Distorting Russia
How the American media misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine.
Stephen F. Cohen <http://www.thenation.com/authors/stephen-f-cohen>
February 11, 2014 | This article appeared in the March 3, 2014 edition
of The Nation. <http://www.thenation.com/issue/march-3-2014>
(Reuters/Mikhail Klimentyev/RIA Novosti/Pool)
The degradation of mainstream American press coverage of Russia, a country
still vital to US national security, has been under way for many years. If
the recent tsunami of shamefully unprofessional and politically inflammatory
articles in leading newspapers and magazines—particularly about the Sochi
Olympics, Ukraine and, unfailingly, President Vladimir Putin—is an
indication, this media malpractice is now pervasive and the new norm.
There are notable exceptions, but a general pattern has developed. Even in
the venerable New York Times and Washington Post, news reports, editorials
and commentaries no longer adhere rigorously to traditional journalistic
standards, often failing to provide essential facts and context; to make a
clear distinction between reporting and analysis; to require at least two
different political or "expert" views on major developments; or to publish
opposing opinions on their op-ed pages. As a result, American media on
Russia today are less objective, less balanced, more conformist and scarcely
less ideological than when they covered Soviet Russia during the Cold War.
The history of this degradation is also clear. It began in the early 1990s,
following the end of the Soviet Union, when the US media adopted
Washington's narrative that almost everything President Boris Yeltsin did
was a "transition from communism to democracy" and thus in America's best
interests. This included his economic "shock therapy" and oligarchic looting
of essential state assets, which destroyed tens of millions of Russian
lives; armed destruction of a popularly elected Parliament and imposition of
a "presidential" Constitution, which dealt a crippling blow to
democratization and now empowers Putin; brutal war in tiny Chechnya, which
gave rise to terrorists in Russia's North Caucasus; rigging of his own
re-election in 1996; and leaving behind, in 1999, his approval ratings in
single digits, a disintegrating country laden with weapons of mass
destruction. Indeed, most American journalists still give the impression
that Yeltsin was an ideal Russian leader.
Since the early 2000s, the media have followed a different leader-centric
narrative, also consistent with US policy, that devalues multifaceted
analysis for a relentless demonization of Putin, with little regard for
facts. (Was any Soviet Communist leader after Stalin ever so personally
villainized?) If Russia under Yeltsin was presented as having legitimate
politics and national interests, we are now made to believe that Putin's
Russia has none at all, at home or abroad—even on its own borders, as in
Ukraine.
Russia today has serious problems and many repugnant Kremlin policies. But
anyone relying on mainstream American media will not find there any of their
origins or influences in Yeltsin's Russia or in provocative US policies
since the 1990s—only in the "autocrat" Putin who, however authoritarian, in
reality lacks such power. Nor is he credited with stabilizing a
disintegrating nuclear-armed country, assisting US security pursuits from
Afghanistan <http://www.thenation.com/afghanistan?lc=int_mb_1001> and Syria
to Iran or even with granting amnesty, in December, to more than 1,000
jailed prisoners, including mothers of young children.
Not surprisingly, in January The Wall Street Journal featured the widely
discredited former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili, branding
Putin's government as one of "deceit, violence and cynicism," with the
Kremlin a "nerve center of the troubles that bedevil the West." But wanton
Putin-bashing is also the dominant narrative in centrist, liberal and
progressive media, from the Post, Times and The New Republic to CNN, MSNBC
and HBO's Real Time With Bill Maher, where Howard Dean, not previously known
for his Russia expertise, recently declared, to the panel's approval,
"Vladimir Putin is a thug."
The media therefore eagerly await Putin's downfall—due to his "failing
economy" (some of its indicators are better than US ones), the valor of
street protesters and other right-minded oppositionists (whose policies are
rarely examined), the defection of his electorate (his approval ratings
remain around 65 percent) or some welcomed "cataclysm." Evidently believing,
as does the Times, for example, that democrats and a "much better future"
will succeed Putin (not zealous ultranationalists growing in the streets and
corridors of power), US commentators remain indifferent to what the
hoped-for "destabilization of his regime" might mean in the world's largest
nuclear country.
