Posted by Ari RUSILA Mar 27th, 2009 | 18 responses
March 24th was held the 10th anniversary of Nato bombings against Serbia. While remembering this intervention I would like to highlight some basic issues before, during and after bombings 1999:
- Public justification was based to fabricated, manipulated and one-sided reports by U.S. like earlier in Bosnia and after e.g. in Iraq-case. Although reliable figures are beginning to emerge, the final death toll from the Kosovo war remains unknown, and has become the focus of considerable debate. Some Western government and NATO officials suggested during the war, when figures went as high as 100,000; The New York Times reported, “On April 19, the State Department said that up to 500,000 Kosovar Albanians were missing and feared dead. Through its own research, Human Rights Watch documented 3,453 killings by Serbian or Yugoslav government forces. (More in HRW report )
- The bombings and later orchestrated unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) of Kosovo Albanians were against international law and violation of the UN Charter, Helsinki Accords and a series of UN resolutions including the governing UNSC resolution #1244
- The big refugee problem started during Nato bombings, after one week from start 300.000 refugees, in April 850.000 refugees. Earlier before -90s Serbs had moved out from Kosovo partly because they felt themselves as discriminated by Albanian majority; during -90s Albanians moved out due the same reason.
- The actions of the Nato campaign – named as Merciful Angel – were offically
directed toward “interruption of violent attacks being carried out by the Serbian Army and special police forces and the reduction of their capabilities”. Nato planes destroyed 4 % of its military targets during bombing – partly because for avoiding own casualties they cowardly launched missiles so high that could not make difference between wooden decoys and real weapons. Instead of military targets the main damage was made against civilian targets. Nato destroyed e.g. an embassy (China), a prison (Istok), three column of Albanian refugees (81 dead March 13th and 75 April 14th), radio-tv station (Belgrade, 16 civilians dead), a passenger train (Grdelica bridge, 14 dead), also a number of infrastructure, commercial buildings, schools, health institutions, media houses, cultural monuments were damaged or destroyed. Some 2.500 people (mostly civilians) were dead, material civil infrastructure damage is estimated to be some 30 billion dollars.
- Bombing civilian targets, using cluster
and DU (depleted uranium) bombs can be seen as war crimes or at least violations of international law and the Geneva Conventions in particular.
- Just after bombing Albanians started ethnic cleansing of Serbs under eyes of KFOR peacekeepers who had made “humanitarian intervention”. The vast majority of those people - Serbs, Roma and Gorani - were forced out by ethnic violence and intimidation and still live in dreadful conditions in camps and emergency housing in Serbia.
- After bombing almost all Albanian refugees have returned while only tiny fraction of Serb refugees – or officially internally displaced persons – have returned to Kosovo. The remaining Serbs in Kosovo are barricaded into enclaves keeping their lives mainly with help of international KFOR troops or in de facto separated Serb majority region in North Kosovo. This has changed former multi-ethnic province more mono-ethnic one.
- The same ethnic cleansing was repeated March 2004 and again UN Mission in Kosovo was bystander and could not bring perpetrators up for trial. (More in my article “Pogrom with Prize”)
- The aim of international community was to build “standards before status”, on 2005 the task was seen impossible so the slogan changed to “standards and status”. Even this was unrealistic so Feb. 2008 “European”standards were thrown away to garbage and “status without standards” precipitately accepted by western powers.
- According western powers the UDI was said to “unique” – instead it serves as precedent to nearly 5.000 ethnic or separatist groups in the world.
- A state normally needs statehood structures, executive power over own territory and sustainable economy. In Kosovo two first elements are on hands of international outsiders and the export of province can cover 5-10 % of import - the rest is covered mainly by international aid and organized crime.
- The outcome today is a quasi-state with good change to become next “failed” or “captured” state if international community does not firm its grip in province. Today’s Kosovo is already safe-heaven for war criminals, drug traffickers, international money laundry and radical Wahhabists – unfortunately all are also allies of western powers.
Solution?
