AUDIZIONI ALLA COMMISSIONE ESTERI DEL PARLAMENTO CANADESE
I contribuiti che diffondiamo in questo messaggio vengono dal Canada. Si
tratta di alcune audizioni tenute ad Ottawa, alla Camera dei Comuni,
dinanzi allo Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade da parte di varie personalita' ritenute a vario titolo "informate
sui fatti" riguardo alla aggressione della NATO contro la Repubblica
Federale di Jugoslavia. In particolare, i contributi seguenti sono le
testimonianze di JAMES BISSET, ex-ambasciatore canadese a Belgrado, ora
"indesiderato" nella stessa ambasciata canadese a Belgrado, e SERGE
TRIFKOVIC, professore di storia, responsabile per gli esteri di
"Chronicles - Magazine of American Culture".
Tutti i documenti sono stati diffusi dalla lista STOPNATO@...
===
Author: James Bisset
Publisher/Date: February 2000
Title: Notes for address to Standing Committee Foreign Affairs and
International Trade (Ca)
1: Introduction
I wish to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity of speaking
this morning.
It is some comfort to know that although I was not allowed to speak to
anyone in the Canadian embassy in Belgrade during a recent visit there
that I am free to speak to members of the Canadian parliament.
I have been an out spoken critic of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. I
believe it to have been a tragic mistake -- a historic miscalculation
that will have far reaching implications.
When NATO bombs fell on Yugoslavia in the spring and summer of last year
they caused more than just death and destruction in that country. The
bombs also struck at the heart of international law and delivered a
serious blow to the framework of global security that since the end of
the second world war has protected all of us from the horrors of a
nuclear war.
Kosovo broke the ground rules for NATO engagement and the aggressive
military intervention by NATO into the affairs of a sovereign state for
other than defensive purposes marked an ominous turning point in the
aims and objectives of that organization. It is important that we
understand this and seek clarification as to whether this was a
"one-off" aberration or a signal of fundamental change in the nature and
purposes of the organization. This is something the committee might well
examine in the course of its work.
2: An Illegal War
NATO's war in Kosovo was conducted without the approval of the United
Nations Security Council. It was a violation of international law, the
United Nations charter and its own article 1, which requires NATO to
settle any international disputes by peaceful means and not to threaten
or use force, "in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the
United Nations."
Apologists for NATO including our own foreign and defence ministers try
to avoid this issue by simply not mentioning it. There has been no
attempt to explain why the United Nations Security Council was ignored.
No effort to spell out under whose authority did NATO bomb Yugoslavia.
The ministers and their officials continue to justify the air strikes on
the grounds that the bombs were necessary to stop ethnic cleansing and
atrocities, despite all the evidence that by far the bulk of the ethnic
cleansing took place after the bombing not before it. It was the bombing
that triggered off the worst of the ethnic cleansing.
As for the atrocities it now seems that here again we were lied to about
the extent of the crimes commited. United States Secretary of Defence
Cohen told us that at least 100,000 Kosovars had perished. Tony Blair
spoke of genocide being carried out in Kosovo. The media relished in
these atrocity stories and printed every story told to them by Albanian,
"eye witnesses." The myth that the war was to stop ethnic cleansing and
atrocities contiues to be perpetrated by department spokesmen and large
parts of the media.
No one wants to defend atrocities and the numbers game in such
circumstances becomes sordid. Nevertheless numbers do become important
if they are used to justify military action against a sovereign state.
in the case of Kosovo it appears that about 2000 people were killed
there prior to the NATO bombing. considering that a civil war had been
underway since 1993 this is not a remarkable figure and compared with a
great many other hot spots hardly enough to warrant a 79-day bombing
campaign. It is also interesting to note that the UN tribunal
indictement of Milosovic of May 1999, cites only one incident of deaths
before the bombing -- the infamous Racak incident -- which itself is
challenged by French journalists who were on the ground there and
suspect a frame-up involving US General Walker who sounded the alarm.
The Kosovo "war" reveals disturbing evidence of how lies and duplicity
can mislead us into accepting things that we instinctively know to be
wrong. Jamie Shea and other NATO apologists have lied to us about the
bombing. The sad thing is that most of the Canadian media, and our
political representatives have accepted without question what has been
told to us by NATO and our own foreign affairs spokesmen.
3: An Unecessary War
perhaps the most serious charge against the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
is that it was unnecessary. NATO chose bombing over diplomacy. Violence
over negotiation. NATO's leaders tried to convince us that dropping tons
of bombs on Yugoslavia was serving humanitarian purposes.
A UN Security Council resolution of October 1998 accepted by Yugoslavia,
authorized over 1300 monitors from the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe [OSCE] to enter Kosovo and try to de-escalate the
fighting. from the accounts of a number of these monitors their task was
successful. While cease-fire violations continued on both sides the
intensity of the armed struggle was considerably abated.
The former Czech foreign minister, Jiri Dienstbier, and Canada's own
Rollie Keith of Vancouver -- both monitors for the OSCE on the ground in
Kosovo -- have publicly stated that there were no international refugees
over the last five months of the OSCE's presence in Kosovo and the
number of internally displaced only amounted to a few thousands in the
weeks leading up to the bombing.
The OSCE mission demonstrated that diplomacy and negotiation might well
have resolved the Kosovo problem without resorting to the use of force.
It was the failure of the United States to accept any flexibility in its
dealing with Belgrade in the weeks leading up to the war that spelled
diplomatic failure.
The adamant refusal of the USA to involve either the Russians or the
United Nations in the negotiations. The refusal to allow any other
intermediary to deal with Milosovic and finally the imposition of the
Rambouillet ultimatum which was clearly designed to ensure that
Yugoslavia had no choice but to refuse its insulting terms.