Certainly, The New Republic's lead writer on Russia, Julia Ioffe, does not
explore the question, or much else of real consequence, in her nearly
10,000-word February 17 cover story. Ioffe's bannered theme is devoutly
Putin-phobic: "He Crushed His Opposition and Has Nothing to Show for It But
a Country That Is Falling Apart." Neither sweeping assertion is spelled out
or documented. A compilation of chats with Russian-born Ioffe's disaffected
(but seemingly not "crushed") Moscow acquaintances and titillating personal
gossip long circulating on the Internet, the article seems better suited
(apart from some factual errors) for the Russian tabloids, as does Ioffe's
disdain for objectivity. Protest shouts of "Russia without Putin!" and
"Putin is a thief!" were "one of the most exhilarating moments I'd ever
experienced." So was tweeting "Putin's fucked, y'all." Nor does she forget
the hopeful mantra "cataclysm seems closer than ever now."
* * *
For weeks, this toxic coverage has focused on the Sochi Olympics and the
deepening crisis in Ukraine. Even before the Games began, the Times declared
the newly built complex a "Soviet-style dystopia" and warned in a headline,
Terrorism and Tension, Not Sports and Joy. On opening day, the paper found
space for three anti-Putin articles and a lead editorial, a feat rivaled by
the Post. Facts hardly mattered. Virtually every US report insisted that a
record $51 billion "squandered" by Putin on the Sochi Games proved they were
"corrupt." But as Ben Aris of Business New Europe pointed out, as much as
$44 billion may have been spent "to develop the infrastructure of the entire
region," investment "the entire country needs."
Overall pre-Sochi coverage was even worse, exploiting the threat of
terrorism so licentiously it seemed pornographic. The Post, long known among
critical-minded Russia-watchers as Pravda on the Potomac, exemplified the
media ethos. A sports columnist and an editorial page editor turned the
Olympics into "a contest of wills" between the despised Putin's "thugocracy"
and terrorist "insurgents." The "two warring parties" were so equated that
readers might have wondered which to cheer for. If nothing else, American
journalists gave terrorists an early victory, tainting "Putin's Games" and
frightening away many foreign spectators, including some relatives of the
athletes.
The Sochi Games will soon pass, triumphantly or tragically, but the
potentially fateful Ukrainian crisis will not. A new Cold War divide between
West and East may now be unfolding, not in Berlin but in the heart of
Russia's historical civilization. The result could be a permanent
confrontation fraught with instability and the threat of a hot war far worse
than the one in Georgia in 2008. These dangers have been all but ignored in
highly selective, partisan and inflammatory US media accounts, which portray
the European Union's "Partnership" proposal benignly as Ukraine's chance for
democracy, prosperity and escape from Russia, thwarted only by a "bullying"
Putin and his "cronies" in Kiev.
Not long ago, committed readers could count on The New York Review of Books
for factually trustworthy alternative perspectives on important historical
and contemporary subjects. But when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, the NYRB
has succumbed to the general media mania. In a January 21 blog post, Amy
Knight, a regular contributor and inveterate Putin-basher, warned the US
government against cooperating with the Kremlin on Sochi security, even
suggesting that Putin's secret services "might have had an interest in
allowing or even facilitating such attacks" as killed or wounded dozens of
Russians in Volgograd in December.
Knight's innuendo prefigured a purported report on Ukraine by Yale
professor Timothy Snyder in the February 20 issue. Omissions of facts, by
journalists or scholars, are no less an untruth than misstatements of fact.
Snyder's article was full of both, which are widespread in the popular
media, but these are in the esteemed NYRB and by an acclaimed academic.
Consider a few of Snyder's assertions:
§ "On paper, Ukraine is now a dictatorship." In fact, the "paper"
legislation he's referring to hardly constituted dictatorship, and in any
event was soon repealed. Ukraine is in a state nearly the opposite of
dictatorship—political chaos uncontrolled by President Viktor Yanukovych,
the Parliament, the police or any other government institution.
§ "The [parliamentary] deputies…have all but voted themselves out of
existence." Again, Snyder is alluding to the nullified "paper." Moreover,
serious discussions have been under way in Kiev about reverting to
provisions in the 2004 Constitution that would return substantial
presidential powers to the legislature, hardly "the end of parliamentary
checks on presidential power," as Snyder claims. (Does he dislike the
prospect of a compromise outcome?)
