Justice for Yugoslavia!
Four years after the end of NATO "humanitarian" bombings...
1. Important links:
http://www.justiceyugoslavia.org/ - and more
2. When bombs fell on Belgrade
(Reprinted from the April 3, 2003, issue of Workers World newspaper)
3. A PARADOX?... Why Germany Voted 'Yes' To Invade Yugoslavia But 'No'
To Iraq (by Claus Häcking, Deutsche Welle)
=== 1 ===
LINKS:
A summary of NATO destructions, with many photos:
http://www.sramota.com/nato/
24/3: On the Day a Tragic Era Started (by Milos Markovic)
http://www.artel.co.yu/en/izbor/jugoslavija/2003-04-07_1.html
March 24, 1999: NATO's Humanitarian Trigger (by Diana Johnstone)
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-controversies16.html
=== http://www.justiceyugoslavia.org
Subject: Highly Recommended Web Site: Justice Yugoslavia
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Rozoff
Please find the time to visit (and revisit) the
updated Web site of the Campaign for Justice for the
Peoples of Yugoslavia at the address listed below.
It's run by David Roberts in Britain and is
consistently characterized by the insight and
integrity that are the hallmarks of David himself.
Yours for peace and justice,
Rick Rozoff
3 June
Dear Friends,
My http://www.justiceyugoslavia.org web site is now
functioning. It offers an alternative view of the
"humanitarian bombing".
It has a Nuremberg Prosecutor's damning criticism of
the NATO bombing and my own investigation called "NATO
on Trial - The Deceptions, Illegality, and Tragedy
of the Bombing of Yugoslavia: The manipulation of
public opinion, the media and politicians."
I hope you may find it interesting.
If you can publicise the site widely I'd be grateful.
Best wishes,
David
=== 2 ===
http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/edit0403.php
EDITORIAL
When bombs fell on Belgrade
As U.S. missiles pouring into Baghdad murder the very people Bush is
claiming to "liberate," the world should recall a similar aggression
by U.S. imperialism just four years ago. On March 24, 1999, the
Pentagon opened a bombing campaign on Yugoslavia that lasted 78
days. Washington sold that war with the big lie that it was a noble
venture, a "humanitarian" intervention. It was supposed to rescue
Kosovo and especially its ethnic Albanian population from alleged Serb
repression.
Washington then had closer collaboration from its NATO allies. The big
powers submerged their rivalry in order to smash independent
Yugoslavia.
Western politicians and the ruling class media got public support for
the war through an intensive campaign of demonization of the Yugoslav
leader Slobodan Milosevic, just as they do Saddam Hussein today. But
the assault on Yugoslavia had as little to do with Milosevic as the
war on Iraq today has to do with Hussein--except that neither
leader was ready to prostrate his country and submit to the interests
of Western imperialism.
The goal of the 78 days of brutal bombing--preceded by 10 years of
subversion, the fomenting of civil war and economic sanctions--was to
remove the one remaining independent country in Eastern Europe that
had kept some of the gains of its socialist revolution. Its people,
resources, industry and strategic location were to be taken over to
serve imperialist interests.
Taking stock today of the region that was once, and may again someday
be Yugoslavia, one can see clearly just what imperialist
"humanitarian" intervention has brought.
Four dependent mini-states, two imperialist protectorates and a Serbia
in chains have replaced an independent state of southern Slavs that
had 24 million people.
U.S. and NATO military bases dominate the territory. German and U.S.
capital dominate the economy.
Kosovo has become an apartheid state run by organized crime, a center
of drugs and prostitution based on the kidnapping of women. The
right-wing KLA gangs have driven out Serbs, Jews and other minority
people who lived there.
Whatever Yugoslav industry is potentially profitable, especially in
Serbia, has been sold at dirt-cheap prices to Western imperialism. The
rest has been closed, creating 30-50 percent unemployment and reducing
two-thirds of people in Serbia to official poverty.
