The Nato-aggression against Yugoslavia from 1999 was a model of the new wars of conquest” _ «Current Concerns», n° 13, 28 March 2013 CC-2013_13

7/30/2019 The Nato-aggression against Yugoslavia from 1999 was a model of the new wars of conquest _ Current Concer

1/15

Current ConcernsThe international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility,

and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law

28 March 2013

No 13

ISSN 1664-7963

Current ConcernsPO BoxCH-8044 ZurichSwitzerland

Phone: +41 44 350 65 50Fax: +41 44 350 65 51

E-Mail: [email protected]: www.currentconcerns.ch English Edition of Zeit-Fragen

Current Concerns: Mr. Jovanovic, canyou present yoursel shortly or our read-ers and give us some inormation about

yoursel and your career?ivadin Jovanovic: In 1961 I graduatedrom the Faculty o Law at the Universi-ty o Belgrade; rom 1961 to 1964 I was atthe District Administration o New Bel-grade [a municipality o Belgrade]; rom1964-2000 I was in the diplomatic serviceo the Socialist Federal Republic o Yu-goslavia SFRY/Federal Republic o Yugo-slavia FRY: rom 1988-1993 as Ambassa-dor in Luanda, Angola, rom 1995-1998as Assistant Minister o Foreign Aairs,and rom 1988-2000 as Minister o For-eign Aairs. From1996-2002 I was ViceChairman o the Socialist Party o Serbiaor Foreign Aairs; 1996 I was Membero Parliament to the Parliament o Ser-bia and in 2000 to the Federal Parliamento Yugoslavia (2000). Books that I wrotear: The Bridges (2002), Abolishingthe State (2003), The Kosovo Mirror(2006).

Ater leaving the Ministry o Foreign A-

airs in November 2000 you joined the

Belgrade Forum or a World o Equals.Now you are the Chairman o this Asso-ciation What are your priorities?The priorities o the Forum are: the pro-motion o peace, tolerance and coopera-tion based on equality among individu-als, nations, and states. We stand or ullrespect o the international law, the basic

principles o international relations andthe role o the United Nations. Use orthreats o use o orce and military aggres-sions are not admissible means in solvinginternational problems. We consider thatthere are no humanitarian wars, or in-terventions. All interventions beginningwith the NATO aggression against Ser-bia (FRY) in 1999 up to now, regardlesson their ormal, public explanations, havebeen wars o conquest, some o them orgeo-strategic, some or economic benets.We promote human rights in their entire-ty, according to the UN-declaration in-cluding social, economic, cultural, health,employment and other human rights.

We try to meet our objectives throughvarious public debates, conerences, roundtables, seminars, on national and interna-tional levels. The Forum cooperates withassociations o similar aims, within Ser-bia, the region and worldwide.

We have seen some o very interestingbooks published by Belgrade Forum. Howdo you manage to maintain your publish-ing activity?

The Forum has published about 70 bookson dierent national and international is-sues, rom development policy in condi-tions o crisis, the status o Kosovo andMetohija and the Hague Tribunal to theNATO policy in the Balkans, on the or-

eign policy o Serbia, on Internationalterrorism and on the role o intellectuals.Some o our books have been distributedin many countries in all continents. Thisis the case, or example, o the book ti-tled NATO Aggression the Twilight othe West. Unortunately, or the lack oresources, only a ew o our books have

been published in oreign languages.Last month only we published three

new books one devoted to the great Ser-bian philosopher and academicianMihailo

Markovic, who was one o the co-ound-ers o the Belgrade Forum, the other titledFrom Nuremberg to Hague and a thirdFrom Aggression to Secession.* Promo-tions o our books in various towns in Ser-bia attract signicant attention.

All our activities, including writing andpublishing, are entirely based on volun-tary work. We never had, nor do we havetoday, a single person paid or the workdone within the Forum. Membership eesand donations, mainly rom Serbian dias-pora, are chie sources o the Forums in-come.

You have mentioned promotion o peaceto be one o your key objectives. But peo-

ples o your region have been victims owars in the last decade o the 20th cen-tury?True. The peoples o ormer Yugoslaviahave suered immensely, rst, rom thecivil wars in Bosnia and Croatia (1992-

1995), then rom the military aggressiono NATO (1999), rom sanctions and iso-lation and so on. Great many o themcontinue to suer today. Consider, or

The Nato-aggression against Yugoslavia rom 1999 wasa model o the new wars o conquest

Humanitarian interventions as a pretext or deployment o US-troops

Interview with ivadin Jovanovi, Former Minister o Foreign Aairs o the Federal Repbulic o Yugoslavia,

presently Chairman o the Belgrade Forum or a World o Equals

continued on page 2

In a broader sense it should be noted that NATO aggression marked a

strategic change in its nature: it abandoned the deensive and adopted

an oensive (aggressive) policy, authorizing itsel to intervene any

time at any spot on the globe. The UN, especially the UN Security

Council, had been disabled; international law and justice disregarded.

ivadin Jovanovic (Bild ev)

* Von Nrnberg nach Den HaagISBN 978-86-83965-7-3 [in serbischer Sprache]

Von der Aggression zur SezessionISBN 978-86-83965-9-7 [in serbischer Sprache]


2/15

No 13 28 March 2013 Current Concerns Page 2

example, the lie o close to hal a mil-lion o reugees and displaced personsliving in Serbia only, who are not per-mitted to return to their homes in Croatia

or in Kosovo and Metohija. Consequenc-es are still painul and will continue longin the uture. What to say o the conse-quences o cassette bombs and missileswith depleted uranium used by NATOin 1999 taking daily tolls in human livestoday and in centuries to come. Historywill prove that the peoples o ormer Yu-goslavia have been victims o the concepto the so called New World Order whichin act has been based on the policy odomination and exploitation.

Do you suggest that the oreign actors

are responsible or the break-up o Yugo-slavia, and not local ones?Local actors cannot be amnestied; theydo bear their responsibility, o course, ornot being prepared to compromise. Butthe prevailing analyses seem to be lack-ing due attention to the negative role oexternal actors. Now we have enoughproos that certain European powers al-ready in 1976 and 1977 had plans on howto rearrange the territory o SFRY, inother words, how to divide, or ragment itin order to suit their own interests.

Ater Titos death, nationalism and sep-aratism in various Yugoslav republics, aswell as separatism and terrorism in theSerbian Province o Kosovo and Metohija,had been encouraged, even assisted polit-ically, nancially, logistically and propa-ganda-wise. Later on certain mighty coun-tries have been involved in the civil warshelping one against the other side. Thosecountries almost openly had been support-ing a secession o Slovenia and Croatia,arming Croatia and Bosnia even duringthe UN arms embargo, encouraging andacilitating the incoming o mercenaries,including Mujahidin. On the other sideSerbia and Montenegro had been underisolation, sanctions and stigmatization.They had been treated as the only ones re-sponsible or the civil wars. That was notbased on acts, nor helpul in extinguish-ing the re.

Results?In the place o one state, now there

are six, economically unsustainable, pup-pet states, plus a seventh one in the o-ing, 18 governments1, six armies, six dip-lomatic services, etc. Foreign debt, which

in 1990 amounted to about 13.5 billionor the whole o the SFRY rose in 2012 toabout 200 billion o Euro or the six or-mer Yugoslav republics! Some o them be-came nancially enslaved. Who has ben-eted rom this? Until 1990 there was not

a single oreign military basis in the re-gion. Today, there are a number o oreign,mainly USA, bases, Bondsteel in Kosovoand Metohija being the largest in Europe.2To do what? To benet whom? Bosnia al-most 18 years ater the Dayton Accords isnot unctional; ten years ater the OhridAccords the Former Yugoslav Republic

o Macedonia (FYROM) is not unctionaland continues to be aced with prooundethnic divisions and tensions. The sta-tus o Kosovo and Metohija even14 yearsater UN Security Council Resolution1244 still remains unresolved. Tirana`sSali Berisha and PrishtinasHashim Thaciare publically advocating or the establish-ment o so called Greater Albania. Otherburning problems like unemploymentranging rom 30 to 70 per cent, poverty,hundreds o thousands o reugees anddisplaced persons, international organizedcrime, including tracking o human or-

gans, drugs, arms and immigrants, makethe picture o post Yugoslavias realitygrim and uncertain.

So, who has really beneted rom theragmentation o Yugoslavia?

Mentioning NATO intervention what areyour views now, 14 years ater?My views have not changed. This was anillegal, criminal and immoral attack on asovereign European state. Illegal becauseit violated all basic principles o interna-tional law, including the UN Charter, the

Helsinki Final Act and many internation-al conventions. It was undertaken withoutpermission o the UN Security Council.Criminal, because it was directed mainlyagainst civilians, civilian inrastructure,using orbidden armament such as chemi-cal, cassette bombs and missiles with de-pleted uranium. Immoral, because it wasbased on alse pretentions and on untruths.The leaders o NATO are responsible rsto all or killing o close to 4.000 and orwounding about 10.000 o persons, twothirds o whom were civilians. Direct ma-terial damages amounted to over 100 bil-lions o US dollars. The NATO aggressionsolved nothing, but it has provoked manynew problems. It was a war o conquestand not a humanitarian intervention.

