Month: August 2004

Morality? Don’t make me laugh

Morality? Don’t make me laugh

John Pilger sees only one Balkan winner:
the arms trade


[British] The Guardian,
Monday, April 19, 1999
Excerpts:


For fair use only
Published under the provision of
U.S. Code, Title 17, section 107.

 * * * 

Quote:

“The struggle of people against power,” wrote Milan Kundera, “is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” The idea that the Nato bombing has to do with “moral purpose” (Blair) and “principles of humanity we hold sacred” (Clinton) insults both memory and intelligence. The American attack on Yugoslavia began more than a decade ago when the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund set about destroying the multi-ethnic federation with lethal doses of debt, “market reforms” and imposed poverty.Millions of jobs were eliminated; in 1989 alone, 600,000 workers, almost a quarter of the workforce, were sacked without severance pay. But the most critical “reform” was the ending of economic support to the six constituent republics and their recolonisation by Western capital. Germany led the way, supporting the breakaway of Croatia, its new economic colony, with the European Community giving silent approval. The torch of fratricide had been lit…

In spite of his part in the blood-letting of Bosnia, Milosevic, the “reformer”, became a favourite among senior figures in the US State Department. And in return for his co-operation in the American partition of Bosnia at Dayton in 1995, he was assured that the troublesome province of Kosovo was his to keep. “President Milosevic,” said Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy, “is a man we can do business with, a man who recognises the realities of life in former Yugoslavia.” The Kosovo Liberation Army was dismissed by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright as “no more than terrorists”. Last October, the Americans drafted a “peace plan” for Kosovo that that was pro-Serbia, giving the Kosovans far less autonomy and freedom than they had under the old Yugoslav federation.

But this deal included, crucially for the Americans, a Nato military presence. When Milosevic objected to having foreign troops on his soil, he was swiftly transformed, like Saddam Hussein, from client to demon. He was now seen as a threat to Washington’s post-cold war strategy for the Balkans and eastern Europe. With Nato replacing the United Nations as an instrument of American global control, its “Membership Action Plan” includes linking Albania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. Like Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic before them, these impoverished countries will be required to take part in a “22 billion weapons” buildup. The beneficiaries will be the world’s dominant arms industries of the US and Britain – the contract for fighter aircraft alone is worth pounds 10 billion.

Like the 1991 “moral crusade” in the Gulf, which slaughtered more than 200,000 people, including the very minorities the West claimed to be protecting, the terror bombing of Serbia and Kosovo provides a valuable laboratory for the Anglo-American arms business. Mostly unreported, the Americans are using a refined version of the depleted uranium missile they tested in southern Iraq, where leukaemia among children and birth deformities have risen to match the levels after Hiroshima. The RAF is using the BL755 “multi-purpose” cluster bomb, which is not really a bomb at all but an air-dropped land-mine: readers will recall the Blair government’s “ban” on land-mines. Dropped from the air, the BL755 explodes into dozens of little mines, shaped liked spiders. These are scattered over a wide area and kill and maim people who step on them, children especially.

Britain’s new military-industrial-arms trade, which Margaret Thatcher built and the taxpayer subsidises through “soft loans” to dictatorships, is central to the “Blair project”. Each time New Labour has sought to bring big business into the fold, arms companies or their representatives have been at the head of the queue. A New Labour backer is Raytheon, manufacturer of the Patriot missile and currently under contract to the Ministry of Defence to build tanks. More arms contracts have been approved by the Blair government than by the Tories; and two-thirds of arms exports go to regimes with appalling human rights records – such as the dictatorship in Jakarta, which is currently deploying death squads in East Timor.

Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that British-supplied small arms have caused in East Timor the equivalent of the Dunblane massacre many times over. Last year, the Defence Secretary, George Robertson, intervened in a Courtaulds Aerospace deal for armoured vehicles, headed for Indonesia’s Kopassus special forces whose commander, General Prabowo, he described (in a letter to Robin Cook) as “an enlightened officer, keen [on] human rights”. Kopassus is the Waffen SS-style force that spearheaded the invasion of East Timor, murdered five journalists and is responsible for the worst atrocities in the illegally occupied territory. When Prabowo’s father-in-law, the tyrant Suharto, was toppled from his throne last year, the general was also sacked.