The imperialist takeover has failed even to bring order. The recent
assassination of NATO-stooge Zoran Djindjic, Serbia's prime minister,
brought that failure home.
Anyone studying developments in the region following the U.S.-NATO
takeover of Yugoslavia might get a hint as to why the Iraqis are
fighting so hard to prevent the U.S.-British imper ialist gang from
seizing their country.
- END -
Reprinted from the April 3, 2003, issue of Workers World newspaper
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via email: ww@....
Subscribe wwnews-on@....
Unsubscribe wwnews-off@.... Support independent news
http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
=== 3 ===
PARADOXES...
Why Germany Voted 'Yes' To Invade Yugoslavia But 'No' To Iraq
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,7489_A_811834_1_A,00.html
19.03.2003
Why Germany Voted 'Yes' To Invade Yugoslavia But 'No' To Iraq
=
NATO strikes in Belgrade: Germany's first military deployment since
World War II
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has ruled out German military
participation in an Iraq war. But four years ago the Bundeswehr took
part in NATO air strikes on Yugoslavia without a U.N. mandate. So why
then and not now?
Chancellor Schroeder somberly addressed the nation on March 24, 1999,
shortly after NATO began bombing Yugoslavia. He announced that his
government had made a difficult decision.
"After all, this is the first time since World War II that German
soldiers have been deployed in combat," he said. "We are not waging a
war, but we must bring about a peaceful solution in Kosovo, even
if that requires the use of military force." [1]
Schroeder explained that this was the reason why the German government
had decided to take part in the military campaign against Slobodan
Milosevic's regime.
Today, the same governing coalition of Social Democrats and Greens has
rejected involvement in a war against Iraq, arguing that military
intervention would only serve to further destabilize the Middle East.
In 1999, the government used the opposite argument, maintaining
that the Balkans would be in greater danger if Germany did not act.
Explaining the contradiction
"In Kosovo, we had a situation of ongoing danger," [2] Social
Democratic Party foreign policy spokeswoman Ute Zapf told
Deutsche Welle in an interview. "It was about ethnic expulsion and
impending genocide. [3] Now, in Iraq, we have a potential threat
from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction [4] but no immediate danger."
Zapf insisted the problems were very different.
Germany's opposition parties hold a different view. Christoph Schmidt,
defense spokesman for the Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian
sister party, the Christian Social Union, criticized the government
for committing itself too early to a "no" vote on participation in
order to assure Shroeder's autumn reelection bid last year. Now,
Schmidt says, Schroeder has no maneuvering room to change his
position.
"July 2002 was the point of departure," Schmidt explains. "Then
Schroeder tried to take advantage of the mood against military
intervention (in Iraq) for the election campaign. The price was that
other foreign policy options were abandoned. And now, getting out of
that without losing face is hard."
Political perspectives
Guenther Joetze believes that neither of these explanations is
sufficient. The former president of the Federal Academy for Security
Policy has written a book about Germany's role in the Kosovo conflict
and is working on a new book about its role in the Iraq crisis. Joetze
ascribes the German government's differing attitudes toward Kosovo and
Iraq to numerous motives. Above all, says Joetze, the government holds
different political perspectives for the two crisis regions.
In Kosovo, the international community was aiming to enforce
humanitarian and democratic standards [5], which cannot be transmitted
to Iraq as easily [6], Joetze maintains. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein
is not considered the only rogue [sic] in the region, which is why
the government does not believe that a war will improve the situation.
In the case of Kosovo, Joetze says, Germany's partners in NATO
expected that the German army, the Bundeswehr, would take part in
military operations [7]. The government had little choice but to say
"yes," Joetze maintains. Plus, the government had only been in office
for a short time and had to prove itself in the realm of foreign
policy. [sic]
"The Social Democrats didn't want to start their term in government
with discord in the coalition," Joetze insists. "Whereas, for Foreign
Minister Joschka Fischer of the Green Party, the question was a
different one. It was made clear to him (as the junior partner
in the governing coalition) that he could only remain foreign
minister and a governing partner if he towed the same line."