Can you be more specifc?I have already mentioned some direct con-sequences. In a broader sense it shouldbe noted that NATO aggression markeda strategic change in its nature: it aban-doned the deensive and adopted an oen-sive (aggressive) policy, authorizing itselto intervene any time at any spot on the

globe. The UN, especially the UN Secu-rity Council, had been disabled; interna-tional law and justice disregarded.3

This was a long prepared rst war onEuropes soil ater the Second World War.It was a demonstration o US domination

in Europe, an expansion toward East, ajustication o spending on NATO evenater the dissolution the Warsaw Pact, aprecedent or uture interventions (A-ghanistan, Iraq, Libya).

It was the war imposed and directedby a non-European power with the conse-quence that it to stay on Europe`s soil ora long time.

The Aggression had marked a strate-gic change in Germanys policy adoptedater Second World War. By taking activepart in NATOs aggression against Serbia(FRY) Germany deviated rom its ownconstitution and widely opened the dooror combat roles away rom its territory,and or militarization.

Today we have on European soil moremilitary bases than at the peak o the ColdWar. Mushrooming o military bases start-ed ater the NATO aggression on Serbia(FRY). How to explain the expansion o

democracy all over the Continent and theprolieration o military bases at the sametime? I have not heard any convincing ex-planation. Something seems to be wrong.

And what is your opinion on the uture oBosnia?Bosnia and Herzegovina had existed asone o the six republics o SFRY based onconstituent equality o three peoples eachhaving a right o veto Muslims, Serbsand Croats. In that regard, it was consid-ered being small Yugoslavia. When in1992 the constitutional principle o con-sensus was violated in the way that Mus-lims and Croats declared or secessionignoring the Serbs option to stay withinYugoslavia, civil war erupted. The Day-

ton peace Accords were a success onlybecause they rearmed the principle oequality o the three constituent peoples,the equality o the two entities (Moslem-

Freedom, Democracy and

continued from page 1

continued on page 3

It was a demonstration o US

domination in Europe, an ex-

pansion toward East, a justica-

tion o spending on NATO even

ater the dissolution the Warsaw

Pact, a precedent or uture in-

terventions (Aghanistan, Iraq,Libya).

It was the war imposed and di-

rected by a non-European power

with the consequence that it to

stay on Europe`s soil or a long

time.


3/15


Croat Federation and Republica Srpska)and the principle o consensus.4 Thesebasic principles were enshrined in theConstitution which is an integral part othe Accords.

The main source o the current crisisis the ambition o the Moslem leaders inSarajevo to abolish the principle o con-sensus and to make a unitary state undertheir domination. In addition, they wouldlike also to change the division o the ter-ritory guaranteed by Dayton Accords ac-cording to which the Muslim-Croat Fed-eration controls 51 and Republica Srpska49 percent o the whole territory. To makethe problem more dicult, Muslims ortheir claims which obviously are contraryto Dayton stipulations, continue to enjoysupport rom some power centres, primar-

ily rom Washington and Berlin. Why theywant to urther weaken the Republica Srp-ska and strengthen the Moslems, I wouldrather not comment. These centres evenpressurize Serbias leaders to disciplinethe leaders in Banja Luka so that they ac-cept a revision o Dayton and the Consti-tution contrary to their interests which areinternationally guaranteed. Serbia as guar-antor o the Dayton Accords, rstly, hasno power to impose anything on the lead-ership o Republica Srpska and, second-ly, it is not in Serbias interest to weak-

en the Republica Srpska thus provokinginternal tensions and a renewed spiral oethnic tensions and even clashes in theirown neighbourhood.

I believe that Bosnia and Herzegovi-na should be let alone to politically ndsolutions that suite the interests o thethree equal constituent peoples and thetwo equal entities. The Dayton Accordsare not perect. But there could hardlybe a better compromise then the DaytonAccords. Brussels claims that a central-ization o power in Sarajevo would ap-parently upgrade eciency o the state

administration. Authors o this view seemto be disregarding that it is the principle oconsensus and decentralization which ledto re-establishing o peace, the maintain-ing o integrity and providing the senseo reedom and democracy. Finally, in

my opinion, the Oce o the High Rep-resentative ater 17 years o being at thesame time Law-making, Prosecution andJudiciary has become an anachronism andshould be disbanded. Bosnia and Herzego-vina is the only member o the UN (evena member o the Security Council), theOSCE and other organizations, where aHigh Representative enacts laws, removespresidents, prime ministers and ministers!

Serbia, being a small, peace loving

country, having neither an imperial his-tory nor imperial ambitions today, in ouropinion, should remain a neutral country,something like Switzerland. Concerninghuman rights, we stand or the concept othe UN Universal Declaration o HumanRights (1948) which demands respect oall human rights including the one to co-operate.

My colleagues o CC once said that Ser-bia is a thorn in the conscience o theWestern world. What is your opinion on

this?What I can say is that the leaders and pol-iticians o certain European countrieshave been ar rom neutral, constructiveor moral during the Yugoslav and Koso-vo crisis. Some o them actively advocatedand participated in the NATO aggressionwhich let serious long term problems orthe whole o Europe. Together with lead-ers o the USA, they at least knew aboutnancing, training and arming Albanianterrorists and separatists in Kosovo andMetohija rom their states. UN SecurityCouncil documents conrm this.5 I may

not be quite objective, but I am certain-ly sincere. In my opinion, there is little tobe proud o Europes role toward Serbiaand Serbs in the last 20 years. I have beensurprised by the measure o distortions,double standards and immoral statementspracticed by certain politicians who rep-resent European values and civilization.And it would not be worth talking about ittoday, i the lessons had been drawn romthe past. Unortunately, new politicians othose countries continue with the samepolicies and the same dishonest methods

toward Serbia.Governments o leading western coun-

tries initiated an outrageous anti-Serbi-an propaganda campaign based on preju-dices, dishonest abrications and even onordinary lies. I still remember, or exam-

ple, the invention o the German deenseministerRudol Scharping6 o the allegedHorse shoe plan. The so called massa-cre o civilians in Racak which servedas a justication or the start o the mil-itary aggression also proved to be alse.The report o the ndings o the interna-tional orensic experts team headed by theFinish doctor HelenRanta, which actedunder EU auspices, has never been pub-lished. Apparently, it was lost somewhere

in Brussels!7

What are the lessons o the NATO aggres-sion or you and the world?The NATO aggression against Serbia(FRY) in 1999 was a model o the newwars o conquest covered by the phrasehumanitarian intervention. Everybodyby now should know that this was not hu-manitarian intervention and that there areno humanitarian wars. That was a waro conquest to take away rom Serbia itsprovince o Kosovo and Metohija and to

install there USA troops or strategic rea-sons. This was a precedent which was ol-lowed according to my opinion to exportthe capitalistic social system based on sin-gle Washingtons doctrine, which is equal-ly unacceptable today as it was unaccepta-ble to export o the socialist system basedon Moscows doctrine in the sixties o thelast century.Freedom o choice should bethe sovereign right o every country. It isnot right to divide peoples as i some havea right granted to them by Good to de-cide on what is good even or every othernation in the world. History has thought,

at least us in Europe, that such ideologywould be a source o great danger.

Where is the solution or the Kosovoissue?The Problems o Kosovo and Metohijaare centuries long, deep rooted ones. TheProvince is the birth place o the Serbi-an state, its culture, religion and nationalidentity. About 1.300 medieval monaster-ies and churches, including some UNE-SCO proclaimed as world heritage, arestill ound there. Over 150 have been de-

stroyed by vandals and extremists. To saythat the basic problems there have beenin the eld o human rights o Albanianswould be a simplication. To solve the es-



continued on page 4

Serbia and the Serbian nation have always through history been part

and parcel o Europe, its culture, progress and civilization; this is the

same today and, I believe, it will stay so in the uture. Nations have

deep roots and aces that do not change overnight. In my opinion it

would be useul i any prejudicing and one sided views characteristic

o the public approaches to Serbia and Serbs in the recent past would

be replaced by more balanced and non biased views.

Serbia, being a small, peace

loving country, having neither

an imperial history nor impe-

rial ambitions today, in our

opinion, should remain a neu-

tral country, something like

Switzerland.


4/15


sential problems which I believe are interritorial expansionism o Albanians sup-ported by western countries, primarily bythe USA, Germany and Great Britain, allpolitical actors need wisdom, long term

view and patience, qualities that seem tobe astonishingly in decit.I still believe in a compromise solution

based on UN Security Council Resolution1244 o June 10th, 1999. That resolution,like a number o other UN Security Coun-cil decisions preceding it, has repeatedlyguaranteed the sovereignty and territorialintegrity o FRY (succeed by Serbia) andsubstantial autonomy or Kosovo and Me-tohija within FRY (Serbia). In the mean-time great many serious mistakes havebeen committed, rst and oremost, bythe so called international community, in-

cluding EU, then by Serbian authorities.Those mistakes generally can be summedup as serious deviation rom the UN Se-curity Council Resolution 1244. In March2008, Albanian the leadership in Prishtina,declared the illegal, unilateral secession othe Province rom Serbia, proclaiming theso called Republic o Kosovo. While theProvince even today remains under UNSecurity Council mandate, the UN hasnot reacted. The USA, Germany, Turkey,Great Britain almost immediately recog-nized this secession. By now, 22 out o

27 EU members8

ollowed the suite. Ser-bia has not, and I believe, shall not recog-nize secession o 17 percent o its terri-tory. Most o the UN members, includingtwo, out o ve, permanent members othe Security Council, Russia and China,have not.

