From "International Policy" - http://www.inaffairs.org.yu


John Catalinotto
International Coordinator in
Ramsey Clark's International Action Center


NATO Must Be Abolished

In the name of the International Action Center and its president, former
US Attorney General Ramsey Clark, I would like to thank the Institute
for
International Politics and Economics for inviting us to participate in
this important symposium to discuss the roots and the consequences of
the
war of aggression the US-led NATO powers waged against the people of
Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia has always had a special place in our hearts. Why? Exactly
because the ideal of Yugoslavia is that of a multi-ethnic,
multi-national,
multi-religious state founded on social justice and equality of
nationalities, religions and languages.

The greatest military powers on earth – just a year ago– unleashed a
vicious, cold-blooded war against the people of Yugoslavia. These powers
expected the Yugoslavs to beg for mercy after two, three days at most.
Instead, the people here stood up bravely to 78 days of relentless
bombing. We are proud to be here on this anniversary among such people.
We
only regret we couldn't have done more in our own country to stop the
bombing and the war waged against you.

Long Live Yugoslavia!

Since the defeat of the Soviet Union strategists in US ruling circles
have
promoted the policy of expanding NATO and using that military pact as a
world policeman. This policy is directed against smaller and weaker
countries in Africa and the Middle East. It is also aimed at plundering
the East, up to the Caspian Sea with its oil riches.

While the major NATO powers are military allies, they are rivals for
markets, resources and areas to invest in. The US strategy of expanding
NATO is also aimed at keeping these powerful rivals in line behind
Washington.

The people of Yugoslavia were the direct targets of this policy. But
they
were only the first part of the world's peoples endangered by a strategy
that leads towards bigger, more dangerous wars – unless the people of
the
world are able to stop it.

WHO MAKES UP NATO

With the exception of Japan and Australia, NATO includes all the major
industrial and financial powers: the United States, Germany, France,
Britain, Italy and Canada. These six plus Japan make up the G-7
countries
that set economic rules for the world.

The corporate and financial rulers of these countries control the bulk
of
the world's wealth, both in these industrialized countries themselves
and
in what can be described as the oppressed countries or the Third World.

These capitalist countries were the first to industrialize, they are now
the most advanced in technology, they control the mass media, and of
course they manufacture the most powerful weapons and are the most
heavily
armed. They sell weapons to the world but keep the most powerful and
advanced weapons for themselves.

They include the big colonial powers of the 19th century – Britain and
France – that directly ruled vast parts of the earth, and others that
held
colonies like Germany (Namibia, Tanzania), the Netherlands (Indonesia)
and
Belgium (Congo). Now there are few direct colonies, but through control
of
the world market, currency exchange rates and banking, and on the basis
of
their technological advantages, they now indirectly control and oppress
most of the world. In 1878 they met in Berlin and carved up the Balkans.
In 1885 they met in Berlin and carved up Africa into spheres of
influence.
In 1999 they met in Bosnia and carved up Kosovo for the so-called
peace-keeping forces.

It should never be forgotten that, while pursuing their rivalry for
markets, colonies and raw materials in the first half of this century,
these predatory states launched two world wars that together killed 100
to
200 million people.

Of these seven countries, the United States, with the greatest single
national economy and by far the biggest military power, is now the most
dangerous to the rest of the world.

This analysis will focus on statements coming from United States
military
and diplomatic leaders and from their own media. Yet it will clearly
show
how the war against Yugoslavia was premeditated, planned in advance,
with
wide-ranging geostrategic goals, and that it contains the seeds of new
wars.

1992 PENTAGON WHITE PAPER

On March 8, 1992, the New York Times published excerpts from a 46-page
White Paper
leaked by Pentagon officials. This paper asserts the need for complete
US world domination in
both political and military terms and threatens other countries that
even aspire to a greater role.
The public threats seem to be aimed at the European powers and Japan.
Here's some part of
what it said:

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival...
First, the US must show the
leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the
promise of convincing
potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or
pursue a more aggressive
posture to protect their legitimate interests. We must account
sufficiently for the interests of the
advanced industrial nations to discourage them from seeking to overturn
the established political
and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanism for
deterring potential competitors
from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role".