It is now generally accepted by those who have seen the Rambouillet
agreement that no sovereign state could have agreed to its conditions.
The insistence of allowing acess to all of Yugoslavia by NATO forces and
the demand that a referendum on autonomy be held within three years
guaranteed a Serbian rejection.
The Serbian parliament did, however, on March 23, state a willingness to
"examine the character and extent of an international presence in Kosovo
immediately after the signing of an autonomy accord acceptable to all
national communities in Kosovo, the local Serb minority included. " The
United States was not interested in pursuing this offer. NATO needed its
war. NATO's formal commitment to resolve international disputes by
peaceful means was thrown out the window.
The Rambouillet document itself was not easily obtained from NATO
sources. The chairman of the defence committee of the French National
Assembly asked for a copy shortly after the bombing commenced but was
not given a copy until a few days before the UN peace treaty was signed.
I hope that members of this committee have a copy to look at and will be
able to find out when and if Canada was informed of its conditions.
4: NATO's campaign a total failure
We have been asked to believe that the war in Kosovo was fought for
human rights. Indeed the president of the Czech republic received a
standing ovation in this House of Commons when he stated that Kosovo was
the first war fought for human values rather than territory. I suspect
even President Havel would have second thoughts about that statement now
that a large part of Yugoslav territory has in effect been handed over
to the Albanians.
The war allegedly to stop ethnic cleansing has not done so. Serbs
Gypsies, Jews, and Slav muslims are being forced out of Kosovo under the
eyes of 45,000 NATO troops. Murder and anarchy reigns supreme in Kosovo
as the KLA and criminal elements have taken charge. The United Nations
admits failure to control the situation and warns Serbs not to return.
The war allegedly to restore stability to the Balkans has done the
opposite.Yugoslavia's neighbors are in a state of turmoil. Montenegro is
on the edge of civil war. Macedonia is now worried that Kosovo has shown
the way for its own sizeable Albanian minority to demand
self-determination. Albania has been encouraged to strive harder to
fulfill its dream of greater Albania. Serbia itself has been ruined
economically. Embittered and disillusioned it feels betrayed and
alienated from the western democracies.
The illegal and unecessary war has alienated the other great nuclear
powers, Russia and China. These countries are now convinced that the
west cannot be trusted. NATO expansion eastward is seen as an aggressive
and hostile threat and will be answered by an increase in the nuclear
arsenal of both nations. After Kosovo who can with any conviction
convince them that NATO is purely a defensive alliance dedicated to
peace and to upholding the principles of the United Nations?
More seriously the NATO bombing has destroyed NATO's credibility. NATO
stood for more than just a powerful military organization. It stood for
peace; the rule of law, and democratic institutions. The bombing of
Yugoslavia threw all of that out the window.
No longer can NATO stand on the moral high ground. Its action in
Yugoslavia revealed it to be an aggressive military machine prepared to
ignore international law and intervene with deadly force in the internal
affairs of any state with whose actions or behaviour it does not agree.
5: Conclusions
There are those who believe that the long standing principle of state
sovereignty can be over ruled when human rights violations are taking
place in a country. Until Kosovo the ground rules for such intervention
called for Security Council authority before such action could be taken.
Apologists for NATO argue that it was unlikely Security Council
authority could have been obtained because of the veto power of China or
Russia. So it would appear rather than even try to get consent NATO took
upon itself the powers of the Security Council. I am not sure we should
all be comfortable with this development.
Undoubtedly there may be times when such intervention is justified and
immediately Rwanda comes to mind -- but intervention for humanitarian
reasons is a dangerous concept. Because who is to decide when to take
such action and under whose authority? Hitler intervened in
Czechoslovakia because he claimed the human rights of the Sudeten
Germans were being violated. Those who advocate a change in the current
rules for intervention are free to do so but until the rules change
should we not all obey the ones that still have legitimacy?
NATO made a serious mistake in Kosovo. Its bombing campaign was not only
an unmitigated disaster but it changed fundamentally the very nature and
purposes of the alliance. Does article 1 of the NATO treaty still stand?
Does NATO still undertake to settle any international disputes in which
it may become involved by peaceful means? Do the NATO countries still
undertake to refrain in their international relations from the threat or
use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the united
nations?
Kosovo should serve as a warning call that Canadian democracy needs a
shot in the arm to wake it up to the realities that foreign policy is
important--important because as happened one day last march Canadians
can wake up and find they are at war. Canadian pilots were bombing
Serbia. yet there was no declaration of war. The Canadian parliament was
not consulted. The majority of the Canadian people had no idea where
Kosovo was -- let alone understand why our aircraft were bombing cities
in a fellow nation state that had been a staunch ally during two world
wars.
It was not only Yugoslav soverignty that was violated by NATO's illegal
action. Canadian sovereignty was also abused. Canada had become involved
in a war without any member of the Canadian parliament or the Canadian
people being consulted.the ultimate expression of a nation's sovereignty
is the right to declare war. NATO abrogated this right.
If it essential that we give up some of our sovereignty as the price we
pay for membership in global institutons such as NATO then it is
mandatory that such institutions follow their own rules, respect thrule
of law, and operate within the generally accepted framework of the
United Nations charter. This NATO did not do. It is for this reason I
would suggest your committee must ask some tough questions about the
nature of Canada's involvement in the Kosovo war.
(James Bisset is the former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, who was
recently physically barred by the Canadian government from entering the
embassy in Belgrade.)