… However, no bombs will fall on Jakarta. They might hit the local offices of British Aerospace (supplier of machine guns and Hawk fighter bombers) and the Defence Export Sales Organisation, the Blair government’s official merchants of death who, as Thatcher used to say, “are batting for Britain”.

(End quote)


The facts about Mr. Pilger that follow were taken from:
http://pilger.carlton.com/

July, 2003

John Pilger was named Media Personality of the Year, at this year’s EMMA awards, held on Friday 30th May.

At the annual ceremony – Britain’s biggest multicultural awards, held at the Grosvenor House Hotel – John’s daughter Zoe picked up the award on his behalf.

John is currently filming in Afghanistan for his latest Carlton documentary…

Speaking from there, he said: “The value of this award is that it is the result of a nationwide vote among Britain’s multicultural community.”

The judges cited Pilger’s Carlton documentaries… They commented that John Pilger “goes the extra mile to bring us the alternative truth.”

John Pilger has been named the winner of one of the world’s most distinguished environmental and development prizes. The Sophie Prize was established in 1997 in Oslo and is awarded to “individuals or an organisation that, in a pioneering and particularly creative way, has pointed to alternatives to the present development development system.”

John Pilger, says the President of the Sophie Foundation, Elin Ene, “has, in his documentaries, articles and books and through his integrity, thoroughness and courage, strengthened democracy and human dignity. He has managed to engage the public — morally and politically — for the protection of the powerless.”

Pilger is the first journalist to be awarded the Sophie Prize, which will be presented by the Norwegian Minister of the Environment on 12 June.

Mr. Pilger is author of book “The New Rulers of the World” (published by Verso)
John Pilger’s biography is at http://pilger.carlton.com/home/biography


We recommend:

– The same author: “Acts of murder!”

– Professor Michel Chossudovsky: “Dismantling Yugoslavia – colonizing Bosnia”

ACTS OF MURDER

ACTS OF MURDER

Up to 38 aircraft have been shot down or crashed.
This is suppressed, of course.

[British] The Guardian,
May 18, 1999


By John Pilger

For fair use only
Published under the provision of
U.S. Code, Title 17, section 107.

 * * * 

Quote:

The room is filled with the bodies of children killed by Nato in Surdulica in Serbia. Several are recognisable only by their sneakers. A dead infant is cradled in the arms of his father. These pictures and many others have not been shown in Britain; it will be said they are too horrific. But minimising the culpability of the British state when it is engaged in criminal action is normal; censorship is by omission and misuse of language. The media impression of a series of Nato ‘blunders’ is false. Anyone scrutinising the unpublished list of targets hit by Nato is left in little doubt that a DELIBERATE TERROR CAMPAIGN is being waged against the civilian population of Yugoslavia.

Eighteen hospitals and clinics and at least 200 nurseries, schools, colleges and students’ dormitories have been destroyed or damaged, together with housing estates, hotels, libraries, youth centres, theatres, museums, churches and 14th-century monasteries on the World Heritage list. Farms have been bombed, their crops set on fire. As Friday’s bombing of the Kosovo town of Korisa shows, there is no discrimination between Serbs and those being ‘saved’. Every day, three times more civilians are killed by Nato than the daily estimate of deaths of Kosovans in the months prior to the bombing.

The British people are not being told about a policy designed largely by their government to cause such criminal carnage. The dissembling of politicians and the lies of ‘spokesmen’ set much of the news agenda. There is no sense of the revulsion felt throughout most of the [Western] world for this wholly illegal action… and for the bellicose antics of Blair, Cook and Robertson, who have made themselves into international caricatures.

‘There was no need of censorship of our dispatches. We were our own censors,’ wrote Philip Gibbs, the Times correspondent in 1914-18. The silence is different now; there is the illusion of saturation coverage, but the reality is a sameness and repetition and, above all, political safety for the perpetrators.