Regarding Europe, the document continues:

"It is of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary
instrument of Western defense
and security... We must seek to prevent the emergence of European-only
security arrangements
which would undermine NATO".

GEN. DUGAN'S PLAN FOR THE BALKANS

It wasn't too long before strategists began adapting this policy to the
developing crisis in the
Balkans.

Retired Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael J. Dugan and George Kenney
of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace wrote an opinion piece for the New
York Times published
November 29, 1992, entitled "Operation 'Balkan Storm': Here's a Plan".

"A win in the Balkans would establish US leadership in the post-Cold War
world in a way that
Operation Desert Storm never could". Dugan laid out a scenario of
building a coalition with
Britain, France and Italy on an ad hoc basis, if possible, because he
believed the United Nations
Security Council would not approve a NATO assault. He described arming
the pro-US Bosnian
forces to use "unconventional" operations in Bosnia to force the UN to
suspend humanitarian
programs.

Then, he said, massive air power should be used against Serbs in Bosnia
and Serbia. Dugan
suggested using aircraft carriers, F-15s, F-16s, F-18s, and F-111s,
Tomahawk missiles, and the
JSTARS surveillance system to destroy Serbia's electricity grid,
refineries, storage facilities, and
communications. "But the US costs in blood and treasure would be modest
compared with that of
Bosnian trauma".

Gen. Dugan was infamous for his interview in September 1990 where he
candidly laid out US
plans for the massive assault on and destruction of Iraq. For speaking
out so frankly, he was
relieved of his command. But the US carried out this vicious plan
against Iraq.

His scenario for Bosnia too was carried out a little over six years
later, but starting instead from
Kosovo. And by then Washington was able to push and pull all of NATO
behind it while the UN
was left powerless.

From 1993 to 1995 in Bosnia the US, through NATO, increasingly used air
power against
Bosnian and Croatian Serbs as well as against those Muslim forces that
opposed the Izetbegovic
regime.

In August and September 1995, NATO launched a massive air war against
positions of the
Bosnian Serbs. The combination of these air raids with the NATO-enforced
economic blockade
led to the Dayton Accords of 1995. As part of the agreement, 60,000 NATO
troops, 20,000 of
them US soldiers, were sent into Bosnia under US command.

Earlier, a German/French-backed European force intervened in Bosnia,
where it attempted to
broker a truce. But US officials prodded the Bosnian regime to sabotage
this agreement, leading
to more bloodshed. Finally, US officials brokered the Dayton Accords on
more or less the same
terms except with a major US role as the occupying army.

A large new NATO base was established in Hungary to facilitate troop
deployment in Bosnia.
The US also established new bases in Macedonia and northern Albania.
(San Francisco
Chronicle, September 12, 1995)

As early as 1990, the US government had put in place plans for a
military occupation of Eastern
Europe and possibly parts of the former Soviet Union. That plan included
the 100,000 strong
Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, the NATO unit in charge of
the Bosnia
operation.

At the end of November 1995, Reuters reported that: "The Allied Command
Europe Rapid
Reaction Corps (ARRC), based at Rheindahlen in western Germany, has
worked relatively
unnoticed since 1992 to put into practice NATO's new emphasis... (It
has) NATO's full array of
firepower (and) a tailor-made fighting force of up to 100,000 soldiers
able to deploy quickly. As
ARRC commander, British Lt.-Gen. Michael Walker, is in charge of running
the multinational
ground force to be stationed in and around Bosnia for NATO's first
ground deployment outside
its own area. The corps, with headquarters in Sarajevo, is taking three
divisions into Bosnia. Two
of them, the US First Armored Division and the British Third Mechanized
Division, are
permanently assigned to it. The third division is French".

The US used the Bosnia operation as a wedge for the expansion of NATO
into Eastern Europe.

AUGUST 1998, ATTACK ON YUGOSLAVIA AT WORK

By August 4, 1998 the Clinton administration confirmed that NATO had
developed detailed plans
for an attack on Yugoslavia. Sources told the New York Times that the
focus is on "a variety of
air-power options that could punish or intimidate".