§ "Through remarkably large and peaceful public protests…Ukrainians have
set a positive example for Europeans." This astonishing statement may have
been true in November, but it now raises questions about the "example"
Snyder is advocating. The occupation of government buildings in Kiev and in
Western Ukraine, the hurling of firebombs at police and other violent
assaults on law enforcement officers and the proliferation of anti-Semitic
slogans by a significant number of anti-Yanukovych protesters, all
documented and even televised, are not an "example" most readers would
recommend to Europeans or Americans. Nor are they tolerated, even if
accompanied by episodes of police brutality
<http://www.thenation.com/section/police-brutality?lc=int_mb_1001> , in any
Western democracy.
§ "Representatives of a minor group of the Ukrainian extreme right have
taken credit for the violence." This obfuscation implies that apart perhaps
from a "minor group," the "Ukrainian extreme right" is part of the positive
"example" being set. (Many of its representatives have expressed hatred for
Europe's "anti-traditional" values, such as gay rights.) Still more, Snyder
continues, "something is fishy," strongly implying that the mob violence is
actually being "done by russo-phone provocateurs" on behalf of "Yanukovych
(or Putin)." As evidence, Snyder alludes to "reports" that the instigators
"spoke Russian." But millions of Ukrainians on both sides of their incipient
civil war speak Russian.
§ Snyder reproduces yet another widespread media malpractice regarding
Russia, the decline of editorial fact-checking. In a recent article in the
International New York Times, he both inflates his assertions and tries to
delete neofascist elements from his innocuous "Ukrainian extreme right."
Again without any verified evidence, he warns of a Putin-backed "armed
intervention" in Ukraine after the Olympics and characterizes reliable
reports of "Nazis and anti-Semites" among street protesters as "Russian
propaganda."
§ Perhaps the largest untruth promoted by Snyder and most US media is the
claim that "Ukraine's future integration into Europe" is "yearned for
throughout the country." But every informed observer knows—from Ukraine's
history, geography, languages, religions, culture, recent politics and
opinion surveys—that the country is deeply divided as to whether it should
join Europe or remain close politically and economically to Russia. There is
not one Ukraine or one "Ukrainian people" but at least two, generally
situated in its Western and Eastern regions.
Such factual distortions point to two flagrant omissions by Snyder and
other US media accounts. The now exceedingly dangerous confrontation between
the two Ukraines was not "ignited," as the Times claims, by Yanukovych's
duplicitous negotiating—or by Putin—but by the EU's reckless ultimatum, in
November, that the democratically elected president of a profoundly divided
country choose between Europe and Russia. Putin's proposal for a tripartite
arrangement, rarely if ever reported, was flatly rejected by US and EU
officials.
But the most crucial media omission is Moscow's reasonable conviction that
the struggle for Ukraine is yet another chapter in the West's ongoing,
US-led march toward post-Soviet Russia, which began in the 1990s with NATO's
eastward expansion and continued with US-funded NGO political activities
inside Russia, a US-NATO military outpost in Georgia and missile-defense
installations near Russia. Whether this longstanding Washington-Brussels
policy is wise or reckless, it—not Putin's December financial offer to save
Ukraine's collapsing economy—is deceitful. The EU's "civilizational"
proposal, for example, includes "security policy" provisions, almost never
reported, that would apparently subordinate Ukraine to NATO.
Any doubts about the Obama administration's real intentions in Ukraine
should have been dispelled by the recently revealed taped conversation
between a top State Department official, Victoria Nuland, and the US
ambassador in Kiev. The media predictably focused on the source of the
"leak" and on Nuland's verbal "gaffe"—"Fuck the EU." But the essential
revelation was that high-level US officials were plotting to "midwife" a
new, anti-Russian Ukrainian government by ousting or neutralizing its
democratically elected president—that is, a coup.