Last year the dialog has started underthe EU auspices between representativeso Belgrade and Prishtina on solving someconcrete issues concerning everyday lieo citizens. This may be good presumed itdoes not prejudice the key issue the sta-tus o the Province as envisaged by UN

Security Council Resolution 1244. I per-sonally would like to see that the dialogproduces the time table or ree and saereturn to their homes o about 250 000Serbs and other non-Albanians who livein miserable conditions in various townso Serbia and Montenegro. Unortunately,so ar, this issue has not come to the agen-da, partially because o the lack o interesto Prishtina, partially because o the dou-ble standard policy o the West.

There is no viable solution imposedby orce or by blackmailing Serbias gov-

ernment. The so called deal sponsored bycertain western countries territory (Ko-sovo) or membership (o Serbia) in EUand more oreign investments may seemlogic considering Serbias economy inshambles, but I do not believe it would

work. It would not be air, not balanced. Itwould not be acceptable by Serbs knowingtheir history, culture and pride.

What is the relationship between Serbiaand the EU?The EU is traditionally the most impor-tant economic partner o Serbia. Histor-

ic, social and cultural links remain strong.Hundreds o thousands o Serbian citi-zens and their descendants work and livein EU member countries. Serbia is a can-didate or membership in EU. This is re-fected in applying the method o carrotand stick, in an endless list o conditionstowards Serbia which have not been ap-plied, nor are they applied now to anyother candidate country. The EU expectsSerbia to normalize relations with Ko-sovo. When Belgrade reacts that it willnever recognize Kosovo, Brussels com-missars react that this is not yet on the

agenda, that the EU demands only theIBM (integrated border management) sys-tem on the borders with Kosovo, dissolu-tion o Serbias institutions in Kosovo, no-tably in Northern Kosovo, signing o anagreement on good neighbourly relations,exchange o ambassadors, then that Serbiadoes not obstruct Kosovos membership inthe UN, and alike! Imagine that dimen-sion o hypocrisy. They do not demand adiplomatic note, or any written statementon recognition, but they certainly demandrelations equaling those between sover-

eign states!I support close cooperation between

Serbia and the EU in all elds o mutu-al interest without any obstacles: ree fowo goods, capital, people, inormation.Having regard that the EU at present doesnot treat Serbia as sovereign partner, Ser-bia should adopt a policy o good neigh-bourly relations with the EU and reezethe present policy dening membershipin the EU as the only alternative. It can-not be in the best interest o Serbia to giveaway more or less. Openness, coopera-tion without any administrative obstaclesand a good neighbourly relation betweenSerbia and the EU would be quite a rea-sonable approach or the oreseeable u-ture.

How can we in Germany, Switzerland andother European countries help that your

people are better in every way?The best way to help not Serbia only, butthe understanding in Europe and a returnto the real values o our civilization, isto always deend the truth, to avert dis-tortion, semi-truths and immorality o all

kinds. Serbia and the Serbian nation havealways through history been part and par-cel o Europe, its culture, progress andcivilization; this is the same today and, Ibelieve, it will stay so in the uture. Na-tions have deep roots and aces that do not

change overnight. In my opinion it wouldbe useul i any prejudicing and one sidedviews characteristic o the public ap-proaches to Serbia and Serbs in the recentpast would be replaced by more balancedand non biased views.

We understand that the Belgrade Forum

will be hosting an important internationalconerence next March in Belgrade?The Forum and some other independ-ent, non partisan associations in Serbiaare planning an international conerenceunder the title Aggressions, militariza-tion and world crises, to be held in Bel-grade, March 22 and 23rd, 2014. This con-erence and other accompanying eventswill mark the 15th anniversary o the be-ginning o the 1999 NATO-aggressionagainst Serbia (FRY) and pay honour tothe victims o the aggression. We plan toinvite prominent scholars and intellectuals

rom European and other countries to ad-dress the burning issues o military inter-ventionism, expansion o military budg-ets, the militarization o political decisionmaking and the world crisis which, in ouropinion is not only a nancial and eco-nomic, but also a crisis o the internation-al world order.

* ISBN 978-86-83965-7-3 [in serbischerSprache] und ISBN 978-86-83965-9-7 [inserbischer Sprache]

1 Bosnia and Herzegovina having one central gov-

ernment, two governments o the entities andplus 10 cantons governments in the Federationo Bosnia and Herzegovina

2 The war against Yugoslavia was waged in orderto correct the mistake o general Eisenhower made

during the Second World War. For strategic reasonsit was necessary to station American soldiers thereaterwards. Willy Wimmer, letter to Chancellor

Gerhard Schroeder, dated May 2nd, 2000, Aktualnapitanja spoljne politike (Current Foreign policy is-

sues), Belgrade Forum or a World o Equals, Bel-grade, 2007, p. 76-77.

3 Force should be above the law. Wherever the law

stands on the way, it should be removed, WillyWimmer: Letter to Chancellor Gerhard Schroder

on USA NATO policy, dated May 2nd, 2000. Cur-rent issues o Foreign Policy, p. 77, The Belgrade

Forum or a World o Equals, Belgrade, 2007.4 At the same time, the Dayton Accords established

two entities Federation o Bosnia and Herzego-

vina (Muslims and Croats) and Republic o Srpska placing all essential constitutional rights and re-sponsibilities in their hands.

5 THE UN Security Council decides that all thestatesshall prevent armament and training or

terrorist activities in this area (Kosovo and Me-tohija, note o the author), UN Security Coun-cil Resolution No. 1160, o March 31st, 1998. Also,

the UN Security Council demands that all statesuse all the means in accordance with their inter-

nal laws and relevant international laws in order toprevent use o unds collected in their territories ,in the way which is contrary to the resolution 1160

(1998), UN Security Council Resolution 1199,dated September 23rd, 1998.

6 German deence minister Rudol Shaping present-ed at the press conerence held April 7, 1999, an al-leged plan o Yugoslav orces to ethnically cleanse

Albanians rom Kosovo and Metohija, the exist-ence o which was not supported by the Germanintelligence service and which later proved to be

alse.



continued on page 4


5/15


Fourteen years ago, ater the negotiationconerences in Rambouillet and Paris

between 6th

and 23rd

February 1999, theglobal media inormed the general publicthat the Serbian delegation did not acceptthe oered agreement and rather qualiedit as null and void, while indicating thatallegedly the so-called Contact Groupor Yugoslavia stood behind the agree-ment. This body consisted o our NATOcountry-members plus Russia, but Rus-sia rejected to endorse the military sec-tion (Annex B) o the oered agreement a act hidden in the media inormation.

What had actually taken place inRambouillet and Paris and what did the

Annex B exactly say? The then US StateSecretary, Madeleine Albright claimedthat the military portion o the agreementwas practically the essence o the agree-ment oered in Rambouillet which wasunacceptable or the delegation rom FRYugoslavia.

Zivadin Jovanovic, the then YugoslavMinister o Foreign Aairs, said in his in-terview to Politika, the Belgrade daily, o6th February 2013, that in Rambouilletno attempt was made to reach accord, norwere there any negotiations or an agree-

ment. Yugoslav delegation was invited toRambouillett to participate in the negotia-tions with the Albanians delegation romKosovo.

It seems true that indeed no negotia-tions have taken place. This conclusionderives on basis o several statementsmade by some western ocials, includ-ing, among others, the then Chairman othe Organization or Security and Coop-eration in Europe (OSCE), the NorwegianMinister o Foreign Aairs.

The biased writing o western pressand the partial claims by the western pol-

iticians about the ailure in the negotia-tions through non-acceptance o the polit-

ical document about broad autonomy orKosovo on the part o Yugoslav side was

meant to support the preparation o pub-lic opinion or the military aggression othe North-Atlantic Treaty Organization(NATO) that had already been planned orOctober 1998, but was postponed or ob-vious reasons until 24th March 1999. Thetruth is that the Yugoslavian delegation hasrequested several times, as indicated in itswritten communications to the negotiationmediators, direct negotiations between theYugoslav and Kosovo delegations, whichis a act proven by the ocial documents.Christopher Hill, the American represent-ative in the negotiations, claimed in his re-

sponse to such requests, that the Kosovodelegation did not want direct negotia-tions. It became clear to all o us thenthat direct dialogue was not suitable orthe Americans and that this was the realreason why the direct contact was not tak-ing place, Jovanovic points out. It wouldbe quite hard to believe, in case that theAmericans had really wanted direct nego-tiations, that the Kosovo delegation wouldnot accept their request, he added.

Global media and the then western o-cials have also intentionally misinterpret-

ed the alleged rejection by Yugoslavia toallow installation o peace-keeping orc-es in Kosovo (and Metohija). Howev-er, the truth is that the Yugoslav delega-tion did accept the political portions othe Rambouillet drat agreement, but notits Annex B with the Points 2, 5 and 7that proposed and required a military oc-cupation o the entire territory o FR Yu-goslavia (i.e. Serbia with 2 autonomousprovinces, and Montenegro). Thereore,the global public opinion was an object omanipulated inormation which told thatSerbs were rejecting arrival o peace-keeping orces in Kosovo (and Metohija).

But, what are peace-keeping orcesreally in international practice and law? Ininternational practice they imply the orc-es under United Nations (UN) Administra-tion (also called Blue Helmets), consist-ing o troops provided by the UN membercountries and not by NATO troops.

