and
now
for the Albanians, is now evident. It was created to prove how bad the
Serbs
are. The United Nations did not fulfil its obligations, mostly thanks to
its
Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, who is "more like an Under-Secretary
of
State (of Mrs. Albright)" (Raju Thomas, 2000). Now it is quite evident
why
he received so strong support for his present job by president Clinton's
administration.

5. The Army - The NATO pilots behaved like executioners, because they
did
not fight to protect their country or to help a friendly nation,
according
to the UN Charter, that had been attacked. They just showed how it was
possible to destroy and kill in "electronic" games, at an altitude of
15,000
feet, without courage, without ideals, where neither human life nor
traditional values are respected. OSCE failed too - it obeyed too much
the
powerful, it did not hesitate to throw away its ideals.

Will NATO and the EU and the USA apologize to Yugoslavia for their
crimes,
will they pay the damages?



1 Noel Malcolm, KOSOVO - A Short History, 1998.

2 David Price-Jones, "Kosovo, from Scratch", National Review, July 12,
1999.

3 "Albanians" & "Eyewitness Kosovo", National Geographic, February
2000.

4 Balkan Infos, Paris, No. 42, March 2000.

5 Alexander Cockburn, "Where's the Evidence of Genocide of Kosovar
Albanians?", Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1999.

6 Maggie Farley, "2,108 corpes dug up in Kosovo effort so far", Los
Angeles
Times, November 11, 1999.

7 J. Rubin, State Department Briefing, April 19, 1999.

8 AIM Report, December A and B, 1999.


--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------

VIGNETTE SATIRICHE (IN FRANCESE)


http://balkans.infos.free.fr/dessins.htm


--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------