IN THE NAME OF THE VICTIMS.
                         Tanya Reinhart
 

The public debate about Kosovo in Israel is influenced by the analogy
between Kosovo and Jerusalem.  Both are areas which two nations view
as their historical land. Therefore, paradoxically, Sharon and the
right wing are against the US-Nato attack (fearing a similar
intervention against Israeli occupation of Jerusalem), while, the
'enlightened' camp supports it enthusiastically.  This however is
a fake debate, since both sides share the same presupposition that
the war is about the rights of the Albanians in Kosovo.

In fact, there is nothing further from the US and NATO than
humanitarian motives. Long before the attack it could be obvious that
Milosevic will respond with a massive ethnic cleansing, just as Israel
would have done, had the US and NATO decided to bomb Jerusalem
following, say, a request by the Islamic Jihad. (Official warnings
about this scenario were issued by the head of the CIA, and others
in Europe.)  If concern about the hundreds of thousands of Albanian
refugees was the motive for this war, one could expect US-NATO to
accept with cheers Yugoslavia's proposal for a cease fire. Though
distorted in the reports of the following days, the proposal as
broadcasted on April 6, was to withdraw Yugoslav forces from Kosovo,
to allow the refugees to return and to resume negotiations with the
Albanian Leader Ibrahim Rugova.  It was at least possible to give
Milosevic a week or two, to check his intentions, while the US-NATO
forces around him stay to make sure he is not playing tricks.

But US-NATO only needed a few hours to reject this proposal. They
announced, first, that they are unwilling to stop bombing until
Milosevic accepts also the condition of letting NATO forces in and,
next, that they no longer recognize Rugova as the representative of
the Kosovar Albanians, and they are willing to negotiate only with
the "Kosovo Liberation Army" (KLA).  Increased bombing, with civilian
casualties and huge destruction in Kosovo followed directly.

Some background:  In 1989 Milosevic cancelled the autonomy the
Albanians had in Kosovo since 1974, and brutally suppressed their
political and cultural infra-structure.  In opposition, a mass
independence movement has grown, which declared Kosovo a republic,
and elected Rugova, in 1992, as its president.  The movement, which
adhered to non-violent struggle, was fiercely repressed by the tyrant
Milosevic, without the West even blinking an eye. In 1996, the KLA
was founded.  It is a foreign-funded brutal organization with no
recognized leadership or program. It terrorized not only the Serb
residents of Kosovo, but also the political movement, which continued
to call for non-violent struggle, and which elected Rugova again as
its president, in 1998. Under the pressure of US-NATO, the KLA was
made partner to the Rambouillet negotiations which preceded the
bombing.

While the KLA supports the US-NATO bombing, and the demand to let
NATO forces into Yugoslavia, Rugova issued on April 1st a joint
declaration with Milosevic stating their readiness to search a peaceful
solution, without NATO.  US-NATO interpreters reacted to the televised
declaration with rumors of all kinds:  that he looked tired, that
he is wounded or under house arrest, and that the declaration took
place, in fact, two years ago.  Now they announce that only the
murderers from the KLA are their partners for negotiations.

This is not how one behaves when one is worried about the Albanian
tragedy, or peace in Europe.  What is this war about, then?

Until 1989, the Soviet block was a giant body dominating more than
half of Europe. In 1949, US, Canada and West-Europe countries have
founded NATO, whose declared role was to defend the west from the
soviet military threat.  With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a
new struggle has started over the division of its subordinate states.
NATO's current mission is to appropriate as many of them as possible
for the benefit of its dominant members.  (Poland, Hungary and the
Czech Republic were already joined to NATO.)

Germany set her eyes on Croatia and Bosnia, which were part of the
Austro-Hungarian empire in the past. It hastened to recognize and
support the separation of Croatia in 1990, but It could not get full
control over these areas alone, and had to share the loot with the
US and NATO.  NATO's bombing of the Serbian areas of Bosnia in 1995
(then still under the umbrella of the UN) enabled the local ground-
forces of Croatia and Bosnia to evacuate around 200000 Serbs, and
take over their land. With this established, new "independent states",
could be formed which are, in fact, territories occupied by NATO
forces.

The agreement signed in the Dayton air-force base in November 1995
establishes a straight-forward colonial administration of the new
"states".  As reported in Chossudovsky's book (1), the Dayton "peace
accord" contains, for Bosnia, an "agreement on High Representative"
(HR) which specifies that this HR head of the administration is a
non-Bosnian citizen (article I) who appoints a "joint Civilian
Commission", including the commander of the international forces
(article II), with the right to overrule the government's decisions.
The High Representative is also "the final authority regarding
interpretation of this agreement" (article V).  Similar restrictions
apply economically:  The Dayton agreement specified that the first
president of the central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina is to be
appointed by the IMF and "shall not be a citizen of Bosnia and
Herzegovina or a neighboring State" (Article VII).

Bosnia and Croatia host now the largest NATO bases on the Adriatic
sea, which provides access to the Mediterranean.  The problem remained
Yugoslavia (Serbia), a strong country, and an ally of Russia, which
also disables control of the full adriatic coast.  Like many rulers
which the US supports all over the world, Milosevic is a tyrant and
a war criminal.  But unlike others, he refuses to let his country
become a protectorate of Nato, and follow the fate of Bosnia.  The
only way left was to break him by force.

US reasons for joining Germany and Nato on looting the territories
of the Russian allies extend beyond the obvious military and economic
control this provides over Europe. The condition was from the start
that NATO gives the US a free hand in the Middle East.  In February
1998, when the US planned one of its attacks on Iraq, Germany tried
to stay neutral.  Defence secretary William Cohen, and a delegation
of US senators hastened to Germany to clarify that if Europe does
not support Washington on Iraq, the US will reconsider its support
of the "enforcement of peace" in the Balkans. A day later (February
8), Kohl announced that Germany will allow US planes to use its air
bases for the attack.

In March 24, 1998, the big day has come. Some German sources stressed
the significance of the moment:  For the first time since the second
world war, German planes are allowed again to throw bombs over Europe:
The shadow of that war is cleared.  (How symbolic that this should
happen with the same Serbs that the Nazis massacred in these old past
days, with the same Austro-Hungarian ambition in mind.) At the end
of the twentieth century, the border agreements of the two world wars
are being reopened, and the same historical powers of Europe (Germany,
England, France) are going to war over its redivision.

The war, then, is only about power interests. But the only way to
sell it to public opinion is to present it as a humanitarian war to
save the Albanians.  In his first speech on March 24, Clinton was
still pretty honest about the goals of the war.  He mentioned the
importance of maintaining "the credibility of NATO", and the "security
of Europe".  Public opinion in the US remained skeptical. A wave of
criticism of his selling tactics has flooded the media, along with
some CNN advice for improvements.  Two days later, the war settled
on its current line:  Saving The Kosovar Albanians from the new Hitler.

The role of the Kosovar Albanians in this horrible show is to be the
victims.  Only if people have a victim they can identify with, it
is possible to sell them this corrupt war as a war of salvation.

===================

(1) Michael Chossudovsky, THE GLOBALIZATION OF POVERTY, Zed books
Ltd:           London and New Jersey and Third World Network Penang:
               Malaysia, 1997.  (Available in book stores in Europe
               and US).