To understand what exactly caused FRYugoslavia to reject the military portion othe document oered in Rambouillet, onehas to read its provisions: (I) The NATOtroops are allowed to reely and without

charges to use any and all land, water andair spaces and equipments; (II) Their sol-diers will enjoy diplomatic immunity andwill not be held responsible or any dam-age made on the territory o FR Yugosla-via under civil and/or criminal laws; (III)

their soldiers may carry weapons on themeven when wearing civil attire; (IV) Their

soldiers may at any time take or use theentire electro-magnetic space o FRY, thatis, the TV and radio requencies, policeand ambulance requencies, civil protec-tion and other requencies, without an-nouncement or any ee or charges what-soever; V) Their soldiers may at any timearrest any citizen on the FRY territory,without any warrant or decision o a courtor any FRY authority.

Global media, particularly those in theNATO countries, and the then Americanand European ocials, have withheld thetruth about the content o the military doc-

ument by charging the leaders o Serbiaand Yugoslav President or the lack o co-operation in the eorts to nd a peaceulsolution. Just like in Rambouillet, theParis Conerence also was not an eventwitnessing any serious attempt or ac-cord, negotiations or agreement. Ameri-can envoy, Christopher Hill, only requiredrom the Yugoslav delegation to sign thetext he had prepared and served on thetable on basis o the take it or leave itprinciple, says Former Minister ZivadinJovanovic.

In addition to numerous condemna-tions concerning the drat agreement textoered, that were expressed by renownedglobal law experts, a special attention isdrawn to the evaluation o the documentprovided in an interview to the Daily Tel-egraph (London) by the ormer US Sec-retary o State, Henry Kissingeron 27th

June 1999. He said, The Rambouilletdrat agreement text, requiring stationingo NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia,was a provocation. It served as a pretextor the launching o a bombing campaign.The Rambouillet document was such that

no Serb could accept it. That horrible doc-ument should have not been submitted.These words indicate, among other things,that the 1999 aggression against FR Yugo-slavia was in act presented in the westernmedia as an epilogue refected through thelaunching o the new interventionist strat-egy o NATO led by USA. This strategywas ocially inaugurated at NATO meet-ing in Washington on 25th April 1999, thatis, at the time o actual aggression againstFRY.

In the aggression against FRY the

NATO was changed rom a deensive al-liance into an aggressive one with thesel-proclaimed right to intervene as amilitary orce throughout the world. Fur-

The Nato-Aggression againstthe Federal Republic o Yugoslavia in 1999

by Milica Radojkovic-Hnsel

continued on page 6

7 Something similar happened with the Report o

Yasushi Akashi who was a UN Special Represent-ative or Bosnia and Herzegovina o May 1992.).Report noted, among others, two important acts:

rst, that the most o the Yugoslav Army (JNA) waswithdrawn and second, that withdrawal o CroatianArmy rom Bosnia has not occurred. Akashi `s re-

port however was not distributed to the members oUN SC until ater the most severe sanctions against

FR o Yugoslavia were imposed on May 30th

, 1992., UN SC resolution 757. (See SG Report S24049,

May 30th, 1992, para 6 and para 9).8 Spain, Romania, Slovak Republic, Greece and Cy-

prus have not recognized.




6/15


thermore, the judgement o the Yugoslavleaders implementing the countrys o-cial policy was correct in saying that oneo the goals o this particular aggressionwas establishment o a precedent or mil-

itary actions across the world without anydecision o the UN and by violation othe UN Charter. This judgement was ver-

ied at the conerence o NATO memberstates and membership candidates held inBratislava in April 2000. The conerencewas organized just a ew months ater theaggression against FR Yugoslavia by theState Department and theAmerican En-terprise Institute o the Republican Party,and was attended by some very high o-

cials (government representatives andministers o oreign aairs and deense)o NATO member states and membership

candidates. The main topics at the con-erence were the Balkans and expansiono NATO. In his written summary o theconerence conclusions sent to the Chan-cellor o Germany, Gerhard Schroeder,on 2nd May 2000, Willy Wimmer, the thenmember o German Parliament (Bunde-stag) and Chairman o the Parliamentary

Assembly o the OESC, claimed that by

Mr Gerhard Schroeder, MP

Chancellor o the Federal Republic o Germany,Federal Chancellery,Schlossplatz 1, 10178 BerlinBerlin, 05-02-2000

Dear Chancellor,Last weekend, I was in the Slovakian capital o Bratislava,

where I had the opportunity to participate in a conerence joint-ly organized by the US State Department and the American En-terprise Institute (the institute o the Republican Party oreignpolicy) with ocus on the themes o the Balkan and NATO en-largement.

The event was attended by high-ranking personalities alreadyrefected in the presence o several prime ministers and oreignand deense ministers rom the region. O the many important is-sues that could be dealt with under that topic, some deserve par-ticularly to be reported.

1. The organizers requested that the Allies achieve recognitiono the independence o the state o Kosovo, according to in-ternational law.1

2. The organizers declared that the Federal Republic o Yugo-slavia was beyond any jurisdiction, in particular beyond theFinal Act o Helsinki.2

3. The European legal system is an obstacle to the implemen-tation o NATO plans. The American legal system was moresuitable or this, even when being used in Europe.

4. The war against the Federal Republic o Yugoslavia was con-ducted to revise a alse decision made by General Eisenhow-er in World War II. Due to strategic reasons, the decision todeploy US soldiers in the region had to be rectied.3

5. The European Allies went along with the war in Yugosla-via in order to overcome de acto the dilemma caused by theApril 1999 New Strategic Concept, which was enacted bythe Alliance and the European predisposition o an existing

mandate rom the UN or the OSCE.6. Irrespective o the subsequent legalistic European interpreta-

tion, where the enlarged task eld o NATO in the Yugoslavi-an war exceeded the contract territory, it was an exceptionalcase, obviously a precedent which anyone at any time couldand would rely on.4

7. The goal o the recently pending NATO expansion, is to restorethe geographical situation between the Baltic Sea and Anatolia,as it had been at the time o the height o Roman expansion.5

8. In order to achieve this, Poland is to be surrounded in thenorth and south by democratic neighboring states. Romaniaand Bulgaria are to secure the ground connection to Turkey,Serbia (most likely to ensure a US military presence) was to

be permanently excluded rom European development.9. North o Poland, it is important to maintain the complete con-

trol o entry rom St. Petersburg to the Baltic Sea.6

10. In each case, the right o sel-determination is given prior-ity over all other provisions or rules o international law.7

11. The assessment, according to which NATO, when attackingthe Federal Republic o Yugoslavia actually inringed uponinternational rule and, above all, any relevant provisions ointernational law, did not evoke contradiction. 8

Ater this very candidly run event and in view o participantsand organizers, one cannot help but make an assessment o thestatements made at this conerence.

In the global context and in order to achieve their goals,the American side, deliberately and intendedly wants to lever

out the international legal system which was developed as aresult o two world wars in the last century. Power shall pre-cede law. Where international law stands in the way, it will beeliminated.

When a similar development happened to the League o Na-tions, the Second World War was not ar o. This type o think-ing which considers its own interests as being absolute, can onlybe called totalitarianism.

Sincerely,Willy Wimmer,

Member o Parliament,Chairman ot he CDU district association Lower Rhine,

Vice-President o the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly

The ollowing remarks are rom Andreas Bracher (see source).

1 So ar, the Kosovo continues to nominally be a province o Serbia, which in

turn is a constituent republic o Yugoslavia. Maintaining this status, had been aprerequisite or the termination o the so-called Kosovo war in June 1999. O-

cially, maintaining this status is the program o the West until today.2. The Helsinki Final Act, the so-called CSCE Order, had put down the ounda-

tions o coexistence o the European states in 1975. These principles included

amongst others the inviolability o borders.3. This seems to reer to the Allied invasion o Europe during the Second World

War. Churchill et.al. had demanded then that an Allied invasion o the Balkanswas to take place. Instead, Eisenhower as Commander o Chie o the Alliedorces commanded invasions o Sicily (1943) and France (1944). As a result,

there was no Western occupation o the Balkans at the end o the Second WorldWar.

4. On the part o NATO, the 1999 Kosovo war was perormed without UN man-date. Such a mandate would have complied with the wish o the European gov-

ernments but not the American government. The latter wants to act preerablysel-condently without international restrictions. Items 5 and 6 apparent-ly meant that with this war a) the European states would have overcome their

commitment towards their public regarding such a UN mandate and b) a prece-dent or uture operations without UN mandate was created.

5 The Roman Empire never extended to the Baltic Sea. Should Wimmer here

have reported the statements correctly, Roman on the one hand, means theRoman Empire, and on the other hand, the Roman church.

6 Thus this means to cut away Russia rom its Baltic Sea connection and there-ore to cut it o rom Europe.

7 Emphasizing this right o sel-determination, the American Wilsonianism,

coined ater the ormer president Woodrow Wilson, shows itsel once again,according to Rudol Steiner who was a main opponent o the ounding o the

threeold movement. Steiner saw this as a program or the destruction o thecoexistence o the European peoples. It allows the destruction o almost allEuropean countries by accentuating minority problems.

8 Apparently, this is about the reactions to a Wimmer drat. The conerence par-ticipants were apparently aware o these violations against the provisions o in-

ternational law, yet they did not care.

