|
Home Monthly Topics Index of Issues Articles About Us Links Help Wanted Contact Us |
|
|
| January Race, Class, and Civil Rights |
| February Poverty, Homelessness, and Unemployment |
| March Imperialism and Economic Injustice |
| April Environment |
| May Labor |
| June Population |
| July Violence |
| August Nuclear weapons |
| September Education, Information, and Communication |
| October Democracy and Religion |
| November Hunger and Health Care |
| December Children |
A Humantarian Effort?
by Ron Forthofer
Originally in the Boulder Daily Camera, 5/21/99
For example, headlines in the New York Times on June 7th screamed "Kosovo Talks Break Down As Serbs Balk Over Details." Then, buried on page 17 in the June 8th edition, reporter Elizabeth Becker admiting that it was a ploy by NATO which caused the delay. "NATO generals had tried to force Yugoslavia to sign a legally binding military document on a peacekeeping force that contained no mention of the United Nations." NATO, not Yugoslavia, was violating the agreement which called for the peacekeepers to be under UN auspices. However, most of the media failed to report this follow-up story, the pundits continued to blame Milosevic for the delay, and most people still believe that Milosevic was the problem.
Where was the coverage of President Clinton’s violation of the 1973 War Powers Act? According to this Act, U.S. forces must be withdrawn after 62 days if Congress didn’t approve their use. May 25th was the deadline for Clinton to obtain Congressional approval for the use of the U.S. military against Yugoslavia. Well, Congress didn’t approve their use. However, May 25th came and went almost without notice in the U.S. media. Shouldn’t this violation of U.S. law warrant a front-page story? Isn’t this crime more important than the Lewinsky scandal? In addition, where was major coverage of the suit brought by almost 30 members of Congress, including two of Colorado’s representatives, against Clinton’s violation of the law?
The media covered the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and its charge that Milosevic was a war criminal. However, it did not cover the suits charging NATO with war crimes brought to the same tribunal. There was no question about NATO’s guilt as it is a violation of the first article of the Geneva Convention to attack civilian targets or targets that mostly serve civilians such as water supplies, electric power plants, and TV stations.
Perhaps there was no story because the media agreed with NATO spokesperson Jamie Shea who brushed off concerns about NATO war crimes. He said that "NATO is the friend of the Tribunal... NATO countries are those that have provided the finances to set up the Tribunal, we are among the majority financiers." (See IPA press release of 5/27/99.) Shea clearly knew that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Shouldn’t Shea’s comment have warranted a story? Shea called into question the whole tribunal by pointing out it was a political tool to carry out the wishes of its paymasters. The timing of the charge against Milosevic certainly reinforced Shea’s claim.
In addition, the media failed to report that 20 high-ranking judges of the Greek Council of State, headed by its most senior vice-president Michalis Dekleris, found NATO guilty of an unprecedented and barbaric attack against Yugoslavia. The judges pointed out that the NATO offensive against Yugoslavia inaugurated a period of lawlessness in international relations. They also stated that "this attack is accompanied by the revival of black propaganda that attempts to exploit the misfortunes of the refugees to draw public attention away from the violation of international law." (See ZNet's article, Judges’ Bombshell "Verdict" Against NATO.)
Even now, approximately four months after the Rambouillet ultimatums were issued, the mainstream media still fails to deal honestly with them. The media has yet to acknowledge that the main sticking point at Rambouillet was the demand for NATO’s occupation of the entire Yugoslav nation, not just of Kosovo. The U.S. was sure Milosevic could not and would not accept this demand. What is worse, some of the media were evidently aware of this demand since the Rambouillet conference and still have not reported about it. For confirmation, see the article in The Nation (June 14th) by George Kenney, a former State Department official, or a May 18 speech at the Cato Institute in Washington by Jim Jatras, a foreign policy aide to Senate Republicans. Jatras reported that a "senior Administration official told media at Rambouillet, under embargo" the following: "We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They need some bombing, and that's what they are going to get."
Finally, where were the stories pointing out that NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia violated the UN Charter and thus was a criminal act. The absence of these stories or the failure to treat them as the major issues is disturbing. Was the media afraid that its audience couldn’t handle the truth about our policies? Isn’t the role of media to inform, not to serve as a propaganda tool for the U.S. government and the military-industrial complex?
For more information see
- IPA press release of 4/29/99, New Attention to Unpublicized Provisions of Rambouillet
- IPA press release of 5/25/99 on Clinton's violation of the war powers act
- IPA press release of 6/4/99 on the claim that we set the bar to high at Rambouillet