[ Home ] [ Library ] [ Links ] [ Search ] [ Email ]

Desperate attempt to justify NATO aggression

Assembled by Petar Makara

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.

We recommend:

- 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"

Back to:

[ NATO's attack on Yugoslavia ]

The truth belongs to us all.

Feel free to download, copy and redistribute.

Last revised: July 25, 2003