Source: Reprinted with notes by Andreas Bracher in What does the WesternBalkan policy want? In The European Vol. 6 No.1, Nov. 2001. www.perseus.ch/PDF-Dateien /bracher-wimmer.pd

(Translation Current Concerns)

The Nato-Aggression against


continued on page 7


7/15


The Nato-Aggression against


the NATO attack on FRY, according tothe admittance by USA, a precedent wasestablished in order to be used whenev-er necessary. It is understood that it isall about an excess that can be reerredto at any time, Wimmer explained oneo the crucial conclusions. It was actual-ly a retroactive conrmation that the realgoal o the Rambouillet talks was not toallow any direct negotiations betweenthe involved parties (Serbs and Albani-ans) or any political solution, but rather

to ensure a pretext or the aggression, asHenry Kissinger indicated quite well (Itwas just a pretext to launch the bombingcampaign).

Next, Willy Wimmer points out inhis written communication that the

war against FR Yugoslavia was waged

to rectiy the wrong decision made byGeneral Dwight Eisenhower in WorldWar Two. Consequently, or strategicreasons American troops need to be sta-tioned over there, so as to compensateor what was not done in 1945 (Point 4o his letter). By building the BondstillMilitary Base in Kosovo the largestone in Europe, Americans have practi-cally materialized their position at theBratislava conerence about their needto station American soldiers in thatspace, or strategic reasons. Wimmersletter also asserts (under Point 1), The

organizers o this conerence have re-quested that international recognition othe independent state o Kosovo shouldbe accomplished as ast as possible bythe countries making the circle o alliedstates, whereas Serbia (the successor

o Yugoslavia) must be permanently ex-

cluded rom the European developmentcourse (according to Wimmer, proba-bly or the purpose o unhampered mil-itary presence o USA in the Balkans).Willy Wimmer also claims, The asser-tion that NATO had violated all inter-national rules, and particularly all rel-evant provisions o international law,during the attack against FR Yugosla-via, has not been contradicted (Point11). The text also says that the Amer-ican side is aware and prepared, in theglobal context and to achieve its owngoals, to undermine the order o inter-national law, meaning that internation-al law is considered an obstacle or theplanned expansion o NATO. And Wim-mer then ends his letter with the ollow-ing words, Force has to stand abovelaw.

The second segment, titled MESSAG-ES AND SALUTARY SPEECHES con-tains all messages rom various senders asgreetings or best wishes or the successul

work o the Conerence, and as denounc-ing o the crime o aggression that shouldnever and nowhere happen again, and thatshould never be orgotten. We have -teen such messages and greetings. Thosecame rom all over the world, rom India,Brazil, Palestine and Belarus, to Franceand Greece. These have everlasting mea-ning and weight. Those o us entrustedwith preparing and holding the Coner-ence and with compiling this Repertory,owe our deepest gratitude to their send-ers or the support expressed to our coun-try and our nation or the suering we had

been exposed to, and or their heroic stand-ing up to the incomparably mightier adver-sary. Each o these messages and greetingsis most important and precious. We neithercompare nor grade them. Having said that,I will take one o them as an example, not

because it is better or more valued than theother ones, but because it attaches a spe-cial symbolism or us and or all reethink-ing world. This is the message oPierre-

Henri Bunel, Major in the French Army,who on the eve o NATO aggression onSerbia shared with a Serbian diplomat hisknowledge o certain secret aspects o NA-TOs criminal intentions, thus giving im-measurable contribution to decreasing thenumber o Serbian casualties. For this he-roic deed, brave Major Bunel served sometime in prison. We can get more insight inthe type o his message and the ethics othe author rom the title he gave to his mes-sage. It reads MESSAGE TO THE LANDOF HEROES DEFYING THE KILLERBOMBS. Any urther comment to it is un-

necessary. Thereore, let us only say thankYou, courageous Major, Your deed willserve as a model or uture generations,showing how honor, dignity, and struggleor justice can overcome any ear and ra-tionalize any loss.

Ten years already!Extracts out o the Conerence volum Nato Aggression. The Twighlight o the West

ISBN 978-86-83965-35-9


8/15


Ten years ago began NATO aggres-sion against proud and ree Serbian nation,a drama that developed assisted by a part oWestern public, which was misused and de-

ceived by NATO and its satellites!Due to my rm decision to stand upto this calamity, I was orced to ollowurther developments rom my cell in aFrench prison, the events that will histor-ically stigmatize its participants and cul-prits.

In the run-up to the announced crimeo bombing your country, I elt shame andpride at the same time.

I was ashamed because I saw my coun-try voluntarily engage into a huge treason,primarily treason o her own sel. Takingpart in such a misdeed did not serve the

French people right. However, the worsto all was that our administration betrayedthe traditional riendship o two nations,built upon the historic heritage.

By bombing Belgrade, just like theNazis did in WWII, the allies compro-mised themselves or eternity.

I also elt pride. During my stay in Bos-nia and Herzegovina, I began to know theSerbian people. Although the situation orBosnian Serbs was very dicult, when itcame to the demands o the occupationorces, they have always bravely kept their

promises, their word, but alas, all was de-stroyed by the subsequent Dayton dictate.

From my Paris prison, I elt strongriendship with Serbs who suered strikesbecause they were determined to deendtheir lie, culture and reedom, their mostundamental rights. I was proud whenlooking at Serbian patriots in bridges, asbrave live targets or the beloved mother-land.

In my dungeon, I received a lot o sup-port rom Serbs, who lived both in Franceand Serbia. A post card o a Francophileedition, numbered 188, one that I keep inmy study and one that I always take withme to any o my travels, reads: Serbianand French ocers in WWI. The caption

beneath reads: Thank you, CommanderPierre-Henri Bunel! Serbia prays or youthis March 1999. It was signed by Proes-sor Branko Vasiljevic.

When my riends Yves Bataille andMila Aleckovic invited me to Belgrade in2003, and Director o Gutenberg Galaxy,Mr. Bavrlic, published my book NATOCrimes, I nally got a chance to see thecountry o heroes deying the murderousbombs.

I crossed Ibar River going to Kosovs-ka Mitrovica, ollowed by hostile eyes othe Albanians and protected by the Serbsrom the north. I understood how my ownAriege in France is similar to this smallpart o your Serbian Kosovo land, similarin mountains, highlander way o lie, and

severe winters. We also had to ght in thepast, deending rom the conquerors romthe north, and our high Montsegur, or usthe French o Pyrenees is the same as theKosovo Field is or you Serbs.

The drama continues with recognitionso an independent Kosovo and Metohijaby various Washington satellites. Howev-er, France has also suered Alsace takenaway rom her during 1940 to 1945, andyet we survived that occupation.

Today, once again France aces a dan-gerous obstacle. Just like the Serbs, we are

let but with hope. The orces that crippledSerbia and France will soon enough trig-ger rebellion and uprising o our two na-tions. This is why our and your youth mustresist lies o the consumer society.

Nations without past have no uture, ei-ther. Those who preserve their awarenesso who they are and who were those whoormed them, may go on and take whatev-er good is there to be ound in modernism.The global developments indicate that ourenemies only promote weakness and la-ziness. However, the uture o the worldbelongs to those who are strong, mod-est, and uncomplicated. We adults haveto show this way to our children. Led byour spiritual leaders, we have to harnessall our human strength and take our desti-ny to our hands.

You, Serbs, have been demonstratingbravery throughout your history, at leastever since the Battle o Kosovo. Today,

you are not alone, even i your brothersin the uture joint struggle, or the timebeing, are suppressed and silent.

Believing in God, in motherland, in

roots and tradition, are the sources o ouruture glory.Today, on the tenth anniversary o the

horrors that beell you and that will soonend, I wish to share with you that I amyour riend and that I love you.

Glory and longevityto the Serbian peoples!

Your riend and brother,Pierre-Henri Bunel

Nations without past have no uture, eitherby Major Pierre Henri Bunel, France

* Pierre Henry Bunel, Major in French Army,at the time o NATO Aggression a member oFrench Military Mission to the Military Com-

mittee o NATO in Brussels.

Current ConcernsThe international journal for independent

thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility,

and for the promotion and respect

of public international law, human rights

and humanitarian law

Publisher: Zeit-Fragen Cooperative

Editor: Erika Vgeli

Address: Current Concerns,

P.O. Box, CH-8044 Zurich

Phone: +41 (0)44 350 65 50

Fax: +41 (0)44 350 65 51

E-Mail: [email protected]

Subscription details:

published regularly electronically as PDF le

Annual subscription rate oSFr. 40,-, 30,-, 25,-, $ 40,-or the ollowing countries:Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Canada,Cyprus, , Denmark, Finland, France, Germany,Greece, Hongkong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy,Japan, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Nether-lands, New Zealand, Norway, Qatar, Singapore,Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates,United Kingdom, USA

Annual subscription rate o

SFr. 20,-,

15,-, 12,50, $ 20,-or all other countries.

Account: Postscheck-Konto: PC 87-644472-4

The editors reserve the right to shorten letters tothe editor. Letters to the editor do not necessarilyrefect the views and opinions oCurrent Concerns.

2011. All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy ortransmission o this publication may be made without writtenpermission.


9/15


The Belgrade Forum or a World o

Equals, in cooperation with the Club ogenerals and admirals o Armed Forceso Serbia and other independent associa-tions in Serbia and in coordination with theWorld Peace Council (WPC), held in Bel-grade on March 23rd 24th, 2009, an Inter-national Conerence titled .Objectives andconsequences o NATO Aggression againstthe Federal Republic o Yugoslavia (Serbiaand Montenegro) 10 Years Ater.