On July 29, 1998, the Albanian government had announced that 76 top NATO
officers were in
Tirana, the capital, to plan "joint Albania–NATO exercises" from August
17 to August 22, 1998
within 50 miles of the border with Kosovo. The maneuvers will prepare
NATO and Albanian
troops for a "peacekeeping mission". Similar exercises are planned for
Macedonia in September.

These maneuvers were recommended in a March 20, 1998 position paper of
the International
Crisis Group, a think-tank with White House ties, headed by former
Senate Democratic Leader
George Mitchell.

That report also recommended "an international force in Albania close to
the borders of Kosovo
to help prevent the conflict in Kosovo from spreading and... facilitate
rapid and effective action
should an intervention become necessary". On July 29, 1998, German
Foreign Minister Klaus
Kinkel recommended similar action by NATO.

An article in the November 28, 1998 New York Times, headlined "A policy
struggle stirs within
NATO", provided advance notice of US plans to expand NATO's use beyond
Europe.

Washington wanted NATO forces ready to intervene not only in the Balkans
and against
countries like Iraq or Iran in the Middle East, or Libya, Sudan or Congo
in Africa – but against
any attempt at a popular revolution anywhere, from Russia to Indonesia.

UN Security Council resolutions have often provided a cover for US
military intervention –
against Korea in 1950 and Iraq in 1991, for example. Yet the council is
not certain to ratify all US
military aggression.

Washington noted in its "mission statement" for NATO that the alliance
may act without the
Security Council's approval. US officials argue that otherwise a Russian
or Chinese veto could
stop a military action. One NATO official brazenly explained this to the
Times: "A Security
Council mandate is highly desirable but we should not tie our hands in
advance".

US – EUROPE CONFLICTS

On March 4, 1999:

– A Marine court martial in North Carolina acquitted the captain whose
jet fighter-bomber
snapped a gondola cable in the Italian Alps a year before, killing 20
European tourists. Italians
protested.

– The state of Arizona executed by lethal injection German-American
Walter LaGrand. The
German government protested.

– Media worldwide announced that the Clinton administration imposed 100
percent import duties
on selected European-produced goods. The European Union protested.

These three seemingly unrelated events expressed open economic
competition between US
business interests and those of its former Cold War "allies" in Western
Europe, a competition
carried out through the national states.

Within three weeks this competition was buried under the weight of US
air power. When
Belgrade refused to sign the Rambouillet surrender terms, Washington
used this pretext to launch
a war against Yugoslavia.

By the time the North Atlantic Treaty Organization celebrated its 50th
anniversary on April 4,
1999, it had just made its first military assault beyond its borders and
carried out the largest
bombing in Europe since World War II.

Washington used the war against Yugoslavia to impose its changes on NATO
– changing it from a
no-longer-needed anti-Soviet alliance to an intervention force ready to
strike worldwide. NATO
powers met in Washington in late April to ratify this proposal.

In addition, the US government had recently succeeded in gaining NATO
admission for Poland,
Hungary and the Czech Republic over the objection of other NATO members.
It then pulled
these three countries directly into the war.

The brutal bombing of Yugoslavia gives the first example of how the US
wants to use the new,
post-Cold War NATO to lead its European allies into battle. Washington
says the NATO
countries have an "alliance of interests". What this means is the common
need of the predatory
ruling classes in the US and Europe to suppress any popular revolt that
threatens their ability to
plunder the raw materials and labor of the rest of the world.

It also means a common interest in preventing any newer capitalist
country from being able to
challenge the G-7's domination of the world economy. Neither would-be
capitalists in Russia and
Eastern Europe nor up-and-coming entrepreneurs in south Korea or
Indonesia will be allowed to
challenge the supremacy of US, West European and Japanese capital. They
will have to consider
themselves fortunate to get crumbs off the tables of their masters.

Along with this "alliance of interests", however, there is also a bitter
rivalry between the same
powers over economic and strategic interests. This has already burst out
with the "banana war"
and the battle between the US and the European Union over
hormone-fattened meat.

