Saturday, June 23, 2012

Foundation of Lies

Bombs for "democracy"
Earlier this month, "Kosovarians" marked the anniversary of their "liberation" - i.e. the beginning of NATO's occupation of the Serbian province claimed by the terrorist KLA. Now, the Kosovo War was illegal and illegitimate, and its conduct doubly so - characterized by barbaric attacks on Serbian infrastructure and civilian targets, with the intent to demoralize and disrupt civilians. Most casualties suffered by the Yugoslav Army were along the Albanian border, while repelling the KLA invasion, and not from NATO airstrikes.

After the armistice was signed, however, the Empire wasn't satisfied merely with selectively applying its terms - it falsified the war's aftermath as well. A commission of "independent experts" was hired to proclaim it "illegal but legitimate." Despite solemn proclamations that the sovereignty of Yugoslavia (and later Serbia) would not be violated, the process of creating the "independent state of Kosovo" began almost right away. But perhaps most importantly, the actual combat reports were falsified in order to create the impression that the war was "won" by air power alone.

As Alexander Cockburn notes in Couterpunch yesterday, that falsification had far-reaching effects:
"[t]he Kosovo campaign’s apparent confirmation that bombs and missiles could achieve a victory at no cost in friendly casualties, and in a good cause too, undoubtedly prepared the political landscape for the automated drone warfare so eagerly embraced by our current leadership."
Indeed, as early as March 2003 it was obvious to some observers that Kosovo provided a precedent for the invasion of Iraq (and subsequently Libya).

Now, if NATO had not in fact beaten the Yugoslav Army, why did Belgrade surrender? The answer is very simple: it didn't. Even Cockburn makes a mistake of saying that Yugoslav President Milošević "accepted the allied terms", attributing that decision to Moscow's betrayal. While Yugoslavia was in fact betrayed by the puppet government of Boris Yeltsin - which some have argued played a crucial role in Yeltsin's subsequent demise and the rise of Vladimir Putin - it happened following the armistice, not prior.

The terms agreed upon in Kumanovo and built into UNSCR 1244 were different from NATO's demands prior to the war, in three crucial respects: NATO accepted UN authority over the province, there was no clause giving the Albanians independence after three years, and there was no mention of NATO's open access to the rest of Serbia (the infamous Appendix B of the Rambouillet ultimatum). On paper at least, NATO did not win an unconditional victory. That's why they proceeded to creatively reinterpret the paper.

Cheating the Serbs by altering the deal at gunpoint was one thing. Wrecking what was left of international law to establish the "independent Republic of Kosovo," was something else altogether. But perhaps worst of all, the falsified narrative of Kosovo as both the "good war" and a successful one has contributed to the quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, the disaster of Libya and the bloodshed in Syria. Something similar happened with the deceptive success of the "revolution" in Serbia (2000), leading to its replication around the world.

The lies then beget atrocities, which beget more lies. And so on, until the whole thing comes crashing down, in fire and blood.


Joan Roca said...

The Kosovo war was totally illegal, a military organization NATO attacked a sovereign state, which only wanted to preserve its territorial integrity. He did so in collusion with a puppet and vassal state of the alliance as was supporting Albania and Albanian criminal authentic. If Putin and Yeltsin not been ruled drunk Russian Empire did not have Asesisno free hand to destroy Serbia. For many Europeans Kosovo will always be an inseparable part of Serbia, and hope that one day the puppet fascists and traitors of Croatia and Montenegro to pay their crimes and their hatred of Serbia

Anonymous said...

What is your thoughts regarding Raimandos latest artcile were he talks about WW1 and pan-Slavism?

“Serbia emerged from the Balkan conflicts not only with a greatly expanded territory, but also animated by a vaulting nationalism, which Russia was happy to egg on. Sazanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, wrote to [Russian ambassador to Serbia Nicholas] Hartwig: ‘Serbia’s promised land lies in the territory of present-day Hungary,’ and instructed him to help prepare the Serbians for ‘the future inevitable struggle.”

That’s Ralph Raico, whose ironically titled book, Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal, is a joy and an education all in one. His analysis of how and why the Great War was allowed to destroy the flower of European civilization is indispensable reading. Raico locates “the immediate origins of the 1914 war” in “the twisted politics of the Kingdom of Serbia,” where ultra-nationalists had overthrown the pro-Austrian royal house of the Obrenovics and installed the fanatically nationalistic Karageorgevices on the throne. The Serbs dreamed of creating a “Greater Serbia,” the borders of which would restore the nation’s lost greatness and redeem the religious aspects of an ancient struggle against both Muslim Turks and Catholic Hapsburgs.

Was pan-Slavism a major contributing factor to WW1?

I assumed it was Britain, France and Russia acting against potential German expansionism that was the main factor.

CubuCoko said...

I think Raico (so by extension, Raimondo) is entirely wrong. First of all, how thorough could his research have been if he manages to misspell Sazonov's name? Secondly, like many Misesians, he has a soft spot for Austria-Hungary.

Vienna and Berlin had to blame Serbia and Russia, to avoid being blamed themselves. There is copious documentary evidence (Fromkin brings it up in "Europe's Last Summer") that it was Austria and Germany that wanted war in 1914. Ironically, it was von Hoetzendorf who was impatient to attack Serbia, and Ferdinand who was unwilling.

Was the European order of 1914 better than what replaced it? I'll be the first to argue yes. But if wasn't the Serbs or the Russians that destroyed it. It was Vienna, Berlin, Paris and London, in their arrogance, ignorance and stupidity. They were fighting wars of conquest. The Serbs fought for survival. Therein's the difference.

Zman said...

WW1 is about Britain stopping germany from becoming the rivals power.. That's it basically.. Serbs were the victims.

The serbs came out of that war as winners but we did not make a huge Serb state like we could have!

Zman said...

looks like the case against Karadzic is falling apart and by extension against Mladic.. They sentenced seselj for two years for contempt of court or something like that in another words they got NOTHING. in another words the propaganda is falling apart.. Will CNN issue an apology?

Joan Roca said...

Germans (and austrians) are the main war criminals in the whole history. their imperialism and dictatoship model began 2 world wars, and now they are conquering europe again. Serbia had been a small but powerful rival against german-austrian supremacy and imperialim, thats the reason that war criminals attack serbia. Weak nations and collaborationist like Croatia or Slovenia always has been puppets ans slaves of german colonialism. Serbia never will surrender to germans and west imperium