A few days before the killing of make-up ladies and camera operators in the Yugoslav television building, Jamie Shea, Nato’s man, wrote to the International Federation of Journalists: ‘There is no policy to attack television and radio transmitters.’ Where were the cries of disgust from among the famous names at the BBC, John Simpson apart? Who interrupted the mutual back-slapping at last week’s Royal Television Society awards? Silence. The news from Shepherd’s Bush is that BBC presenters are to wear pinks, lavender and blues which ‘will allow us to be a bit more conversational in the way we discuss stories’.

Here is some of the news they leave out. The appendix pages of the Rambouillet ‘accords’, which have not been published in Britain, show Nato’s agenda was to occupy not just Kosovo, but all of Yugoslavia. This was rejected, not just by Milosevic, but by the elected Yugoslav parliament, which proposed a UN force to monitor a peace settlement: a genuine alternative to bombing. Clinton and Blair ignored it.

Britain is attacking simultaneously two countries which offer no threat. Every day Iraq is bombed and almost none of it is news. Last week, 20 civilians were killed in Mosul, and a shepherd and his family were bombed. The sheep were bombed. In the last 18 months, the Blair government has dropped more bombs than the Tories dropped in 18 years.

Nato is suffering significant losses. Reliable alternative sources in Washington have counted up to 38 aircraft crashed or shot down, and an undisclosed number of American and British special forces killed. This is suppressed, of course.

Anti-bombing protests reverberate around the world: 100,000 people in the streets of Rome (including 182 members of the Italian parliament), thousands in Greece and Germany, protests taking place every night in colleges and town halls across Britain. Almost none of it is reported. Is it not extraordinary that no national opinion poll on the war has been published since April 30?

‘Normalisation,’ wrote the American essayist Edward Herman, depends on ‘a division of labour in doing and rationalising the unthinkable, with the direct brutalising and killing done by one set of individuals… [and] others working on improved technology (a better crematory gas, a longer burning and more adhesive Napalm). It is the function of experts and the mainstream media to normalise the unthinkable for the general public.’

This week, the unthinkable will again be normalised when Nato triples the bombing raids to 700 a day. This includes blanket bombing by B-52s. Blair and Clinton and the opaque-eyed General Clark, apologist for the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, are killing and maiming hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent people in the Balkans. No contortion of intellect and morality, nor silence, will diminish the truth that these are acts of murder. And until there is a revolt by journalists and broadcasters, they will continue to get away with it. That is the news.

(End quote)<


Follow this link to see the list of downed NATO aircraft.


 

The facts about Mr. Pilger that follow were taken from:
http://pilger.carlton.com/July, 2003
John Pilger was named Media Personality of the Year, at this year’s EMMA awards, held on Friday 30th May.

At the annual ceremony – Britain’s biggest multicultural awards, held at the Grosvenor House Hotel – John’s daughter Zoe picked up the award on his behalf.

John is currently filming in Afghanistan for his latest Carlton documentary…

Speaking from there, he said: “The value of this award is that it is the result of a nationwide vote among Britain’s multicultural community.”

The judges cited Pilger’s Carlton documentaries… They commented that John Pilger “goes the extra mile to bring us the alternative truth.”

John Pilger has been named the winner of one of the world’s most distinguished environmental and development prizes. The Sophie Prize was established in 1997 in Oslo and is awarded to “individuals or an organisation that, in a pioneering and particularly creative way, has pointed to alternatives to the present development development system.”

John Pilger, says the President of the Sophie Foundation, Elin Ene, “has, in his documentaries, articles and books and through his integrity, thoroughness and courage, strengthened democracy and human dignity. He has managed to engage the public — morally and politically — for the protection of the powerless.”

Pilger is the first journalist to be awarded the Sophie Prize, which will be presented by the Norwegian Minister of the Environment on 12 June.

Mr. Pilger is author of book “The New Rulers of the World” (published by Verso)
John Pilger’s biography is at http://pilger.carlton.com/home/biography

 


We recommend:

– From the same author:
“NATO morality? Don’t make me laugh!”