The Conerence gathered some 700 sci-entists and experts in the area o interna-tional relations and security rom Serbiaand 45 countries rom all continents, ex-

cept Australia. About 60 participants sub-mitted their papers on various aspects othe aggression and ensuing developments.

Opening ceremony was attended byPro Slavica Dukic Dejanovic, the Speak-er in the National Assembly o Serbia, Mr.Petar Skundric, the Energy Minister, aswell as by the representatives o the Ser-bian Orthodox Church, veterans, youthand other organizations.

Mr. Ivica Dacic, Deputy Prime Minis-ter o the Government and the Minister oHome Aairs addressed the Conerence

and welcomed oreign guests on behal othe Government.The special participants o the Con-

erence were Ms Socorro Gomes, thePresident, and Mr Thanasis Paflis, theSecretary-General, o the World PeaceCouncil.

The Conerence was also attended by anumber o ambassadors and senior diplo-matic representatives accredited in Serbia.

The participants paid their respect tothe victims o the 78-day bombardmentand placed wreaths at the monuments ded-icated to the victims o the aggression.

The debate was held in the spirit oriendship, openness and solidarity o allorganizations and individuals strugglingor peace, development and prosperity.

The participants of the BelgradeConference agreed on the following:

NATO Aggression against Yugoslavia(Serbia and Montenegro) was an inva-sion that had been prepared long timein advance, with the ollowing glob-al goals: setting a precedent or mili-tary interventions worldwide; bringing

American troops to the Balkans and ex-panding NATO to the East; encirclingRussia; changing the International LawOrder established ater Second WorldWar by imposing the rule that might isright; imposing neoliberal capitalistic

system; weakening Europe and dam-aging the role o the United Nations.The ultimate goal has been to reinorcethe US concept o unipolar world orderor the purpose o establishing the con-trol over all the economic, natural, andhuman resources o the Planet. The ex-tension o NATO in Europe and to othercontinents proves a will to become the

gendarme o the multicorporate capitalall over the world. The aggression waspreceded by spreading lies and decep-tions, with the special role assigned tothe thesis on avoiding humanitariancatastrophe, the mock negotiations inRambouillet, and staged massacre ocivilians in Racak.

The aggression, coupled with its runupand the atermath, is evidence o a deepmoral and civilization crisis o the rulingWestern elites, whereas its blowback e-ect, ten years on, comes to haunt them asa proound global economic crisis whose

end remains beyond the horizon.The leaders o the NATO countries are re-

sponsible or use o armed orce without theUN Security Council approval; or the breacho the United Nations Charter, the OSCEHelsinki Final Act, the Paris Charter and in-ternational conventions, in what amounts tothe crime against the peace and humanity.

They are responsible or more than3,500 deaths and or more then 10,000wounded people, two thirds civilians, orthe use o inhuman non-authorized weap-ons such as depleted uranium ammuni-

tions and missile warheads as well as clus-ter bombs.

They are also responsible or humanlosses and suering in the meantime as theconsequence o the aggression, or the last-ing pollution o soil and water, as a conse-

quence o the wide-spread use o deplet-ed uranium missiles and o the deliberatebombing o chemical plants that amountedto chemical warare. And they are respon-sible or economic damage costing in ex-cess o 100 billion USD. Serbia is entitledto compensation or war damages.

NATO is responsible or ailing to pre-vent destruction and obliteration o the

Serbian monuments o culture in Kosovoand Metohija, which resulted in 150 de-stroyed Serbian churches and the medievalmonasteries, most o which were underthe UNESCO protection.

It is necessary to identiy responsibilityor a sharp increase in prevalence o can-cer, or human loss and suering over pastten years that are the consequences o, andcaused by, the radiological and chemicalpollution o the soil, waters, ood and theenvironment in general.

Serbia is entitled to claim and be grant-ed the war damages; this right cannot betaken away and nobody has the right towaive it.

The Government o Serbia was invitedto determine the accurate number o thecivilian victims o the NATO aggression.

The consequences o the radioactiveweaponry and the chemical substancesreleased in chemical acilities deliberate-ly bombed by NATO must not be neglect-ed or orgotten, and even less covered up.A petition was sent to the Government oSerbia to provide an independent expertscientic analysis o any consequences o

use o the banned weapons, to endorse aset o measures aimed at preventing theadverse eects thereo in the uture, and to

The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Never orgetThe fnal docment o the Belgrade International Conerence

Held in Belgrade, 23 & 24 March, 2009

continued on page 10

NATO Aggression against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) was aninvasion that had been prepared long time in advance, with the ollow-

ing global goals: setting a precedent or military interventions worldwide;

bringing American troops to the Balkans and expanding NATO to the

East; encircling Russia; changing the International Law Order established

ater Second World War by imposing the rule that might is right; impos-

ing neoliberal capitalistic system; weakening Europe and damaging the

role o the United Nations. The ultimate goal has been to reinorce the US

concept o unipolar world order or the purpose o establishing the con-

trol over all the economic, natural, and human resources o the Planet.

The extension o NATO in Europe and to other continents proves a will

to become the gendarme o the multicorporate capital all over the world.


10/15


make public the ndings o such an anal-ysis.

USA/NATO/EU 1999 aggression wasthe rst war on Europes soil ater the

Second World War. It was not only a waragainst an old sovereign European statebut primarily a war against Europe. Par-adoxically, participated by Europe itsel.

It was conducted in the unique alliancebetween an international state organization(NATO) and the notorious terrorist organi-zation (OVK/UCK). The aggression was anhistoric mistake o the West which, sooneror later, will be recognized. Consequenceso the aggression will extend throughout o21st century. The West owes to apologize toSerbia or all the victims and pains, i notto ace even deeper moral and overall crisis.

The participants to the Conerence ex-pressed their high esteem to the Yugoslavand Serbian Army or their patriotism,proessionalism and bravery in deendingthe reedom o their country against theassault o the aggressors.

The aggression has subsequently con-tinued over the past ten years employingother means such as political, economicand propaganda blackmail, by dismantlingthe Yugoslav (Serbian) Army and abolish-ment o FR o Yugoslavia.

The culmination o the imperialist anti-

Serbian policy was embodied in the illegaland unilateral declaration o independence

o Kosovo and Metohija on 17 Febru-ary 2008. This was ollowed by recogni-tion o that criminal NATO/EU creatureby their member states, with the excep-tion o Greece, Romania, Spain, Slova-kia and Cyprus. The Wests oreign policymismanagement has transormed Kosovoand Metohija, currently led by the terror-

ist leaders and the drug dealers networks,into a stepping stone or the Islamist ex-tremism, and thus into the greatest threatto the peace and stability in Europe.

The secession o Kosovo and Metohijaand its subsequent recognition by majorityo NATO/EU member countries representsa violation o the basic principles o the in-ternational relations and the ones approvedby UN Security Council Resolution 1244(1999). As a binding decision, this Resolu-tion remains in orce with the right o Ser-bia to insist on its strict and complete im-plementation. This particularly reers to the

provisions concerning the saety and ree-dom o movement o the remaining Serbianpopulation still living in barbed wired ghet-toes, repossession o the illegally occupiedprivate and state property, the right to reeand sae return o 220,000 displaced Serbsand other non-Albanians and the right toredeployment o the Serbian Army and Po-lice contingents.

Serbia shall never recognize such bla-tant violation o its sovereignty, territorialintegrity and national dignity. Serbia hasthe univocal right to deend its sovereign-

ty and integrity by all legitimate means asany other sovereign country.

Ten years ater, it became obvious thatthe direct goal o the aggression was to de-pose the legitimate President o FR o Yu-goslavia Slobodan Milosevic or the pur-pose o depriving Serbia o 15% o stateterritory, to hinder the role o Serbia as apolitical stakeholder in the Balkans, and toplace it under control o the West.

The same power centers that took de-cisive role in breaking apart SFR o Yu-goslavia in 19921995, went on to launchthe military aggression in 1999, and lateron in abolishing o FR o Yugoslavia in2006.

Ater the illegal secession o Kosovoand Metohija they continue to tacitly in-cite and support separatist orces in otherparts o Serbia.

On the other side, the West has beenengaged revising the Dayton-Paris PeaceAgreement in order to dissolve the Repub-lic o Srpska introducing step by step uni-

tarian Bosnia and Herzegovina contrary tothe said Agreement guaranteed by Serbia.

Ten years ater the NATO aggression,the major part o Serbias economic andnatural resources became property o thecountries that were the participatory statesto aggression, whereas the US and NATOtroops were awarded diplomatic status,that is, such privileges that neither the Ser-bian Army nor the Serbian citizens enjoyin their own country.

Policy o the West led to creation o 7new puppet states, dismantling Yugoslavia

which had existed as multinational, rela-tively prosperous state, or over 70 years.Its ragmentation let thousands o humanvictims, strained relations, economy inshambles and still unresolved problem oover 500,000 Serb reugees and displacedpersons. Serbian nation was ragmentedand instead o the status o constitutive na-tion, transormed into right-less minority,like in Croatia.