===
Testimony by S. Trifkovic, House of Commons SCFAIT, Ottawa, 17/02/2000
GEO-POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF NATO INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO
Testimony by S. Trifkovic
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
House of Commons, Ottawa, February 17, 2000
The war waged by NATO against Yugoslavia in 1999 marks a significant
turning point, not only for America and NATO but also for “the West” as
a
whole. The principle of state sovereignty, and of the rule of law
itself, has
been subverted in the name of an allegedly humanitarian ideology. Facts
have been converted into fiction, and even the fictions invoked to
justify
the act are giving up all pretense to credibility. Old systems for the
protection of
national liberties, political, legal and economic, have now been
subverted into vehicles for their destruction. But so far from
demonstrating
the vigor of Western ruling elites in their ruthless pursuit of an
ideology of
multi-ethnic democracy and international human rights, the whole Balkan
entanglement may be as a disturbing revelation of those ruling elites’
moral and cultural decay. I shall therefore devote my remarks to the
consequences of the war for the emerging new international system, and –
ultimately – for the security and stability of the Western world itself.
Almost a decade separated ‘Desert Storm’ from ‘Humanitarian Bombing.’ In
1991 the Maastricht Treaty was signed, and the rest of the decade has
brought the gradual usurpation of traditional European sovereignty by a
corporate-controlled Brussels regime of unelected bureaucrats who now
feel
bold enough to tell Austria how to run its domestic affairs. On this
side
of the ocean we had the passage of NAFTA and in 1995 the Uruguay round
of GATT gave us the WTO. The nineties were thus a decade of gradual
foundation laying for the new international order. The denigration of
sovereign nationhood hypnotized the public into applauding the
dismantling
of the very institutions that offered the only hope of representative
empowerment. The process is sufficiently far advanced for President
Clinton to claim (“A Just and Necessary War,” NYT, May 23, 1999) that,
had
it not bombed Serbia, "NATO itself would have been discredited for
failing
to defend the very values that give it meaning."
The war was in fact both unjust and unnecessary, but the significance of
Mr. Clinton’s statement is in that he has openly declared null and void
the international system in existence ever since the Peace of Westphalia
(1648). It was an imperfect and often violated system, but nevertheless
it
provided the basis for international discourse from which only the
assorted red and black totalitarians have openly deviated. Since 24
March
1999 this is being replaced by the emerging Clinton Doctrine, a carbon
copy of the Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty that supposedly
justified the Soviet-led occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Like his
Soviet predecessor, Mr. Clinton used an abstract and ideologically
loaded
notion - that of universal “human rights” - as the pretext to violate
the law and
tradition. The Clinton Doctrine is rooted in the bipartisan hubris of
Washington’s foreign policy “elite,” tipsy on its own heady brew of the
“world’s last and only superpower.” Legal formalities are passé, and
moral
imperatives - never sacrosanct in international affairs - are replaced
by
a cynical exercise in situational morality, dependent on an actor’s
position within the superpower ’s value system.
And so imperial high-mindedness is back, but in a new form. Old
religion, national flags and nationalist rivalry play no part. But the
yearning
for excitement and importance, that took the British to Peking, Kabul
and
Khartoum, the French to Fashoda and Saigon, and the Americans to Manila,
has now re-emerged. As a result a war was waged on an independent nation
because it refused foreign troops on its soil. All other justifications
are post facto rationalizations. The powers that waged that war have
aided
and abetted secession by an ethnic minority, secession that – once
formally
effected - will render many European borders tentative. In the context
of
any other European nation the story would sound surreal. The Serbs,
however, have been demonized to the point where they must not presume to
be treated like others.
But the fact that the West could do anything it chose to the Serbs does
not explain why it should. It is hardly worth refuting, yet again, the
feeble excuses for intervention. “Humanitarian” argument has been
invoked.
But what about Kashmir, Sudan, Uganda, Angola, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka,
Algeria? Properly videotaped and Amanpourized, each would be good for a
dozen “Kosovos”. There was no “genocide,” of course. Compared to the
killing fields of the Third World Kosovo was an unremarkable,
low-intensity conflict, uglier perhaps than Northern Ireland a decade
ago,
but much less so than Kurdistan. A total of 2,108 fatalities on all
sides
in Kosovo until June 1999, in a province of over two million, favorably
compares to the annual homicide tally of 450 in Washington D.C.
(population 600,000). Counting corpses is poor form, but bearing in mind
the brutalities and “ethnic cleansings” ignored by NATO - or even
condoned, notably in Croatia in 1995, or in eastern Turkey - it is clear
that “Kosovo” is not about universal principles. In Washington Abdullah
Ocalan is a terrorist, but KLA are freedom fighters.
What was it about, then? “Regional stability”, we were told next: if we
didn ’t stop the conflict it would engulf Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, the
whole of the Balkans in fact, with much of Europe to follow. But the
cure
- bombing Serbia into detaching an ethnically pure-Albanian Kosovo to
the
KLA narco-mafia, under NATO’s benevolent eye – will unleash a chain
reaction throughout the ex-Communist half of Europe. Its first victim
will be
the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, where the restive Albanian
minority comprises a third of the total population. And will the
Pristina
model not be demanded by the Hungarians in Rumania (more numerous
than Kosovo’s Albanians), and in southern Slovakia? What will stop the
Russians in the Ukraine, in Moldova, in Estonia, and in northern
Kazakhstan from following suit? Or the Serbs and Croats in the
chronically
unstable and unviable Dayton-Bosnia? And finally, when the Albanians get
their secession on the grounds of their numbers, will the same apply
when
the Latinos in southern California or Texas eventually outnumber their
Anglo
neighbors and start demanding bilingual statehood, leading to
reunification
with Mexico? Are Russia and China to threaten the United States with
bombing if Washington does not comply?