Americans are left with a new edition of an old question. Has Washington's
twenty-year winner-take-all approach to post-Soviet Russia shaped this
degraded news coverage, or is official policy shaped by the coverage? Did
Senator John McCain stand in Kiev alongside the well-known leader of an
extreme nationalist party because he was ill informed by the media, or have
the media deleted this part of the story because of McCain's folly?
And what of Barack Obama's decision to send only a low-level delegation,
including retired gay athletes, to Sochi? In August, Putin virtually saved
Obama's presidency by persuading Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to
eliminate his chemical weapons. Putin then helped to facilitate Obama's
heralded opening to Iran. Should not Obama himself have gone to Sochi—either
out of gratitude to Putin, or to stand with Russia's leader against
international terrorists who have struck both of our countries? Did he not
go because he was ensnared by his unwise Russia policies, or because the US
media misrepresented the varying reasons cited: the granting of asylum to
Edward Snowden, differences on the Middle East, infringements on gay rights
in Russia, and now Ukraine? Whatever the explanation, as Russian
intellectuals say when faced with two bad alternatives, "Both are worst."
http://www.thenation.com/article/178344/distorting-russia
March 04, 2014
March 01, 2014
Washington's Man Yatsenyuk Setting Ukraine Up For Ruin
Washington's Man Yatsenyuk Setting Ukraine Up For Ruin
Ukraine's interim prime minister, Arseniy "Yats" Yatsenyuk, may prove to be arsenic to the beleaguered nation.
"Recall the phone exchange between the Ukraine ambassador and Victoria Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs) that got leaked out, where she basically said 'we want Yats in there.' They like him because he's pro Western," says Vladimir Signorelli, president of boutique investment research firm Bretton Woods Research LLC in New Jersey. "Yatsenyuk is the the kind of technocrat you want if you want austerity, with the veneer of professionalism," Signorelli said. "He's the type of guy who can hobnob with the European elite. A Mario Monti type: unelected and willing to do the IMFs bidding," he said.
Mario Monti was a centrist Italian technocrat who passed an austerity package that called for increased taxes, pension reform and measures to fight tax evasion.
Over the past several weeks, Ukraine has been battling political infighting between pro-Russian Ukrainians and pro-Europeans. The fight stepped into high gear in the fall when Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych decided to tilt towards Moscow instead of Brussels in a trade deal. Last week, Yanukovych left Kiev and headed to an undisclosed location, believed to be holed up in a Russian Naval base.
After Yanukovych and the political opposition agreed to an orderly transition toward new elections, the opposition shattered the agreement quickly and took strategic positions around Kiev. Many voices in the Western press say the country could break apart.
Despite these ominous signs, Ukraine Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt hailed the current crisis as "a day for the history books." Most of the mainstream media have leaned decisively in the anti-Yanukovych camp.
Ukraine's new 450-seat parliament approved the appointment of the former Central Banker Yatsenyuk on Thursday by a vote of 371 to 1. Oddly enough, earlier this month, the pro-Western Yats trailed behind popular opposition leaders such as former heavyweight boxer Viltali Klitschko and the leader of the nationalist, Svoboda Party, Oleh Tyahnybok. But Yats had friends in high places and while he does not have strong support of the electorate, and would have no chance of winning an election, he is pro-IMF austerity and apparently the bulk of parliament is as well.
"Yatsenyuk was saying that what the Greeks did to themselves we are going to do ourselves," said Signorelli. "He wants to follow the Greek economic model. Who the hell wants to follow that?"
Also today, Yatsenyuk promised to implement "very unpopular measures" to stabilize the country's finances. The government said it needs $35 billion to support the country over the next two years. His language in a news report broadcast by Bloomberg today indicates he is heading toward a potentially destabilizing austerity campaign:
"The treasury is empty. We will do everything not to default. If we get the financial support from the IMF, the U.S., we will do it. I'm going to be the most unpopular prime minister in the history of my country," he said. "But this is the only solution. I would never promise any kind of huge achievements. First and the most important issue is to stabilize the situation."
He also said that, "We want Russia to have transparent and fair relations with Ukraine. We want to be partners with Russia…we strongly believe it will never intervene with a military force in Ukraine."
Under the brewing divide-and-conquer political crisis lies Ukraine's economic problems. The Ukrainian currency, the hryvnia, is down over 16% year-to-date, a record decline against the dollar.