Desperate attempt to justify NATO aggression

As no UN resolution could be misinterpreted as an excuse for attack on sovereign Yugoslavia Clinton Administration was desperately looking for any loophole in the international law to justify the crime. They found NONE. The only thing left then was to invent one. The Big Lie was simplified to boil down to one word: GENOCIDE! The United States was to breach all international law and all decency under excuse that it is fighting to prevent genocide… But of course there was no genocide in the fact that one thousand people (on both sides!) were killed in Kosovo conflict in the year preceding NATO’s attack.

Here presented New York Times document is shocking in its honesty and was never again repeated in the Western press and, to our knowledge, it was never again referred to in any other Western article.

Here are the key quotes:

The New York Times, Sunday, April 4, 1999, page 7, Early edition:

QUOTE:

…[A] word usually avoided by policy makers is being uttered ever more frequently to describe events in Kosovo: GENOCIDE.

[…] Policy makers in the United States and Europe are invoking the word to help provide a legal justification for their military campaign against Serbia.

[…]

A broad spectrum of legal scholars agree that there is currently NO simple, straignhtforward or obvious LEGAL BASIS for the bombing of Serbian targets to be found in treaties, the United Nations’ Charter or binding resolutions or *ANY* OTHER WRITTEN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL CODE.

(End quote)

The integral quote
follows this analysis.

Well, there you have it — spelled very clearly: The legal experts of past and present colonial powers now known as “NATO powers” worked hard in trying to find any (absolutely any!) loophole in the international law in order to justify aggression on Yugoslavia. The legal experts of both Europe and USA came out empty handed. The end result of their brainstorming was that: THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THE AGGRESSION. THERE IS NO WRITTEN (what else!?) INTERNATIONAL LEGAL CODE THAT CAN BE MISINTERPRETED AND USED AS AN EXCUSE FOR MASS-BOMBING (i.e. MASS MURDER AT RANDOM!)

But do not worry dear reader.

Do not forget: we are talking here about the NATO murder club. This is a club which almost exclusively consists of nations who “owned” other peoples and nations; a club of oppressors who committed countless crimes of genocide all across the globe. United States; “the moral leader” of the club has cleansed some 160 peoples from the face of the Earth – from sea to shiny sea – all with perfectly good intention of spreading white culture. This is now called pioneering spirit.

The club includes Great Britain, now only a remnant of the Evil Empire which “owned” half of the planet and which destroyed, mutilated countless peoples. It includes Germany which is a country that industrialized genocide during Second World war; the country guilty of starting two world wars that cost some hundred million lives. It includes other nations of Western “culture” — the culture of genocide — countries like France, Belgium, Holland,… countries that pillaged Asia, Africa… countries that still posses far away islands in Atlantic and Pacific but who were “deeply concerned” when indigenous Serbs of Krajina and Bosnia took arms to protect their ancestral lands and property; to protect their families, their Christian heritage and their very right to exist. These Serbs were called “thugs”, “oppressors”, “land grabbers” and even “conquerors” – while living on the lands that they inhabited, as a majority population for many centuries. The Serbs were called all those names by true thugs, oppressors and land grabbers.

So what was the trouble for these Westerners – the traditional liars and murderers – to come with just another lie?

You see the Western tradition is not simply bash-then-bomb. It is more complicated than that. In their own eyes they have to justify the appalling crimes they are about to commit. They have to see themselves as doing some good. First, they always try to LEGALIZE the monstrosities. This is why Hitler did not just start murdering Jews. He had to find excuse first (burning of Reichstag,… whatever). Then he issued LAWS that absolved the future criminals from murdering Jewish men, women and helpless children. Finally, Hitler tried to convince the world that he is doing this “hard work” only in order to preserve peace and justice. He tried to convince the world that he is doing the world a favor. He is to get rid the world of “the parasites.”

Of course one can easily see the traits of Western culture — of Hitler, Mussolini, Machiavelli — in what NATO was to do to Yugoslavia and to the Serbian people in particular. As Machiavelli would say it: “The end justify the means” and “The Might is RIGHT!”.