International peacekeeping
Today, Joetze says the government is in a different position --
not just because it has been in office for four years, but also
because Germany is now the second-largest contributor of troops to
international peacekeeping operations [8] around the world.
"The defense minister and the chancellor say we continually prove
ourselves to be reliable partners," Joetze says. "We are prepared to
make our contribution. We can afford to have another opinion on one
particular question."
"(In 1999) the only international operation the Bundeswehr was
involved in was the air campaign against Yugoslavia. [9] There weren't
any German troops in Macedonia or Afghanistan yet. The issue was the
first NATO troop deployment."
Besides, the mood among the population has changed in the past four
years. Then, most Germans were in favor of a war against the Milosevic
regime. Today, the majority rejects a war against Saddam Hussein. [10]
In that light, Joetze defends Schroeder's firm position against an
Iraq war. Nor does he find the anti-war stance "reprehensible," as
some members of Germany's opposition government have. On the contrary,
he says, a major pillar of democratically elected representatives is
the idea of listening to the voice of the people and acting on those
wishes. [sic]
Claus Haecking
[NOTES by CNJ:
1. Compare with the terror and apartheid regime which has been
established in Kosovo since NATO bombings stopped.
2. Note that the true danger was initiated by the German BND support
to the UCK racially-motivated terrorists.
3. The expulsion of non-Albanians as well as democratic Albanians from
Kosovo has been successfully carried on after the NATO bombings.
4. This has been proved to be another big lie after the aggression
against Iraq was performed.
5. If this was the aim, then just have a look at the shameful results.
6. This is either racist or nonsense.
7. This is reasonable, due to the historical long-term colonial and
imperialistic role of Germany in the Balkans.
8. They use to call them like that.
9. Here, the bombings onto chemical plants and civilian
infrastructures, also by use of "depleted" uranium, are meant.
10. The desinformation and demonization campaign has been not
effective enough this time?]
Four years after the end of NATO "humanitarian" bombings...
1. Important links:
http://www.justiceyugoslavia.org/ - and more
2. When bombs fell on Belgrade
(Reprinted from the April 3, 2003, issue of Workers World newspaper)
3. A PARADOX?... Why Germany Voted 'Yes' To Invade Yugoslavia But 'No'
To Iraq (by Claus Häcking, Deutsche Welle)
=== 1 ===
LINKS:
A summary of NATO destructions, with many photos:
http://www.sramota.com/nato/
24/3: On the Day a Tragic Era Started (by Milos Markovic)
http://www.artel.co.yu/en/izbor/jugoslavija/2003-04-07_1.html
March 24, 1999: NATO's Humanitarian Trigger (by Diana Johnstone)
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-controversies16.html
=== http://www.justiceyugoslavia.org
Subject: Highly Recommended Web Site: Justice Yugoslavia
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 09:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Rozoff
Please find the time to visit (and revisit) the
updated Web site of the Campaign for Justice for the
Peoples of Yugoslavia at the address listed below.
It's run by David Roberts in Britain and is
consistently characterized by the insight and
integrity that are the hallmarks of David himself.
Yours for peace and justice,
Rick Rozoff
3 June
Dear Friends,
My http://www.justiceyugoslavia.org web site is now
functioning. It offers an alternative view of the
"humanitarian bombing".
It has a Nuremberg Prosecutor's damning criticism of
the NATO bombing and my own investigation called "NATO
on Trial - The Deceptions, Illegality, and Tragedy
of the Bombing of Yugoslavia: The manipulation of
public opinion, the media and politicians."
I hope you may find it interesting.
If you can publicise the site widely I'd be grateful.