The outcome in Kosovo, for now, is in line with a deeply flawed model of
the new Balkan order that seeks to satisfy the aspirations of all ethnic
groups in former Yugoslavia - except the Serbs. This is a disastrous
strategy for all concerned. Even if forced into submission now, the
Serbs
shall have no stake in the ensuing order of things. Sooner or later they
will fight to recover Kosovo. The Carthaginian peace imposed on the
Serbs
today will cause chronic imbalance and strife for decades to come. It
will
entangle the West in a Balkan quagmire, and guarantee a new war as soon
as Mr. Clinton’s successors lose interest in underwriting the ill-gotten
gains
of America’s Balkan clients.
NATO has won, for now, but “the West” has lost. The war has undermined
the very principles that constitute the West, namely the rule of law.
The
notion of “human rights” can never provide a basis for either the rule
of
law or morality. “Universal human rights,” detached from any rootedness
in
time or place, will be open to the latest whim of outrage or the latest
fad for victimhood. The misguided effort to transform NATO from a
defensive alliance into a mini-U.N. with “out-of-area” self-appointed
responsibilities, is a certain road to more Bosnias and more Kosovos
down
the line. Now that the Clintonistas and NATO were “successful” in
Kosovo,
we can expect new and even more dangerous adventures elsewhere. But
next time around the Russians, Chinese, Indians and others will know
better than to buy the slogans about free markets and democratic human
rights, and the future of “the West” in the eventually inevitable
conflict may
be uncertain. Canada should ponder the implications of this course, and
gather the courage to say “no” to global interventionism – for its own
sake,
and for the sake of peace and stability in the world. Is it really
obliged to
watch in undissenting submission as a long, dangerous military
experiment
is mounted which will lead us to a real war for Central Asia? Will it
soon be
'defending' new KLAs against 'genocide' along Russia’s Islamic rim,
among
ethnic groups as yet unknown to the Western press that can provide a
series of excuses for intervention, all as good, that is as bad, as the
Kosovo
Albanian excuse?
Was Canada’s imperial history so sweet that it must seek another
imperial command-center, in Washington, to compensate for the loss of
London? Does Canada today feel comfortable with the emerging truth: that
it has less freedom of choice about war and peace than it did as a free
Dominion under the old Statute of Westminster? For there can be no doubt
that the war NATO was fighting in April and May 1999 was not intended,
or
willed, by anything which can be called the Alliance, when the use of
force
was plotted inside the Beltway in 1998.
It is worth asking how far this re-acquisition of minor imperial status
-
by Canada and other NATO members - is creating a media-led political
process that leaves national decision-making meaningless, beyond a
formal
cheer-leading function. It is also worth asking how it came to be that
the
chief war aim of NATO was 'keeping the Alliance together', what
disciplines it implies, and how easily, and bloodily, it can be
repeated.
The moral absolutism that was invoked by the proponents of intervention
as
a substitute for rational argument can no longer be sustained. Genuine
dilemmas about our human responsibility for one another must not be used
to reactivate the viral imperialism of the re-extended West. The more
arrogant the new doctrine, the greater the willingness to lie for the
truth. To be capable of “doing something” sustains moral self-respect,
if
we can suppress the thought that we are not so much moral actors as
consumers of predigested choices. At the onset of the Millenium we are
living in a virtual Coliseum where exotic and nasty troublemakers can be
killed not by lions but by the magical flying machines of the Imperium.
As
the candidates for punishment - or martyrdom - are pushed into the
arena,
many denizens of “the West” react to the show as imperial consumers, not
as citizens with a parliamentary right and a democratic duty to question
the proceedings.
May the results of your present inquiry prove me wrong. Thank you.
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Peter Bein [mailto:pbein@...]
>>>>Sent: February 10, 2000 4:16 PM
>>>>To: 'HilchJ@...'
>>>>Subject:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am urging you that the following individuals be called to testify
before
>>>>the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
(SCFAIT)
>>>>as expert witnesses re Canada's role in the conflict and
post-conflict
>>>>developments in Kosovo and Metohija. It is imperative that MPs in
SCAFIT
>>>>hear from and question experts who reflect all sides in this
conflict. The
>>>>MPs are already well acquainted with the perspectives of Canada's
military
>>>>and the Dept of Foreign Affairs, as their views were publicized for
many
>>>>months.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mr. James Bissett, Canada's former ambassador to Yugoslavia,
Bulgaria and
>>>>Albania.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Michael Chossudovsky, professor of economics at the University
of
>>>>Ottawa.
>>>>
>>>>Mr. Roland Keith from Vancouver, B.C.,who was stationed in Kosovo
as a
>>>>monitor with the
>>>>Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Director of Research at the International
Institute
>>of
>>>>Concern for Public Health in Toronto.
>>>>
>>>>Prof. Dr. Hari Sharma, professor emeritus of chemistry at the
University
>>of
>>>>Waterloo, Ontario.
>>>>
>>>>Prof. Dr. Michael Mandel, professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law
School ,
>>>>York
>>>>University, Toronto.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Serge Trifkovic, an author, former university professor,
historian,
>>>>foreign affairs editor of the "Chronicles - Magazine of American
>>>>Culture".
>>>>
>>>>Mrs. Radmila Swann, a retired federal public servant and a founding
member
>>>>of
>>>>the Ottawa Heritage Society.
>>>>
>>>>Mr. Nikola Rajkovic, a law student and a founding member of the
Centre for
>>>>Peace in the Balkans in Toronto.
>>>>
>>>>I trust that testimonies of these people will add a great value to
the
>>>>hearings.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Peter Bein, P.Eng.
>>>>Vancouver B.C.
>>>>tel. +604 822 1685
>>>>fax +604 822 3033
>>>>e-mail: pbein@...