Washington's first de facto expansion of NATO's role is against
Yugoslavia. To contain the
competing interests of the NATO countries and submit them all to US
strategic control,
Washington had NATO be the instrument for its conquest of Yugoslavia.

Throughout the 11-week assault on Yugoslavia by most of the world's
biggest military powers,
US and European mainstream politicians of all political shades tried to
give the impression that the
NATO forces were united, whatever trade rivalries and military
maneuvering were going on
behind the scenes.

But no sooner had Yugoslavia agreed to terms the European Union's
leaders made a remarkable
statement: the European Union, up to now a primarily economic alliance
centered around German
banks and industry, announced plans to emerge as a military power.

Leaders from 15 European countries announced the move on June 3, 1999 –
the same day that
the Yugoslav leadership announced its acceptance, on paper, of NATO's
onerous terms.

"The union must have the capacity for autonomous action", the EU
statement read, "backed up by
credible military forces, the means to decide to use them, and a
readiness to do so, in order to
respond to international crises without prejudice to actions by NATO".

Make no mistake. The emergence of a new European military power does not
bode well for
ordinary working people anywhere. European workers in particular can
look forward to having
more of their labor robbed to fund the new military apparatus while
social services are cut – an
experience US workers have been forced to endure for decades.

WASHINGTON A REPEAT OFFENDER

Just since World War II, Washington has fought the Korean War;
overthrown the elected
governments of Guatemala, Iran, Chile, Indonesia; fought wars against
the people of Central
America; invaded Lebanon; carried out a genocidal war in Indochina, in
which millions of
Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians and more than 50,000 US troops died;
and enforced an
economic blockade against Iraq that has taken the lives of more than a
million and a half people,
half of them children under the age of five. The real objective of the
war on Yugoslavia is to
re-balkanize the Balkans – to break up Yugoslavia into small, easily
controllable and digestible
pieces, in order to insure US/NATO, and especially US, domination of
this key strategic region.

While 10 years ago it had no bases in Eastern Europe, today the United
States has military bases
in Albania, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia. Washington and its
NATO partners have
cut up Kosovo into little pieces, occupation zones. And they have
assisted in forcing out all ethnic
and national groups who were not Albanian, and even some Albanians.

Thomas Friedman, who writes for the New York Times – is a thoroughly
despicable individual
who is now held up as the highest example of US journalism. Friedman
wrote approvingly on
March 28, 1999: "For globalization to work, America can't be afraid to
act like the almighty
superpower that it is. The hidden hand of the market will never work
without a hidden fist.
McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell-Douglas, the designer of
the F-15, and the hidden
fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technology is called
the United States Army, Air
Force, Navy and Marine Corps".

NEW US MILITARY BUILDUP

US military superiority is the key to US global economic domination. The
United States does not
have superiority over its rivals just by virtue of its economic system
and technology. But what it
does have is this vast military apparatus to implement its will.

A new military buildup is already under way, even though the United
States today already spends
more on its military that the rest of the UN Security Council combined.
Having spent US$ 19
trillion since 1940 on the military, the US government proposes to spend
an additional US$ 1,2
trillion in the next four years.

But Washington doesn't want to be the only one spending on the military.
US Defense Secretary
William Cohen used an evaluation of the war against Yugoslavia to bully
the NATO allies into
accepting US policies at an "informal meeting" of 19 NATO defense
ministers in Toronto
September 21–22, 1999.

Cohen said NATO won the war with US "precision-guided weapons" and other
high-tech
systems. Speaking of European NATO members, he said that "in some cases
countries would
have to spend more money" to buy such weapons – by implication from US
arms makers.

Speaking earlier at the Institute of Strategic Studies in San Diego on
September 9, 1999, Defense
Secretary William Cohen boasted of the US role in this bombing. He
outlined what he would
demand from France, Britain, Germany and the other European powers
regarding the US's new
NATO proposal called the Defense Capabilities Initiative.

"We have all agreed to develop forces that are more mobile, beginning
with the reassessment of
NATO's strategic lift requirements for planning purposes. We need
forces, we've agreed, that can
sustain themselves longer; that means having a logistics system that
will ensure they have the
supplies when and where they need them".