Best wishes,
David
=== 2 ===
http://www.workers.org/ww/2003/edit0403.php
EDITORIAL
When bombs fell on Belgrade
As U.S. missiles pouring into Baghdad murder the very people Bush is
claiming to "liberate," the world should recall a similar aggression
by U.S. imperialism just four years ago. On March 24, 1999, the
Pentagon opened a bombing campaign on Yugoslavia that lasted 78
days. Washington sold that war with the big lie that it was a noble
venture, a "humanitarian" intervention. It was supposed to rescue
Kosovo and especially its ethnic Albanian population from alleged Serb
repression.
Washington then had closer collaboration from its NATO allies. The big
powers submerged their rivalry in order to smash independent
Yugoslavia.
Western politicians and the ruling class media got public support for
the war through an intensive campaign of demonization of the Yugoslav
leader Slobodan Milosevic, just as they do Saddam Hussein today. But
the assault on Yugoslavia had as little to do with Milosevic as the
war on Iraq today has to do with Hussein--except that neither
leader was ready to prostrate his country and submit to the interests
of Western imperialism.
The goal of the 78 days of brutal bombing--preceded by 10 years of
subversion, the fomenting of civil war and economic sanctions--was to
remove the one remaining independent country in Eastern Europe that
had kept some of the gains of its socialist revolution. Its people,
resources, industry and strategic location were to be taken over to
serve imperialist interests.
Taking stock today of the region that was once, and may again someday
be Yugoslavia, one can see clearly just what imperialist
"humanitarian" intervention has brought.
Four dependent mini-states, two imperialist protectorates and a Serbia
in chains have replaced an independent state of southern Slavs that
had 24 million people.
U.S. and NATO military bases dominate the territory. German and U.S.
capital dominate the economy.
Kosovo has become an apartheid state run by organized crime, a center
of drugs and prostitution based on the kidnapping of women. The
right-wing KLA gangs have driven out Serbs, Jews and other minority
people who lived there.
Whatever Yugoslav industry is potentially profitable, especially in
Serbia, has been sold at dirt-cheap prices to Western imperialism. The
rest has been closed, creating 30-50 percent unemployment and reducing
two-thirds of people in Serbia to official poverty.
The imperialist takeover has failed even to bring order. The recent
assassination of NATO-stooge Zoran Djindjic, Serbia's prime minister,
brought that failure home.
Anyone studying developments in the region following the U.S.-NATO
takeover of Yugoslavia might get a hint as to why the Iraqis are
fighting so hard to prevent the U.S.-British imper ialist gang from
seizing their country.
- END -
Reprinted from the April 3, 2003, issue of Workers World newspaper
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via email: ww@....
Subscribe wwnews-on@....
Unsubscribe wwnews-off@.... Support independent news
http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
=== 3 ===
PARADOXES...
Why Germany Voted 'Yes' To Invade Yugoslavia But 'No' To Iraq
http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,7489_A_811834_1_A,00.html
19.03.2003
Why Germany Voted 'Yes' To Invade Yugoslavia But 'No' To Iraq
=
NATO strikes in Belgrade: Germany's first military deployment since
World War II
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder has ruled out German military
participation in an Iraq war. But four years ago the Bundeswehr took
part in NATO air strikes on Yugoslavia without a U.N. mandate. So why
then and not now?
Chancellor Schroeder somberly addressed the nation on March 24, 1999,
shortly after NATO began bombing Yugoslavia. He announced that his
government had made a difficult decision.
"After all, this is the first time since World War II that German
soldiers have been deployed in combat," he said. "We are not waging a
war, but we must bring about a peaceful solution in Kosovo, even
if that requires the use of military force." [1]
Schroeder explained that this was the reason why the German government
had decided to take part in the military campaign against Slobodan
Milosevic's regime.
Today, the same governing coalition of Social Democrats and Greens has
rejected involvement in a war against Iraq, arguing that military
intervention would only serve to further destabilize the Middle East.
In 1999, the government used the opposite argument, maintaining
that the Balkans would be in greater danger if Germany did not act.
Explaining the contradiction
"In Kosovo, we had a situation of ongoing danger," [2] Social
Democratic Party foreign policy spokeswoman Ute Zapf told
Deutsche Welle in an interview. "It was about ethnic expulsion and
impending genocide. [3] Now, in Iraq, we have a potential threat
from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction [4] but no immediate danger."