To add insult to injury US and NATO will not only cleanse *ALL* Serbs from Krajina (where Serbs settled in 1578), from large swaths of Bosnia (where the Serbs settled in 7th century) – the Serbs will be expelled from Kosovo; the very cradle of the Serbian civilization. NATO will do terror bombing of roads, bridges, factories, schools, hospitals, foreign embassies,… and even graveyards… and at the end of the day NATO will form and pay “Tribunal” at the Hague where all Serbs who dared fight in order to prevent the repeated genocide over their people will be declared war criminals.

All Serbs of importance — all key politicians, all generals from Serbia, Bosnia and Krajina — will be declared war criminals.

To pull this appalling crime of denying one whole nation – the Serbs – the right to exist on their ancient lands the West was following the advise of their moral and ideological leader – Hitler – who taught them that the Big Lie has better chance to fool a common mind than any small one.

And what bigger lie could there be but to accuse the Serbs — the nation who suffered repeated genocide over centuries — of no less then GENOCIDE!?

Here is your rare chance to see the admission of how the West tried to excuse its inexcusable crime:


THE RATIONALE

A *WORD* Bolsters Case
For Allied Intervention

By Neil A. Lewis


The New York Times,
Sunday, April 4, 1999,
page 7, Early edition.


For fair use only
Published under the provision of
U.S. Code, Title 17, section 107.

 * * * 

NOTE: Our comments are in [square brackets].

INTEGRAL QUOTE:

Washington, April 3 – From the brief room at the State Department to the corridors of Whitehall in London and NATO headquarters in Brussels, a word usually avoided by policy makers is being uttered ever more frequently to describe events in Kosovo: GENOCIDE.

It is not used merely to cudgel the Yugoslav leader, Slobodan Milosevic, and to warn that he could be held culpable for atrocities and to press him to stop. Nor is it used solely to place him in the public mind squarely in the ranks of this century’s tyrants and to ally Americans and Europeans to defeat him.

Policy makers in the United States and Europe are invoking the word

to help provide a legal justification for their military campaign against Serbia. It is one based in part on concepts of humanitarian law, where no word is more evocative.

At the same time, the public invocation of genocide – something political leaders had been distinctly reluctant to do during the strife in Bosnia and Rwanda – is itself helping to create a new model of international law that may be used to justify similar interventions in sovereign countries.

A broad spectrum of legal scholars agree that there is currently NO simple, straignhtforward or obvious LEGAL BASIS for the bombing of Serbian targets to be found in treaties, the United Nations’ Charter or binding resolutions or *ANY* OTHER WRITTEN INTERNATIONAL LEGAL CODE.

“The traditional view of international law would clearly prohibit what is happening.” Professor Abraham Chayes, of the Harvard Law School, said in an interview.

One feature of this approach is to bypass the United Nations whose Charter is the fundamental legal document on the international peace and security. In fact, the Charter explicitly forbids regional alliances like NATO from taking military action without first seeking the Security Council’s prmission. United States policy makers did not seek such authorization, officials have acknowledged, in part because of Russia and China would be expected to veto it.

While [Clinton] Administration officials said they did not set out to create any new broad precedents for military intervention, they have insisted that there is an adequate basis for their action.

Col. P.J. Crowley, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said, “We believe there is legitimate and sufficient legal grounds for the United States and NATO for the use of force in this situation.” He cited two recent United Nations resolutions calling on Yugoslavia to take measures to end the suffering in Kosovo. Those resolutions do not, however, contain any authorization of the use of force.

A senior Administration official said that the resolutions have been made to “support rather than authorize” the use of force. The official who spoke on the condition of anonymity [!], said that there are several factors the United States and its allies believe provide a legal foundations for the military action.

The “humanitarian crisis unfolding” is prominent among them, the official said. In addition to accusations of genocide, the official said, there are “abhorrent crimes against humanity that violate international law and that are every bit as serious as genocide,”

Genocide is defined in a specific convention, which the United States and Yugoslavia have both signed, that does not explicitly provide for armed intervention as remedy.