Cohen said the NATO powers need "forces that can engage more
effectively; that means having
the new advanced technologies such as greater stocks of precision-guided
munitions and forces
that can survive better against chemical, biological or nuclear weapons,
and also information
warfare".

EUROPEAN SECURITY AND DEFENSE IDENTITY

Cohen and his European allies had different views on what the so-called
European Security and
Defense Identity (ESDI) should mean. Washington would oppose any force
that challenges its
domination even in Europe itself. Washington sees the ESDI as a way of
harnessing European
militarism back into NATO – where the Pentagon holds the reins. That's
what Cohen told
reporters in Toronto on September 22.

"There was unanimity of expression (supporting ESDI)", he said. "This is
important for the
Europeans to undertake. It is important also to make sure that it is not
seen as a separate
institution and capability, but rather that it is maintained under the
umbrella so to speak of
NATO".

On September 22, French Press Agency report noted that ESDI was supposed
to allow
European NATO members to carry out "a peacekeeping operation, for
example, using NATO
materiel and resources but not involving the US or Canada. It was
unclear, however, how the
Europeans would be able to act independently while relying on assets
under the control of an
alliance still dominated by the Pentagon".

Cohen wants a situation in which the European NATO countries take the
risks of wartime
casualties and pay the costs, but where US control of strategic weapons
and logistics gives
Washington all the trump cards.

It's clear that Cohen expects NATO to fight future wars of a Kosovo size
and bigger – and more
distant from the United States or Western Europe. Now, without a USSR,
Washington wants
NATO to be a world cop. And Cohen expects the European governments to
pick up a big share
of the costs of expansion. But he was definitely talking about "the next
war", without clarifying if
that war was against Iraq, Libya, in the Balkans, in Central Asia, in
Africa, against the Colombian
revolutionaries, against the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea.
Perhaps it will be some new
target with a leader the US media demonizes.

Because NATO is such a threat to peace, Ramsey Clark has declared
publicly that he sees no
other alternative but to abolish NATO. And we in the International
Action Center have made this
demand central to our anti-war work.

WHAT IS OUR ROLE?

This conference is doing an excellent job analyzing the war against
Yugoslavia and its
consequences. But our responsibility is not simply to analyze the world,
but to change it. NATO's
armies are strong, but they too have weaknesses. The US military fears
that any significant
casualties among US troops will arouse a mass anti-war movement as
happened during the war
against Vietnam. Some of the other European powers have populations that
are also reluctant to
back a war that demands sacrifices. They are in conflict with each
other. All this raises possibilities
to fight back.

I especially address this to those of us here from the very NATO
countries that waged aggression
against Yugoslavia. Our responsibility is to use the facts and analysis
from here to mobilize our
home populations to fight the government's policies, to lift the
sanctions against Yugoslavia, to
send aid – really reparations for the crimes committed.

On June 10, the International Action Center is holding a day-long
International Tribunal on
US/NATO War Crimes Against Yugoslavia in New York. Our initial hearing
last July 31 inspired
or encouraged a dozen US cities. Those working in parallel with us held
similar hearings in Oslo,
Novi Sad, Berlin, Rome, Vienna, Moscow, Kiev, Sydney, and even Tokyo.
The most dramatic
was a mass people tribunal in Athens last fall where thousands found
Clinton guilty of war crimes.
More hearings are planned for Belgrade, Hamburg, Prague, Boston and
elsewhere.

We do not expect to make the people in power see reason and change their
minds. These
tribunals are a way to mobilize mass public opinion and build a movement
that can fight the
governments that wage these wars. In the International Action Center we
also support the
struggles of oppressed groups in the United States – or example, the
fight to free political prisoner
Mumia Abu-Jamal. Only by building bridges to others can we succeed in
turning back the US war
machine.

On June 10, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark will prosecute US and
NATO leaders for
19 charges of war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against
humanity. International expert
witnesses will present testimony. And a distinguished international
panel of judges will hear the
case. Come and be part of this historic event.

Down with NATO! Long live Yugoslavia!


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