>>>>
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
I contribuiti che diffondiamo in questo messaggio vengono dal Canada. Si
tratta di alcune audizioni tenute ad Ottawa, alla Camera dei Comuni,
dinanzi allo Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International
Trade da parte di varie personalita' ritenute a vario titolo "informate
sui fatti" riguardo alla aggressione della NATO contro la Repubblica
Federale di Jugoslavia. In particolare, i contributi seguenti sono le
testimonianze di JAMES BISSET, ex-ambasciatore canadese a Belgrado, ora
"indesiderato" nella stessa ambasciata canadese a Belgrado, e SERGE
TRIFKOVIC, professore di storia, responsabile per gli esteri di
"Chronicles - Magazine of American Culture".
Tutti i documenti sono stati diffusi dalla lista STOPNATO@...
===
Author: James Bisset
Publisher/Date: February 2000
Title: Notes for address to Standing Committee Foreign Affairs and
International Trade (Ca)
1: Introduction
I wish to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity of speaking
this morning.
It is some comfort to know that although I was not allowed to speak to
anyone in the Canadian embassy in Belgrade during a recent visit there
that I am free to speak to members of the Canadian parliament.
I have been an out spoken critic of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. I
believe it to have been a tragic mistake -- a historic miscalculation
that will have far reaching implications.
When NATO bombs fell on Yugoslavia in the spring and summer of last year
they caused more than just death and destruction in that country. The
bombs also struck at the heart of international law and delivered a
serious blow to the framework of global security that since the end of
the second world war has protected all of us from the horrors of a
nuclear war.
Kosovo broke the ground rules for NATO engagement and the aggressive
military intervention by NATO into the affairs of a sovereign state for
other than defensive purposes marked an ominous turning point in the
aims and objectives of that organization. It is important that we
understand this and seek clarification as to whether this was a
"one-off" aberration or a signal of fundamental change in the nature and
purposes of the organization. This is something the committee might well
examine in the course of its work.
2: An Illegal War
NATO's war in Kosovo was conducted without the approval of the United
Nations Security Council. It was a violation of international law, the
United Nations charter and its own article 1, which requires NATO to
settle any international disputes by peaceful means and not to threaten
or use force, "in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the
United Nations."
Apologists for NATO including our own foreign and defence ministers try
to avoid this issue by simply not mentioning it. There has been no
attempt to explain why the United Nations Security Council was ignored.
No effort to spell out under whose authority did NATO bomb Yugoslavia.
The ministers and their officials continue to justify the air strikes on
the grounds that the bombs were necessary to stop ethnic cleansing and
atrocities, despite all the evidence that by far the bulk of the ethnic
cleansing took place after the bombing not before it. It was the bombing
that triggered off the worst of the ethnic cleansing.
As for the atrocities it now seems that here again we were lied to about
the extent of the crimes commited. United States Secretary of Defence
Cohen told us that at least 100,000 Kosovars had perished. Tony Blair
spoke of genocide being carried out in Kosovo. The media relished in
these atrocity stories and printed every story told to them by Albanian,
"eye witnesses." The myth that the war was to stop ethnic cleansing and
atrocities contiues to be perpetrated by department spokesmen and large
parts of the media.
No one wants to defend atrocities and the numbers game in such
circumstances becomes sordid. Nevertheless numbers do become important
if they are used to justify military action against a sovereign state.
in the case of Kosovo it appears that about 2000 people were killed
there prior to the NATO bombing. considering that a civil war had been
underway since 1993 this is not a remarkable figure and compared with a
great many other hot spots hardly enough to warrant a 79-day bombing
campaign. It is also interesting to note that the UN tribunal
indictement of Milosovic of May 1999, cites only one incident of deaths
before the bombing -- the infamous Racak incident -- which itself is
challenged by French journalists who were on the ground there and
suspect a frame-up involving US General Walker who sounded the alarm.
The Kosovo "war" reveals disturbing evidence of how lies and duplicity
can mislead us into accepting things that we instinctively know to be
wrong. Jamie Shea and other NATO apologists have lied to us about the
bombing. The sad thing is that most of the Canadian media, and our
political representatives have accepted without question what has been
told to us by NATO and our own foreign affairs spokesmen.
3: An Unecessary War
perhaps the most serious charge against the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
is that it was unnecessary. NATO chose bombing over diplomacy. Violence
over negotiation. NATO's leaders tried to convince us that dropping tons
of bombs on Yugoslavia was serving humanitarian purposes.
A UN Security Council resolution of October 1998 accepted by Yugoslavia,
authorized over 1300 monitors from the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe [OSCE] to enter Kosovo and try to de-escalate the
fighting. from the accounts of a number of these monitors their task was
successful. While cease-fire violations continued on both sides the
intensity of the armed struggle was considerably abated.
The former Czech foreign minister, Jiri Dienstbier, and Canada's own
Rollie Keith of Vancouver -- both monitors for the OSCE on the ground in
Kosovo -- have publicly stated that there were no international refugees
over the last five months of the OSCE's presence in Kosovo and the
number of internally displaced only amounted to a few thousands in the
weeks leading up to the bombing.
The OSCE mission demonstrated that diplomacy and negotiation might well
have resolved the Kosovo problem without resorting to the use of force.
It was the failure of the United States to accept any flexibility in its
dealing with Belgrade in the weeks leading up to the war that spelled
diplomatic failure.
The adamant refusal of the USA to involve either the Russians or the
United Nations in the negotiations. The refusal to allow any other
intermediary to deal with Milosovic and finally the imposition of the
Rambouillet ultimatum which was clearly designed to ensure that
Yugoslavia had no choice but to refuse its insulting terms.
It is now generally accepted by those who have seen the Rambouillet
agreement that no sovereign state could have agreed to its conditions.