It’s easy to blame the situation today in Kosovo on U.S foreign policy. After implementing its failed attempt to please Muslim countries, after increasing the profits of its military-industry-complex and after creating one of its biggest military complex in Europe U.S. is covering its track record an leaving he whole mess to its lapdogs in EU. As a result of EU’s short-sighted post-conflict management policy they must again throw away few billions of EU taxpayer money to keep flag in international protectorate and safe haven of drug cartels – in artificial creature with no realistic visions nor exit strategy.
From my point of view the solution could be to finally put that reset button and go go back to Jan 2008. The exit strategy could start by U.S. withdrawing it recognition of Kosovo UDI. After this the real talks between local stakeholders can start without predestined outcome. The compromise can be any of countless different territorial autonomy models, the parties can even create a new one or agree some partition of province. The only important thing forsake of sustainability would be that local parties make the deal and outsiders only facilitate it. This process could also reset the international law, prevent similar violations in future and put focus from old wrongdoings towards future.
More my articles can be found from my BalkanBlog!
Latest posts by Ari RUSILA
Rate this article
Loading ...
I know this is a very difficult issue and one can have different views on it which I think is necessary.
However, what I think is inappropriate is to compare NATO with Hitler Germany as you did with the Svastika picture in your blog post. The historical similarities are very thin and I dont think this kind of provocation works here.
I have to agree with Andreas’ point. There are a lot of questions to be answered about NATO’s involvement and I personally think the whole episode was very badly handled. There is no good way, under international law, for a new state to be created. It is almost always as a result of a military or de-colonisation process, and it is a moot point (in my view) as to whether it was the best solution in this case.
Longer term, I believe the best solution is probably for all the states in the region to be included within the EU which will allow a gradual reintegration of local economies, and hopefully, a reduction in ethnic tensions over time.
However likening the NATO intervention to Nazi Germany delays the day when either local reconciliation or regional re-integration can take place. I notice no mention of Srebrenica - which I appreciate was by no means the only atrocity - but it makes the whole piece read like a partisan polemical tirade.
Serbia has a case for better relations with the EU and other former Yugoslav territories, and possibly even a degree of re-integration within a larger EU framework, but this is not the way to make it.
To Andreas and Frank,
I agree with your comments - it is inappropriate to compare Nato with Nazi-Germany. The very thin similarity could be that before Nato exactly the Nazi-Germany was bombing Belgrade.
However even if we think similar way about my provocative use of swastika the fact is that one part of Serbs are seeing this similarity.
About re-integration Serbia within a larger EU framework I have my doubts or reservations for two reasons:
First my estimation is that EU probably is not ready to absorb new members (at least without Lisbon treaty) and they have not yet found a nice way to tell this to candidate countries and wannabees.
Second I prefer that e.g. Serbia makes its development work towards democracy and its economical and administrative development because of its own interests not because of possible EU membership. In this way I hope that the outsiders are also looking different kind of alternatives with alliances and practice of cooperation.
I agree with some points in the article, but also see svastika as a bit too strong provocation. I personally condemn NATO’s bombings in Serbia especially because of its targeting of civilian objects and also because the intervention did not happen at the right time and also not at the right place. And I believe that Belgrade or Novi Sad people should not be blamed for atrocities that were committed especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially having in mind the idea how long were conversations and negotiations with Milosevic and how long it takes to arrest the main war criminals. However, intervention should happen in the case of Srebrenica and that’s stg that should be mentioned too.
About newly emerged states: I think it’s not easy to stop a snowball process when you once say yes, and there’s probably no way back. I just don’t really know how much time all these states will need to recover and to stabilize themselves. I am also thinking many times if integration into the EU as such is an optimal solution. The problem that I’ve observed is hidden also in the idea that the states have to learn about their own responsibility of leading a state. And realize that entering to the EU is not only about free visa regime and structural funds but it’s the whole process which could be successfully done/managed firstly on the regional level. But then how to talk about regional cooperation when the region collapses on a smaller and smaller units which kind of believe that the slogan of independence is enough for their survival?
That’s just a short reflection…
The damage caused since the breakup of Yugoslavia is immense and will take generations to recover even with good Government and intergovernmental relations. There is no easy solution for Serbia, the EU or for any other former Yugoslav state. And I agree, any long term solution must also take Serbia’s interests into account; that is the proper basis for any EU membership.