Overall policy o the West during the last20 years has suraced as retaliatory towardSerbian nation. Such a policy raises manyquestions concerning the uture o Europe

itsel, particularly having regard that Ser-bia has always played constructive role inthe new European history. At the end o theXX century Serbia righteously resisted thepolicy o capitulation and occupation intro-duced by US led Alliance like any sovereigncountry would do. Isolation, sanctions, mili-tary aggression and fnally support to seces-sion were admittedly also intended to proveto the Muslim world, as i the West protectsthe interest o Muslims in the Balkans.

The Conerence participants held thatthe International Criminal Tribunal or

the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague,the ICTY, represents a prolonged arm oNATO, the instrument o revenge. Its goalis to protect the aggressors and justiy

Never orget



For months it has been known that aproxy war is raging in Syria betweenSaudi Arabia, Qatar, the United States,France, Britain and Turkey on the onehand and Syria with Russias support,Iran and in a moral sense also China

on the other. As the investigative jour-nalist Thierry Meyssan revealed con-trary to the accounts o western mediaservices, already at the beginning o theterrorist acts against the Syrian people,French ocers had been involved, 48o them could be arrested by the Syri-an army. Today even the interest-drivenmedia blatantly admit that Turkey, Qatarand Saudi Arabia were supporting terror-ists in Syria with weapons, money, mer-cenaries, military coordination, saetycounselers (agents) and also with pos-

sible retreat routes to Turkey. Thus, theabove-mentioned states are consideredwith respect to international law at warwith Syria, although a declaration o waris still lacking which would be necessarywith respect to international legitimacy.

But i the EU wants to ocially makethe illegal intervention o French and Brit-ish orces their own aair, there is a prob-lem in many respects: on the one hand anintervention against Syria is illegal underinternational law the veto o China andRussia prevents an ocial war option -and on the other, the Brussels unction-aries claim a competence or themselvesthat is reserved or nation states, namely towage wars. Above all this is dangerous be-cause the European population has virtu-ally no control over the political EU unc-tionaries. It was not without reason thatin genuine democracies the armies wereplaced under parliamentary control andnot within the power range o a commis-sion that is dicult to control or a dicta-tor. Thus the situation in Syria is most ex-

plosive, considering Syrias representativeunction and the resulting dangers o con-fagration. (eh)Source: Vertrauliche Mitteilungen No. 4021 o 12March 2013


EU wants to train and equipterrorists in Syria


11/15


their crimes declaring the victim, the en-tire Serbian nation, to be the culprit. TheTribunal displayed neither interest norreadiness to review irreutable evidence

on crimes o the leaders o actual perpe-trators, Albanian terrorists and NATO.The participants called or the dissolu-

tion o the Hague Tribunal as a political notjudicial body existing beyond the law, con-trary to the United Nations Charter. Thereare no grounds to have Serbia, the Serbiannation, and their leadership stand accusedor the past civil wars in ormer Yugoslavia,nor or the consequences o the Albanianseparatism and terrorism. The Conerencecalled or initiating an independent inquiryon the causes and circumstances o deatho the ormer President o Serbia and the

FR o Yugoslavia, the late Slobodan Milo-sevic, and also o the deaths o all the otherSerbs who died under unclear circumstanc-es while detained by the Hague Tribunal.

They expressed their indignation to-wards the recent penalties o the HagueTribunal against high Serbian and Yugo-slav political, military and police leaders,as retaliatory, stressing that the Tribunalailed to prove the personal responsibili-ties o any o the sentenced.

The so-called independent Kosovais but an extended US Camp Bondsteel

and a spring board or the ongoing mili-tary expansion eastwards.

The aggression against the FR o Yugo-slavia (Serbia and Montenegro) proved thatNATO is neither a deensive nor a regionalalliance. It is military organization whoserole is to impose global dominance o therichest countries led by the USA, over thevast majority o the less developed coun-tries that happen to possess energy resourc-es, or strategic raw materials, or substan-tial markets and outstanding geo-strategicposition. NATO aggressive policy presentsa true danger or peace and security in theworld. The mushrooming o oreign mili-tary bases in the Balkans, Europe and theworld, the constant rise in military budg-ets o the NATO and the EU member statesthe spiraling armament race must stop. Themilitarization o the political decision mak-ing process is gravely endangering democ-racy, inhibiting the social development,massively violating human rights, thus pav-ing the way to the totalitarianism and thetwilight o civilization.

The participants o the Belgrade Coner-ence appealed to all the orces o peace, law

and justice, to unite in the quest to abolishNATO, to dismantle oreign military bases,and to decrease the military spending orthe benet o the poor and oppressed. Theyhave expressed their appreciation and sol-idarity with all peace movements and as-

sociations which are taking part in variousactivities aimed at memory to the victimsand other consequences o NATO aggres-sion on Yugoslavia in 1999.

The constant rise in military spendingleads to urther aggravation o the currentworld crisis. Reduction o USA/NATO/EU and other countries military spend-

ing is the key condition to overcome theworld crisis.

NATO crimes must not be orgotten.Thereore it is a moral obligation to initi-ate the procedure or determining respon-sibility o the then-leadership o NATObeore the competent international and na-tional courts, aiming at establishing con-crete individual accountability.

Apart rom this, the Conerence notedinitiatives to activate existing internationaltribunals or processing those responsibleor NATO aggression, as well as to estab-

lish the International Human ConscienceTribunal (le Tribunal International de laConscience Humaine) securing moral sat-isaction to the victims o the aggressionand to the entire Serbian nation.

It was noted that Serbia has never be-longed to any military alliance; over 60years it has been nonaligned and is theonly European country victim o theNATO aggression.

Thereore participants voiced theirproound conviction that Serbia shouldnot seek nor accept membership in NATObeing an oensive alliance with the roleand objectives above UN and contrary tothe existing International Law Order. Itis believed that Serbia should be devel-oping an open and balanced oreign pol-icy, good neighborly relations and coop-eration with all major stakeholders in theinternational relations, including withnonaligned countries, remaining militar-ily neutral.

Serbia should host the Nonalignedsummit in 2011 celebrating 60th anniver-sary o the First nonaligned Summit held1961 in Belgrade and seek return to ull

membership Status in NAM.Serbia should arm her military neu-

trality by resuming ull membership in theNAM. This would contribute to the up-grading o other courses and priorities oSerbias oreign and interior aairs, and

at the same time it would be a proper re-sponse to the support that the non-alignedcountries give to the sovereignty and ter-ritorial integrity o Serbia.

Recalling orthcoming 70th anniversa-ry o the start o WWII, the participantsexpressed their concerns over the system-atic attempts to revise the history o both

the First and the Second World War, andunanimously condemned the revival oascism and Nazism in certain Europe-an countries. A warning was sounded thatsuch incidents are anything but accidentaland that they seek to invoke conficts, andthereore all the countries have the duty tostop them.

The Conerence condemned the abuseo the struggle against international terror-ism or the purpose o the expansion o thesel-centered interests o a superpower oro a group o the richest countries. Dou-

ble standards are not acceptable in com-bating terrorism.So called independent Kosovo, Alba-

nian terrorism and organized crime repre-sent the most dangerous source o desta-bilization o the Balkans and Europe.Stability in the Balkans depend on therespect o universal principles o interna-tional relations, rst o all, principle osovereignty and territorial integrity, with-out exceptions. Renewal o the negotia-tions on the status o Kosovo and Meto-hija respecting UN SC Resolution 1244is the only way to return to peace, stabil-ity and progress.

The Conerence expressed its solidaritywith the Palestinian people who have theright to reedom, independence and owncountry, just like any other nation in theMiddle East has.

The illegal military occupations o A-ghanistan and Iraq have no justicationwhatsoever and thereore should end up.The Conerence called on the relevant or-eign governments to withdraw their troopsand terminate the operations.

Peace, security and development are

inseparable. Aggression and the so-calledlow-intensity wars in any part o theworld jeopardize other countries, nationsand peoples. Thereore, peace, security

Never orget



The aggression against the FR o Yugoslavia (Serbia and Mon-

tenegro) proved that NATO is neither a deensive nor a regional

alliance. It is military organization whose role is to impose global

dominance o the richest countries led by the USA, over the vast

majority o the less developed countries that happen to possess en-

ergy resources, or strategic raw materials, or substantial marketsand outstanding geo-strategic position. NATO aggressive policy

presents a true danger or peace and security in the world.


12/15


and development may only be achievedthrough the broadest possible cooperationo the peace movements, intellectual andscientic orces.

The Belgrade Forums International Con-erence on occasion o the 10th anniversary othe start o the NATO aggression, makes animportant step to that end.

The unipolar world order era is col-lapsing. The processes o building a mul-ti-polar world order is in progress. Theconditions are conducive or democ-ratization o the international relations

on the basis o sovereign equality o allstates and o restoring respect or the un-damental principles o the internationalrelations.

The appeal was addressed to the lead-ers o the Non-Aligned Movement coun-tries to keep on strengthening unity andaction capabilities strengthening the roleo United Nations and basic principles ointernational relations.

The process o deepening global eco-nomic crisis obliges the Non-AlignedMovement to strengthen unity in orderto prevent the richest countries rom,once again, passing the burden o theproblems onto the underdevelopedworld. The time is ripe or unity, ac-

countability and action o all orces oand or peace, development, and equali-ty. The Conerence was preceded by thephoto and book exhibition as well as by

the review o documentary flms organ-ized by the Association o ormer gener-als and admirals o the Serbian (Yugo-slav) Army.

The participants have expressed theirappreciation and gratitude to the BelgradeForum or a World o Equals or the ini-tiative to convene this Conerence, or thehigh level o organization, and hospitalityit provided.