The insistence of allowing acess to all of Yugoslavia by NATO forces and
the demand that a referendum on autonomy be held within three years
guaranteed a Serbian rejection.
The Serbian parliament did, however, on March 23, state a willingness to
"examine the character and extent of an international presence in Kosovo
immediately after the signing of an autonomy accord acceptable to all
national communities in Kosovo, the local Serb minority included. " The
United States was not interested in pursuing this offer. NATO needed its
war. NATO's formal commitment to resolve international disputes by
peaceful means was thrown out the window.
The Rambouillet document itself was not easily obtained from NATO
sources. The chairman of the defence committee of the French National
Assembly asked for a copy shortly after the bombing commenced but was
not given a copy until a few days before the UN peace treaty was signed.
I hope that members of this committee have a copy to look at and will be
able to find out when and if Canada was informed of its conditions.
4: NATO's campaign a total failure
We have been asked to believe that the war in Kosovo was fought for
human rights. Indeed the president of the Czech republic received a
standing ovation in this House of Commons when he stated that Kosovo was
the first war fought for human values rather than territory. I suspect
even President Havel would have second thoughts about that statement now
that a large part of Yugoslav territory has in effect been handed over
to the Albanians.
The war allegedly to stop ethnic cleansing has not done so. Serbs
Gypsies, Jews, and Slav muslims are being forced out of Kosovo under the
eyes of 45,000 NATO troops. Murder and anarchy reigns supreme in Kosovo
as the KLA and criminal elements have taken charge. The United Nations
admits failure to control the situation and warns Serbs not to return.
The war allegedly to restore stability to the Balkans has done the
opposite.Yugoslavia's neighbors are in a state of turmoil. Montenegro is
on the edge of civil war. Macedonia is now worried that Kosovo has shown
the way for its own sizeable Albanian minority to demand
self-determination. Albania has been encouraged to strive harder to
fulfill its dream of greater Albania. Serbia itself has been ruined
economically. Embittered and disillusioned it feels betrayed and
alienated from the western democracies.
The illegal and unecessary war has alienated the other great nuclear
powers, Russia and China. These countries are now convinced that the
west cannot be trusted. NATO expansion eastward is seen as an aggressive
and hostile threat and will be answered by an increase in the nuclear
arsenal of both nations. After Kosovo who can with any conviction
convince them that NATO is purely a defensive alliance dedicated to
peace and to upholding the principles of the United Nations?
More seriously the NATO bombing has destroyed NATO's credibility. NATO
stood for more than just a powerful military organization. It stood for
peace; the rule of law, and democratic institutions. The bombing of
Yugoslavia threw all of that out the window.
No longer can NATO stand on the moral high ground. Its action in
Yugoslavia revealed it to be an aggressive military machine prepared to
ignore international law and intervene with deadly force in the internal
affairs of any state with whose actions or behaviour it does not agree.
5: Conclusions
There are those who believe that the long standing principle of state
sovereignty can be over ruled when human rights violations are taking
place in a country. Until Kosovo the ground rules for such intervention
called for Security Council authority before such action could be taken.
Apologists for NATO argue that it was unlikely Security Council
authority could have been obtained because of the veto power of China or
Russia. So it would appear rather than even try to get consent NATO took
upon itself the powers of the Security Council. I am not sure we should
all be comfortable with this development.
Undoubtedly there may be times when such intervention is justified and
immediately Rwanda comes to mind -- but intervention for humanitarian
reasons is a dangerous concept. Because who is to decide when to take
such action and under whose authority? Hitler intervened in
Czechoslovakia because he claimed the human rights of the Sudeten
Germans were being violated. Those who advocate a change in the current
rules for intervention are free to do so but until the rules change
should we not all obey the ones that still have legitimacy?
NATO made a serious mistake in Kosovo. Its bombing campaign was not only
an unmitigated disaster but it changed fundamentally the very nature and
purposes of the alliance. Does article 1 of the NATO treaty still stand?
Does NATO still undertake to settle any international disputes in which
it may become involved by peaceful means? Do the NATO countries still
undertake to refrain in their international relations from the threat or
use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the united
nations?
Kosovo should serve as a warning call that Canadian democracy needs a
shot in the arm to wake it up to the realities that foreign policy is
important--important because as happened one day last march Canadians
can wake up and find they are at war. Canadian pilots were bombing
Serbia. yet there was no declaration of war. The Canadian parliament was
not consulted. The majority of the Canadian people had no idea where
Kosovo was -- let alone understand why our aircraft were bombing cities
in a fellow nation state that had been a staunch ally during two world
wars.
It was not only Yugoslav soverignty that was violated by NATO's illegal
action. Canadian sovereignty was also abused. Canada had become involved
in a war without any member of the Canadian parliament or the Canadian
people being consulted.the ultimate expression of a nation's sovereignty
is the right to declare war. NATO abrogated this right.
If it essential that we give up some of our sovereignty as the price we
pay for membership in global institutons such as NATO then it is
mandatory that such institutions follow their own rules, respect thrule
of law, and operate within the generally accepted framework of the
United Nations charter. This NATO did not do. It is for this reason I
would suggest your committee must ask some tough questions about the
nature of Canada's involvement in the Kosovo war.
(James Bisset is the former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, who was
recently physically barred by the Canadian government from entering the
embassy in Belgrade.)