Zapf insisted the problems were very different.
Germany's opposition parties hold a different view. Christoph Schmidt,
defense spokesman for the Christian Democratic Union and its Bavarian
sister party, the Christian Social Union, criticized the government
for committing itself too early to a "no" vote on participation in
order to assure Shroeder's autumn reelection bid last year. Now,
Schmidt says, Schroeder has no maneuvering room to change his
position.
"July 2002 was the point of departure," Schmidt explains. "Then
Schroeder tried to take advantage of the mood against military
intervention (in Iraq) for the election campaign. The price was that
other foreign policy options were abandoned. And now, getting out of
that without losing face is hard."
Political perspectives
Guenther Joetze believes that neither of these explanations is
sufficient. The former president of the Federal Academy for Security
Policy has written a book about Germany's role in the Kosovo conflict
and is working on a new book about its role in the Iraq crisis. Joetze
ascribes the German government's differing attitudes toward Kosovo and
Iraq to numerous motives. Above all, says Joetze, the government holds
different political perspectives for the two crisis regions.
In Kosovo, the international community was aiming to enforce
humanitarian and democratic standards [5], which cannot be transmitted
to Iraq as easily [6], Joetze maintains. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein
is not considered the only rogue [sic] in the region, which is why
the government does not believe that a war will improve the situation.
In the case of Kosovo, Joetze says, Germany's partners in NATO
expected that the German army, the Bundeswehr, would take part in
military operations [7]. The government had little choice but to say
"yes," Joetze maintains. Plus, the government had only been in office
for a short time and had to prove itself in the realm of foreign
policy. [sic]
"The Social Democrats didn't want to start their term in government
with discord in the coalition," Joetze insists. "Whereas, for Foreign
Minister Joschka Fischer of the Green Party, the question was a
different one. It was made clear to him (as the junior partner
in the governing coalition) that he could only remain foreign
minister and a governing partner if he towed the same line."
International peacekeeping
Today, Joetze says the government is in a different position --
not just because it has been in office for four years, but also
because Germany is now the second-largest contributor of troops to
international peacekeeping operations [8] around the world.
"The defense minister and the chancellor say we continually prove
ourselves to be reliable partners," Joetze says. "We are prepared to
make our contribution. We can afford to have another opinion on one
particular question."
"(In 1999) the only international operation the Bundeswehr was
involved in was the air campaign against Yugoslavia. [9] There weren't
any German troops in Macedonia or Afghanistan yet. The issue was the
first NATO troop deployment."
Besides, the mood among the population has changed in the past four
years. Then, most Germans were in favor of a war against the Milosevic
regime. Today, the majority rejects a war against Saddam Hussein. [10]
In that light, Joetze defends Schroeder's firm position against an
Iraq war. Nor does he find the anti-war stance "reprehensible," as
some members of Germany's opposition government have. On the contrary,
he says, a major pillar of democratically elected representatives is
the idea of listening to the voice of the people and acting on those
wishes. [sic]
Claus Haecking
[NOTES by CNJ:
1. Compare with the terror and apartheid regime which has been
established in Kosovo since NATO bombings stopped.
2. Note that the true danger was initiated by the German BND support
to the UCK racially-motivated terrorists.
3. The expulsion of non-Albanians as well as democratic Albanians from
Kosovo has been successfully carried on after the NATO bombings.
4. This has been proved to be another big lie after the aggression
against Iraq was performed.
5. If this was the aim, then just have a look at the shameful results.
6. This is either racist or nonsense.
7. This is reasonable, due to the historical long-term colonial and
imperialistic role of Germany in the Balkans.
8. They use to call them like that.
9. Here, the bombings onto chemical plants and civilian
infrastructures, also by use of "depleted" uranium, are meant.
10. The desinformation and demonization campaign has been not
effective enough this time?]