Source:Nato Agression . The Twighligt o the West.p. 519527

Never orget


On Wednesday, 20th March 2013, the trialconcerning the bomb attack on Aghan ci-vilians near Kunduz started in BONN. Inthe all o 2009 the German ofcer Colo-nel Klein had instructed US warplanes to

bomb a crowd o people without any mil-itary necessity During this attack, morethan 130 people were killed or injured. Two

Bremen lawyers sued the German govern-ment and demanded compensation orthe victims o the air raid in Aghanistan.This event commemorates the bombard-

ment by NATO warplanes in the ille-gal war against the Republic o Serbia.

In a public holiday in spring 1999, NATOwarplanes bombed a bridge, while obvi-ously civilians were crossing it - near the

Serbian town Varvarin in two waves o at-tacks. They sent 10 civilians to death and17 were injured, some seriously. Untiltoday the victims have not been compen-sated.

Dierent articles are documenting theevents

http://www.dw.de/popal-deutschland-muss-zahlen/a-16683296

http://www.dw.de/prozessautakt-im-kundus-verahren/a-16680680

http://www.n-tv.de/politik/Wer-hatet-uer-die-Kundus-Toten-article10321151.html

http://www.presseportal.de/pm/47409/2437312/mitteldeutsche-zei-tung-aghanistan-anwalt-der-kundus-klaeger-ist-von-sieg-vor-gericht-ueber-

zeugt

The bridge o Varvarin. (picture dpa)


13/15


The lust or power o the European Unionis unbroken, like a kraken the representa-tives o the soviet-style EU dictatorshipgrasp or more and more direct power inthe individual member states. Now the

member states were promised in a play-ing down-manner the support o theEU in case o exceptional circumstanc-es inside their countries by means o themeanwhile ormulated solidarity clauseo the Lisbon Treaty. It is about the imple-mentation o the obligation o the EU in-stitutions and the member states to assisteach other in cases o damage, as set outin Article 222 o the Lisbon Treaty.

In a proposal submitted by the EU Com-mission and the High Representative or

Foreign and Security Policy or the de-sign o the solidarity clause they nowtalk o an obligation to assist in case oexceptional circumstances. In the clausethe possible disaster is dened so widely

that even (political) unrest, blockades andsabotage are included. Reasons or mutu-al aid (or rather controlling intererence byEU institutions) can accordingly arise romall situations, that can have adverse im-pact on people, the environment or proper-ty. This reers to serious, unexpected andoten dangerous situations requiring timelyaction and can aect or threaten so-cietal unctions. It is a deliberately broaddenition, which there the critical voicesdo largely in agree is likely to be applied

to all developments that might jeopardizethe continued existence and the powers othe current soviet-style EU dictatorship.

In early March the rst reading o theproposed solidarity clause was to take

place in the European Parliament. It iseared that the objections o EU parlia-mentarians are once again conned to nar-row limits. The already established Eu-ropean police orces (Eurogendor) atleast completed appropriate exercises andcurrently the counterinsurgency capabili-ty (!) o the individual EU member statesare under evaluation ... (tb)Source: Vertrauliche Mitteilungen No. 4019 o 26February 2013


The EU Councils try to seize direct power

In France the economic situation contin-ues to get worse. The Socialist govern-ment Hollande is unswervingly ollowingits destruction course, there is not only alack o convincing plans to turn the tide,but also a lack o time to implement thembeore other inancial diiculties willoccur. But instead o analyzing their ownmistakes and looking or new approachessel-critically, the envious French politicalunctionaries insult Germany as being re-sponsible or the problems o France. The

German resistance against expropriationo savers by infation and the German re-usal o additional tribute payments with-in the European redistribution systemwere to blame or the euro being so strong,the revenue being so low in France and theFrench products o too low quality beingnot marketable worldwide, they claim.This behavior will hardly help France toovercome the imminent budgetary di-culties. With the demand or infation anddevaluation policy by the ECB (Europe-

an Central Bank) France changes rom thestability-oriented side o Germany to theaction o the southern European bankruptstates that are longing or infation. Withthese undamentally dierent interests apolitical union will hardly be mouldable,nor will the common currency Euro re-main preserved in this orm. (eh)

Source: Confdential Communications No. 4021 o12 March 2013


France in economic decline

Current ConcernsThe international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility, and for the promotion

and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law

Subscribe to Current Concerns The journal of an independent cooperative

The cooperativeZeit-Fragen is a politically and nancially independent organisation. All o its members work on a voluntary andhonorary basis. The journal does not accept commercial advertisements o any kind and receives no nancial support rom businessorganisations. The journal Current Concerns is nanced exclusively by its subscribers.We warmly recommend our model o ree and independent press coverage to other journals.

Annual subscription rate oCHF 40,-; Euro 30,-; USD 40,-; GBP 25,-or the ollowing countries:Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hongkong, Iceland, Ireland, Is-rael, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Qatar, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Swit-zerland, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, USA

Annual subscription rate oCHF 20,-; Euro 15,-; USD 20,-; GBP 12,50or all other countries.

Please choose one o the ollowing ways o payment:- send a cheque to Current Concerns, P. O. Box, CH-8044 Zurich, or- send us your credit card details (only Visa), or- pay into one o the ollowing accounts:

CH: Postscheck-Konto (CHF): 87-644472-4 IBAN CH91 0900 0000 8764 4472 4 BIC POFICHBEXXX

CH: Postscheck-Konto (Euro): 91-738798-6 IBAN CH83 0900 0000 9173 8798 6 BIC POFICHBEXXX

D: Volksbank Tbingen, Kto. 67 517 005, BLZ 64190110 IBAN DE12 6419 0110 0067 5170 05 BIC GENODES1TUE

A: Raieisen Landesbank, Kto. 1-05.713.599, BLZ 37000 IBAN AT55 3700 0001 0571 3599 BIC RVVGAT2B


14/15


thk. On the lastday o the spring

session o theederal councils,there were againa number o fnalvotes, amongothers the Na-tional Councilsstance on an ini-tiative to abolishthe militia army.

Having alreadyrejected the initiative in the winter ses-sion with a majority, it again cast a veryclear vote against the initiative on Friday.

Moreover, the National Council wants tohold on to the mandatory feld shootingand rejected a parliamentary initiative in-tended to abolish the annual army shoot-ing. On Thursday, the National Councilhad already approved an increase to fvebillion or the military budget, and thusagain opposed the Federal Council.

Jakob Bchler, Nat ional Council -lor and ormer President o the SecurityPolicy Committee o the National Coun-cil, has energetically taken a stand or re-spectively against the military proposals.

Ater the vote, Current Concerns askedhim to assess the current situation.

Current Concerns: What does the vote onThursday mean or our army?

National Councillor Jakob Bchler: Thisvote is o great importance because theCouncil o States delivered a less con-vincing perormance with their stance onthe partial replacement o the Tiger. Thatwas a hal-hearted decision. They votedby 22 to 20 or advocacy o the propos-al. However, the Council o States has notreleased the brake o debt. They playedrelatively weakly, which was quite sur-prising, as the Council o States is usual-ly very clear in these matters. That was avery weak sign.

The clear decision o the Nation-al Council to agree to more money andto enable the procurement o the Gripenmeans strong backing or the ollow-updebate in the Security Policy Committeein a two-day meeting ater Easter. It is im-portant that we take the Gripen businessat hand. The starting position is certainlybetter ater this clear vote. I Parliament

says yes with a nearly two-thirds majori-ty, it means to me that the aircrat procure-

ment should be taken at hand and that thearmy will be provided with enough vehi-

cles and equipment.

Where do we go rom here in Parliament?Is that also a vote or the procurement othe Gripen?First o all, it is a positive sign. Regardingthe Gripen business we must rst decidein the Committee and later in Parliament.Nevertheless, to me it is a sign that pointsin the right direction. I one says that thearmed orces must be equipped with newaircrat and get new equipment and ve-hicles, ve billion are needed. This signconrms that we need the money, even i

the entire Federal Council has a dier-ent view. But in my opinion it is also quiteclear that the majority o Parliament wantsus to go in the right direction.

Now the business has been passed on tothe Council o States?Yes, it has. The Council o Sates has alsoto decide on the National Council motion.I assume, however, that they will alsohave the courage to approve the ve bil-lion; otherwise we would have to ask whatrole the council o States actually plays.

We have to take care o the whole Grip-en business.

Why?Last week several business representa-tives came to Parliament, who o courseare also talking to Saab about so-calledoset agreements. These are companiesrom the Thurgau and rom St. Gallen,rom eastern Switzerland. For them it isvery important to know whether the dealwill be closed, so that they in turn can im-plement the contracts with Saab in Swe-den.

Is it likely that the Council o States agreesto the request o the National Council?Yes, I seriously hope so. The decision notto release the debt brake has been char-acterized as an operational accident bysome members o in the Council o States,which is why I think that we will get a yesrom them.

Were there other military motions in thissession?Well, what made me very happy was the

vote on the parliamentary initiative re-pealing the out-o-duty shooting. With a

91 to 61 vote, the National Council de-cided to hold on to the mandatory ed-

eral program. That has been a very clear

Documents

The Nato-aggression against Yugoslavia from 1999 was a model of the new wars of conquest” _ «Current Concerns», n° 13, 28 March 2013 CC-2013_13