|
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 |
by Ron Forthofer
Originally in the Boulder Daily Camera, 4/14/99
The NATO attack on Serbia is supposedly being done for humanitarian reasons. Pardon me if I don’t believe this claim. The idea that President Clinton was so concerned about 2000 deaths in Kosovo rings hollow, especially given his administration’s lack of concern about far worse situations elsewhere. Where was the humanitarian concern in 1996 when now Secretary of State Albright said that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was ‘worth the price’? Where was the concern over the slaughter in Rwanda? Where is the concern about the plight of the Kurds in Turkey, who face brutal oppression at the hands of our ally? Unfortunately, this administration and its predecessors have seldom acted on humanitarian grounds.
The U.S. media has again swallowed hook, line and sinker another of Clinton’s whoppers despite his past lack of candor. Just last year the media accepted Clinton’s story that we were bombing a chemical weapons plant in Sudan when in reality it was a pharmaceutical plant. Although this fact was pointed out just days after the attack by the British press, it took the U.S. media almost another week to correct the story - and they buried their correction. This and other media failures make one wonder if our vaunted free press is little more than a propaganda tool for the U.S. government at times.
I can’t say for sure why the U.S. chose to intervene this time, but I can offer some possible reasons. First, perhaps NATO is bombing Serbia to establish the precedent that NATO will no longer be bound by its own charter or by international law. NATO has now shown that it will be the aggressor, and that it will act beyond its original mandate. Nations around the world are now forewarned that nobody is outside NATO’s reach, international law be damned. Or second, perhaps the attack against Serbia is based on the desire of U.S. and European corporations to gain control of the vast state-owned mineral wealth in Kosovo.
A third possible reason for the bombing is to weaken the UN as a peacekeeping organization. The NATO bombings have damaged the UN’s standing because the NATO nations have set a precedent for a group of nations to act as vigilantes. The U.S. has frequently acted as a vigilante, but this was a first for NATO. The U.S. has also undermined the UN’s reputation by using UNSCOM to spy on Iraq and by attacking Iraq last December while the Security Council was meeting about Iraq. The U.S. is also the greatest deadbeat at the UN and our debt prevents the UN from being able to perform some of its crucial missions. With a weakened UN, the U.S. can more easily justify NATO’s intervention around the world. The U.S. clearly prefers to work through NATO, which is far easier for us to control, than through the UN.
Let’s now examine the results achieved since the NATO bombings began. More Kosovo Albanians have been killed and hundreds of thousands have been driven from their homes by Serbian forces. The bombings have also led to destabilizing the areas around Kosovo, to strengthening Serbian President Milosevic, and to reducing the chance for nuclear arms reduction.
Instead of admitting that bombing is a flawed approach, Clinton’s team of Gore, Albright, Berger and Cohen choose more bombing. They have learned nothing about the limits of air power from the past weeks or from Iraq, Vietnam and World War II. This team has demonstrated either (1) its gross incompetence by not being prepared for Milosevic’s actions or (2) criminal behavior by realizing the likely outcome and going ahead with the attack.
It is past time for the UN to take control. Bombing until we win, as some have suggested, is certainly not a humanitarian strategy; no one wins as long as the bombing continues. The price for the Kosovo Albanians is too high. Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair admits that "You can't bomb your way to the conference table," although he seems to apply this principle only to Northern Ireland.
The Security Council should authorize Kofi Annan, the Secretary General, to follow up on Milosevic’s opening for negotiations. Secretary General Annan should arrange a cease-fire and begin discussions with the goals of the safe return of refugees, autonomy for Kosovo, and a lifting of sanctions against Serbia. UN peacekeepers, excluding NATO forces, should be deployed to protect both Kosovo Albanians and Serbians. People trained in nonviolent methods and conflict resolution should also work in Kosovo and train the local population to resolve problems nonviolently.