So what we need to do in the interim is to try to de-esculate the tensions, resettle displaced persons, help local economies recover, and achieve some kind of modus viviendi between local regimes.
I don’t know if Kosovo is independently viable, long term, but I do know that I don’t want it to be part of the EU without the same democratic institutions and respect for human rights that is required for any other member.
I think enlargement has been rushed in the past, and we may now be playing a price for that. It may not be the right solution to include all former Yugoslav territories into the EU - that is partly also for them to decide - but either way we have to get back to a situation where there is mutual respect for human rights and the legitimate interests of each community.
More conspiracy theories. Ridiculous and biased to no end.
Hi Bogdan,
I am not an expert on the Balkans but I am aware there is considerable controversy in human rights, international law and foreign policy circles in the EU and US about the role of NATO in the conflict in former Yugoslav territories and many of the issues raised by Ari would not necessarily be disputed. I do agree his account was one sided and his use of the Swastika way over the top, but I also have little doubt that the views he expressed are representative of considerable bitterness within Serbia at how it has been treated by the international community.
Any peaceful solution in the region will have to include the willing participation of the Serbian people, so we have to listen to their concerns and address their legitimate grievances. Many terrible things were done during those wars, but they weren’t all done by one side.
I have little doubt that many Serbians feel “the West” ganged up on them and that their atrocities were highlighted whilst atrocities by the other side were barely reported. The manner in which the NATO intervention was ‘marketed’ to public opinion in the western media would make an interesting (and respectable academic) study, and so dismissing such concerns as ridiculous conspiracy theories perhaps betrays a willingness to prejudge the facts without careful study.
As US Senator Hiram Warren Johnson once said “truth is the first casualty of war”.
Frank gave good idea about study how Nato intervention was marketed to public opinion; I full agree this and would like to widen it also to all Balkan events during last decades.
For me it has been amazing how easy it has been to manipulate even respected media in Balkan Wars. Some reasons can be e.g.following:
1) The access to operation area for reporters was often dependent on army, independent journalists could have obstacles to make their work (like later in Iraq)
2) Nato information material and its briefings were very useful and easy material for media
3) Earlier in Bosnia war many operations were planned according media demands; e.g. few weeks before Srebrenica Bosnian Muslim leadership made estimation that 8.000 deaths is enough in western media to get U.S. involve directly to war.
4) Terms genocide, massacre and high figures are good marketing material for media, not the reports which later show the reality and overrated figures.
While I was working in Mitrovica region - Kosovo - during winter/spring 2000 I many times was looking big demonstrations and clashes from HQ windows through teargas or even among demonstrators. Time to time some bullets or grenades was flying etc. Despite the situation - which was daily material in tv-channels and other media it was very easy to plan e.g.evening activities such as dining place. Why so? Because everybody know that situation is over 6 or 7 pm, then it is dark, media does not get good pictures and prime time news deadline is closing.
Mediawar is today important part of managing conflicts. Some good examples of this we have seen last autumn during Georgia conflict. Even respected news agency - Reuters - was catch about fabricated pictures where same person was acting in different pictures as dead victim, bloody help worker, wounded civilian, bystander or sniper. Unfortunately the big headlines not the amendments will stay in peoples minds.
For your information I have removed my provocative graphic - Nato-svastika animation - from my post so that readers hopefully can concentrate to content of post more than the lay-out.
Thanks Ari. Great comment.
Thanks for removing the svastika which I also believed totally out of place here. Of course, we should talk about the violent conflicts in Europe - but I don’t think the reflex of citing Nazi imagery doesn’t lead anywhere but to falsification and simplification.
Ari: You seem to know much about the subject, so I would ask you for two things: Can you name your sources much more clearly? And: Could you give us an overview about what kind of solutions the different players are talking about?
To Nikolaq,
you may find some more information in my personal blog - AriRusila’s BalkanBlog, address http://arirusila.wordpress.com - where is my blogarchive and where I have collected small document library and link list to some related sources.