===
Testimony by S. Trifkovic, House of Commons SCFAIT, Ottawa, 17/02/2000
GEO-POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS OF NATO INTERVENTION IN KOSOVO
Testimony by S. Trifkovic
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
House of Commons, Ottawa, February 17, 2000
The war waged by NATO against Yugoslavia in 1999 marks a significant
turning point, not only for America and NATO but also for “the West” as
a
whole. The principle of state sovereignty, and of the rule of law
itself, has
been subverted in the name of an allegedly humanitarian ideology. Facts
have been converted into fiction, and even the fictions invoked to
justify
the act are giving up all pretense to credibility. Old systems for the
protection of
national liberties, political, legal and economic, have now been
subverted into vehicles for their destruction. But so far from
demonstrating
the vigor of Western ruling elites in their ruthless pursuit of an
ideology of
multi-ethnic democracy and international human rights, the whole Balkan
entanglement may be as a disturbing revelation of those ruling elites’
moral and cultural decay. I shall therefore devote my remarks to the
consequences of the war for the emerging new international system, and –
ultimately – for the security and stability of the Western world itself.
Almost a decade separated ‘Desert Storm’ from ‘Humanitarian Bombing.’ In
1991 the Maastricht Treaty was signed, and the rest of the decade has
brought the gradual usurpation of traditional European sovereignty by a
corporate-controlled Brussels regime of unelected bureaucrats who now
feel
bold enough to tell Austria how to run its domestic affairs. On this
side
of the ocean we had the passage of NAFTA and in 1995 the Uruguay round
of GATT gave us the WTO. The nineties were thus a decade of gradual
foundation laying for the new international order. The denigration of
sovereign nationhood hypnotized the public into applauding the
dismantling
of the very institutions that offered the only hope of representative
empowerment. The process is sufficiently far advanced for President
Clinton to claim (“A Just and Necessary War,” NYT, May 23, 1999) that,
had
it not bombed Serbia, "NATO itself would have been discredited for
failing
to defend the very values that give it meaning."
The war was in fact both unjust and unnecessary, but the significance of
Mr. Clinton’s statement is in that he has openly declared null and void
the international system in existence ever since the Peace of Westphalia
(1648). It was an imperfect and often violated system, but nevertheless
it
provided the basis for international discourse from which only the
assorted red and black totalitarians have openly deviated. Since 24
March
1999 this is being replaced by the emerging Clinton Doctrine, a carbon
copy of the Brezhnev doctrine of limited sovereignty that supposedly
justified the Soviet-led occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968. Like his
Soviet predecessor, Mr. Clinton used an abstract and ideologically
loaded
notion - that of universal “human rights” - as the pretext to violate
the law and
tradition. The Clinton Doctrine is rooted in the bipartisan hubris of
Washington’s foreign policy “elite,” tipsy on its own heady brew of the
“world’s last and only superpower.” Legal formalities are passé, and
moral
imperatives - never sacrosanct in international affairs - are replaced
by
a cynical exercise in situational morality, dependent on an actor’s
position within the superpower ’s value system.
And so imperial high-mindedness is back, but in a new form. Old
religion, national flags and nationalist rivalry play no part. But the
yearning
for excitement and importance, that took the British to Peking, Kabul
and
Khartoum, the French to Fashoda and Saigon, and the Americans to Manila,
has now re-emerged. As a result a war was waged on an independent nation
because it refused foreign troops on its soil. All other justifications
are post facto rationalizations. The powers that waged that war have
aided
and abetted secession by an ethnic minority, secession that – once
formally
effected - will render many European borders tentative. In the context
of
any other European nation the story would sound surreal. The Serbs,
however, have been demonized to the point where they must not presume to
be treated like others.
But the fact that the West could do anything it chose to the Serbs does
not explain why it should. It is hardly worth refuting, yet again, the
feeble excuses for intervention. “Humanitarian” argument has been
invoked.
But what about Kashmir, Sudan, Uganda, Angola, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka,
Algeria? Properly videotaped and Amanpourized, each would be good for a
dozen “Kosovos”. There was no “genocide,” of course. Compared to the
killing fields of the Third World Kosovo was an unremarkable,
low-intensity conflict, uglier perhaps than Northern Ireland a decade
ago,
but much less so than Kurdistan. A total of 2,108 fatalities on all
sides
in Kosovo until June 1999, in a province of over two million, favorably
compares to the annual homicide tally of 450 in Washington D.C.
(population 600,000). Counting corpses is poor form, but bearing in mind
the brutalities and “ethnic cleansings” ignored by NATO - or even
condoned, notably in Croatia in 1995, or in eastern Turkey - it is clear
that “Kosovo” is not about universal principles. In Washington Abdullah
Ocalan is a terrorist, but KLA are freedom fighters.
What was it about, then? “Regional stability”, we were told next: if we
didn ’t stop the conflict it would engulf Macedonia, Greece, Turkey, the
whole of the Balkans in fact, with much of Europe to follow. But the
cure
- bombing Serbia into detaching an ethnically pure-Albanian Kosovo to
the
KLA narco-mafia, under NATO’s benevolent eye – will unleash a chain
reaction throughout the ex-Communist half of Europe. Its first victim
will be
the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia, where the restive Albanian
minority comprises a third of the total population. And will the
Pristina
model not be demanded by the Hungarians in Rumania (more numerous
than Kosovo’s Albanians), and in southern Slovakia? What will stop the
Russians in the Ukraine, in Moldova, in Estonia, and in northern
Kazakhstan from following suit? Or the Serbs and Croats in the
chronically
unstable and unviable Dayton-Bosnia? And finally, when the Albanians get
their secession on the grounds of their numbers, will the same apply
when
the Latinos in southern California or Texas eventually outnumber their
Anglo
neighbors and start demanding bilingual statehood, leading to
reunification
with Mexico? Are Russia and China to threaten the United States with
bombing if Washington does not comply?