Russian and Yugoslav leaders have loudly asserted that the bombing is a clear violation of international law, which traditionally elevates the value of national sovereignty in most situations.

But Professor Chayes, a former State Department legal adviser, said that while there is little traditional justification for the current bombing campaign, “some people have argued for a humanitarian exception allowing for the intervention with force to prevent large-scale violations of human rights.”

“That certainly is in many ways a new idea in terms of international law and raises a lot of difficult questions,” he added.

In the amorphous field of humanitarian law, “There’s a great deal of debate about what the threshold for intervention should be,” said Diane F. Orentlicher, a human rights lawyer and law professor at American University.” But the treaty does provide a bright line in saying that states should not stand idly by when there is genocide but have a duty to put stop to it. It is the legal embodiment of the vow ‘never again.'”

The [anonymous] Administration official said that another important element of the humanitarian factor is the legacy of the Nuremberg Tribunal set up after World War II, which prohibits systematic abuses of civilians, even by a state within its own borders.

W. Michael Reisman, a professor of international law at Yale University, said he believes that what is occuring in Central [sic!] Europe “has produced a critical moment and a basic change in international legal practice.” Although he believes that international law has been used to deal with humanitarian issues, Professor Reisman said what is happening in Central [sic!] Europe is of an unprecedented scale.[!?]

“We now have something that goes far beyond the usual notion of using force for self-defense,” he said “We have a massive use of force against a Government over inappropriate treatment of their own nationals.” It may also bring about the redrawing of a sovereign state’s borders.

Traditionally, the cases in which military intervention has been sanctioned for humanitarian reasons have applied to campaigns with limited objectives. Professor Ruth Wedgwood of the Yale Law School said the classic example is the Israeli raid at Entebbe, Uganda, in 1976 to rescue its citizens from terrorists who had hijacked their plane. “The idea of humanitarian bombing is much heavier.” she said.

[Actually, it is exactly Orwellian. “Humanitarian bombing!” is contradiction in terms and represent a nice example of Orwellian “double speak.”]

Nonetheless, Professor Wedgwood said she believes what is happening may provide a model for the future. [Would this model then be reimplemented to punish America – the main violator of human rights? Should US be humanitarily bombed?] “We are pushing the envelope, being legally innovative,” she said.

What underlines the discussion is a deeply held anxiety among international legal authorities about how fully international law is respected by political leaders. International law has traditionally been derided as something to which policy makers claim fealty when it is to their advantage and ignore or interpret very loosely when it is not on their side.

Professor Thomas M. Franck, of the New York University Law School, said he believes that the allies can justify their action by arguing that even if they have violated the United Nations Charter and international law, it was necessary to counteract even greater violations by the Belgrade Government [which was trying to defend integrity of its own country against separatists and terrorists armed, trained and equipped by the West] of laws that prohibit a government from abusing its own citizens [who like to carry bazookas on their sholders].

(End quote)


FBI’s definition of terrorism:

 

Start quote:

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (28 C.F.R., Section 0.85) as…

…the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

(End quote)

The above quote was taken from
FBI’s web site at:
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror99.pdf
The above link was last checked on:
July 25, 2003

 

 

NATO’s use of force and wanton violence against Yugoslav citizens and property was done purposely and in order to intimidate and coerce Yugoslav government in furtherance of Western political and social objectives. As we have seen in the analysis above this aggression and terror bombing was utterly UNLAWFUL. In other words, NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia fully complies with FBI’s definition of terrorism.

Conclusion:
NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia clearly shows it as a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. The Serbs fully understand NATO acronym: NORTH ATLANTIC TERRORIST ORGANIZATION.

We doubt that FBI will arrest NATO’s leaders for their terrorist act and for mass murder of several thousand Yugoslav civilians.


Recommend reading:

John Pilger:
“NATO’s DELIBETARE TERROR CAMPAIGN”

The Spectator Editorial:
“Nato’s only policy was to destroy Serbia’s civilian infrastructure.”

Professor Michel Chossudovsky:
“Dismantling Yugoslavia – colonizing Bosnia”