Look. You need to understand something that is very important for this whole debate: Kosovo was a damn mess before NATO snuck its nose in. Talking about illegal bombing campaigns and whatever and how much of a criminal state it is now, both questionable arguments, simply can’t cover the reality that the Serbian approach was a lot more destructive to the region.
1. I find it simply irrelevant that Western media overplayed everything. It’s not the first or the last time they did it and whoever is surprised by how onesided the whole discourse of nearly everyone was in 1999 against the Serbs, well, that person is naive. This is not something new.
2. However, no matter that, the ethnic situation in Kosovo and the tensions brewing there for quite a number of years can’t all be blamed on ‘Western dark interests’ as so many misguided Serbian citizens do today. The conflict there and the Serbian tanks in Albanian villages were real.
3. Also real was the mistake of Milosevic in managing the whole Kosovar crisis. He played the tough guy and thought that the West won’t jump at the first occasion to remove his already bothersome and questionable presence in the area. Face it - this was a game and the Serbs lost it, and legitimately so.
4. All this conspiracy talk is just a fad and it’s actually besides the issue. Kosovo is there now, and all desires to go back to a previous status quo are naive. History changes states and their territories and the fact 5 EU Member States refused to accept Kosovo’s independence is just a reflection towards their own, inner fears. Nobody wants change in favour of supressed minorities (who are majorities in their regions).
I wonder how would the French would react if Brettons or Occitans would decide all of a sudden that they want more specific rights, recognition of minority status and local authonomy… Would they be right to be mad? Of course. Would the minorities be right in their bid? Again, of course. It’s not a matter of who’s correct or not, in the end - but of who wins.
Well argued Bogdan, but the argument now is not who won, but how do we fix the problems which remain in the region. Part of the solution has to be to encourage all sides to stop viewing things in terms of black and white, winners and losers, ethnic Serbs and Kosovars and move on to looking creatively at solutions which can benefit everyone.
If the EU is about anything, it is about moving beyond zero-sum win/lose war and blame games and towards more cooperative models in economic, political and social development. I’m not convinced that any side in the region has yet quite achieved this, and I would be worried about any of those countries joining the EU unless they buy into a more peaceful way of resolving outstanding issues.
Ari’s piece illustrated the bitterness which remains on the Serbian side and I have no doubt similar feeling persist in Kosovo and the other former Yugoslav states.
Hopefully the Czech Presidency can raise it’s game and focus on something a bit bigger than just internal Czech politics to allow the enlargement process to continue.
Without presenting my arguments here (sorry no time) I agree with Ari: I personally could easily compare the trans-Atlantic alliance, called NATO, with the Nazism. It is not an overstatement any more. Future will tell…but perhaps we won’t be alive to see the results of NATO “humanitarian” interventions. Ari, this metaphor was more than right to the target!!!
I’m schocked reading this sort of political colured and one eyed arguments!!
What’s the relevance?
-What agenda are you supporting??
Under the headline “THINK ABOUT IT”….
The serbs went for troubles and got it. For me you are excactly why many plane daily WORKING euopeans having troubles taking you well fed politicians serious.
How about caring about something serious and pointing at positive relations instead of making stupid and oneeyed statements.. EU compared with nazi’s..?? Are you insane or just heading for votes..
The serbs stood up for excactly that fascist way of thinking.
Luckily they were stopped !
-Would you have written this article if the other part in this serb initiated conflitct were “the loosers” ??
Sissyboy.. -Typical macho latino asking for trouble and getting beaten up as deserved. Afterwards whining and asking for justice.
In war (..and love if yoy now what that is) rules are often neglected. And you got what you deserved!
Did the serbs want something nice for their fellow citizen..? Did they play by the (..now suddenly) important rules?
It is like the old Nazi’s in Germany playing sorry for their deserved fate.
-Realy hard to take serious!!
Find a therapist to comfort you and get a life! ..Perhaps doing something constructive and positive for this corrupt and underdeveloped region.
(And yes I have been travelling in this region.Outside the polished tourist circles. Schoking experience! Luckily you now have some heavy EU-funding to play with…;)
Nice day’s
Lars
Denmark
Lars,
So, why don’t you share your “schoking experience”? I’m wondering what is your conclusion…
Keep it up