The outcome in Kosovo, for now, is in line with a deeply flawed model of
the new Balkan order that seeks to satisfy the aspirations of all ethnic
groups in former Yugoslavia - except the Serbs. This is a disastrous
strategy for all concerned. Even if forced into submission now, the
Serbs
shall have no stake in the ensuing order of things. Sooner or later they
will fight to recover Kosovo. The Carthaginian peace imposed on the
Serbs
today will cause chronic imbalance and strife for decades to come. It
will
entangle the West in a Balkan quagmire, and guarantee a new war as soon
as Mr. Clinton’s successors lose interest in underwriting the ill-gotten
gains
of America’s Balkan clients.
NATO has won, for now, but “the West” has lost. The war has undermined
the very principles that constitute the West, namely the rule of law.
The
notion of “human rights” can never provide a basis for either the rule
of
law or morality. “Universal human rights,” detached from any rootedness
in
time or place, will be open to the latest whim of outrage or the latest
fad for victimhood. The misguided effort to transform NATO from a
defensive alliance into a mini-U.N. with “out-of-area” self-appointed
responsibilities, is a certain road to more Bosnias and more Kosovos
down
the line. Now that the Clintonistas and NATO were “successful” in
Kosovo,
we can expect new and even more dangerous adventures elsewhere. But
next time around the Russians, Chinese, Indians and others will know
better than to buy the slogans about free markets and democratic human
rights, and the future of “the West” in the eventually inevitable
conflict may
be uncertain. Canada should ponder the implications of this course, and
gather the courage to say “no” to global interventionism – for its own
sake,
and for the sake of peace and stability in the world. Is it really
obliged to
watch in undissenting submission as a long, dangerous military
experiment
is mounted which will lead us to a real war for Central Asia? Will it
soon be
'defending' new KLAs against 'genocide' along Russia’s Islamic rim,
among
ethnic groups as yet unknown to the Western press that can provide a
series of excuses for intervention, all as good, that is as bad, as the
Kosovo
Albanian excuse?
Was Canada’s imperial history so sweet that it must seek another
imperial command-center, in Washington, to compensate for the loss of
London? Does Canada today feel comfortable with the emerging truth: that
it has less freedom of choice about war and peace than it did as a free
Dominion under the old Statute of Westminster? For there can be no doubt
that the war NATO was fighting in April and May 1999 was not intended,
or
willed, by anything which can be called the Alliance, when the use of
force
was plotted inside the Beltway in 1998.
It is worth asking how far this re-acquisition of minor imperial status
-
by Canada and other NATO members - is creating a media-led political
process that leaves national decision-making meaningless, beyond a
formal
cheer-leading function. It is also worth asking how it came to be that
the
chief war aim of NATO was 'keeping the Alliance together', what
disciplines it implies, and how easily, and bloodily, it can be
repeated.
The moral absolutism that was invoked by the proponents of intervention
as
a substitute for rational argument can no longer be sustained. Genuine
dilemmas about our human responsibility for one another must not be used
to reactivate the viral imperialism of the re-extended West. The more
arrogant the new doctrine, the greater the willingness to lie for the
truth. To be capable of “doing something” sustains moral self-respect,
if
we can suppress the thought that we are not so much moral actors as
consumers of predigested choices. At the onset of the Millenium we are
living in a virtual Coliseum where exotic and nasty troublemakers can be
killed not by lions but by the magical flying machines of the Imperium.
As
the candidates for punishment - or martyrdom - are pushed into the
arena,
many denizens of “the West” react to the show as imperial consumers, not
as citizens with a parliamentary right and a democratic duty to question
the proceedings.
May the results of your present inquiry prove me wrong. Thank you.
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: Peter Bein [mailto:pbein@...]
>>>>Sent: February 10, 2000 4:16 PM
>>>>To: 'HilchJ@...'
>>>>Subject:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I am urging you that the following individuals be called to testify
before
>>>>the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
(SCFAIT)
>>>>as expert witnesses re Canada's role in the conflict and
post-conflict
>>>>developments in Kosovo and Metohija. It is imperative that MPs in
SCAFIT
>>>>hear from and question experts who reflect all sides in this
conflict. The
>>>>MPs are already well acquainted with the perspectives of Canada's
military
>>>>and the Dept of Foreign Affairs, as their views were publicized for
many
>>>>months.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mr. James Bissett, Canada's former ambassador to Yugoslavia,
Bulgaria and
>>>>Albania.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Michael Chossudovsky, professor of economics at the University
of
>>>>Ottawa.
>>>>
>>>>Mr. Roland Keith from Vancouver, B.C.,who was stationed in Kosovo
as a
>>>>monitor with the
>>>>Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Director of Research at the International
Institute
>>of
>>>>Concern for Public Health in Toronto.
>>>>
>>>>Prof. Dr. Hari Sharma, professor emeritus of chemistry at the
University
>>of
>>>>Waterloo, Ontario.
>>>>
>>>>Prof. Dr. Michael Mandel, professor of Law at Osgoode Hall Law
School ,
>>>>York
>>>>University, Toronto.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Serge Trifkovic, an author, former university professor,
historian,
>>>>foreign affairs editor of the "Chronicles - Magazine of American
>>>>Culture".
>>>>
>>>>Mrs. Radmila Swann, a retired federal public servant and a founding
member
>>>>of
>>>>the Ottawa Heritage Society.
>>>>
>>>>Mr. Nikola Rajkovic, a law student and a founding member of the
Centre for
>>>>Peace in the Balkans in Toronto.
>>>>
>>>>I trust that testimonies of these people will add a great value to
the
>>>>hearings.
>>>>
>>>>Dr. Peter Bein, P.Eng.
>>>>Vancouver B.C.
>>>>tel. +604 822 1685
>>>>fax +604 822 3033
>>>>e-mail: pbein@...
>>>>
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------