It is unclear the kind of measures Yatsenyuk will tolerate, but it appears austerity is the path forward. That includes a regimen of tax increases, interest rate hikes and further currency devaluation.
Yanukovych resisted the International Monetary Fund's demand to raise taxes and devalue the currency. Yatsenyuk doesn't mind. For economists who think austerity is a disaster, Ukraine is on a path to ruin.
"We saw this in the 90s and what the IMF did to Russia with Yeltsin. They'll do that to Ukraine," said Signorelli. Remember Slobodan Milošević in Yugoslavia? After the IMF finished with Yugoslavia it was only a matter of time before the separatist movements gained traction," he said. "I think things in Ukraine can get really really bad."
December 30, 2013
Politicised NATO
Politicized Nobel
Wednesday, 30th December 2013
Živadin Jovanović
Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals
Recently a news came from Washington that some US congressmen initiated that Nobel Peace Award for 2013 be given to the Lady Catherine Ashton, EU Commissar for Foreign Policy and Security, Ivica Dacic, Prime Minister of Serbia and Hashim Tachi, "Prime Minister of self-proclaimed Republic of Kosova", in recognition for reaching so called Brussels Agreement on Normalization, under EU auspices, in April 2013.
For quite some time, the Nobel Prize has been heavily politicized and compromised due to its being awarded not for genuine contributions to peace and democracy but rather abused as a tool for imposing imperialistic interests of western power centers on other countries and nations. What does it mean if, for example, this award was given to someone responsible for a renewed arms race, for the chaos reigning today in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other countries as well as and for the global bugging and spying on own citizens and closest allies!
Such a reward could hardly promote peace, democracy, observance of the principles of international law and other true civilization values. It serves rather as a tool for promotion of obedience, dictate and inequality, in the interests of selfish corporative financial capital.
The initiative was moved by the Albanian lobby in Washington, which itself speaks of its objectivity and principled nature. In the core of it lie the interests of the very same power centers which in 1999 had launched the armed aggression against Serbia (the FRY), and which in 2013 imposed on Serbia the dictate called "Brussels Agreement" on Kosovo and Metohija. True meaning of this dictate is - seizure of a part of state territory of Serbia, violation of international law, particularly, violation of the UN SC resolution 1244 (1999) guaranteeing sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia. This dictate is aimed at legalizing true goal of the 1999 NATO armed aggression and the amnestying of the NATO leaders from the crime against peace and humanity. Evidently, all this has nothing to do with peace, stability and justice.
What, really, are morality and criteria of those who put on equal footing peace deeds of Baroness Catherine Ashton, EU Commissar for Foreign Policy and Security and Hashim Tachi, nick-named "Snake", former leader of the terrorist KLA organization, person who has been indicated by the Report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as involved in human organ harvesting and trafficking, who has been accused of sponsoring international organized crime, such as drug, arms and human beings smuggling?
September 11, 2013
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
September 11, 2013
A Plea for Caution From Russia
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America's consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria's borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today's complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America's long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan "you're either with us or against us."
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government's willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president's interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States' policy is "what makes America different. It's what makes us exceptional." It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
September 06, 2013
Obama Stymied in Bid to Rally World Leaders on Syria Strike
September 6, 2013
Obama Stymied in Bid to Rally World Leaders on Syria Strike
By PETER BAKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS
STRELNA, Russia — President Obama ran into an impasse on Friday in his bid to rally international backing for a military strike on Syria as world leaders wrapped up a summit meeting here remaining deeply divided over the right response to what the Americans have called the deadliest nerve gas attack in decades.
After a dinner debate that lasted into the early morning hours of Friday, Mr. Obama emerged with a few supporters but no consensus, as other leaders urged him not to attack without United Nations permission, which is not forthcoming. Instead, the president had to resign himself to generalized statements of concern over the use of chemical weapons.
The failure to forge a stronger coalition here in the face of opposition from the Russian host, President Vladimir V. Putin, raised the risks even further for Mr. Obama as he headed home to lobby Congress to give him the backing his international peers would not. It also left Mr. Obama in the awkward position of defending his right to take action largely alone if necessary after campaigning against what he portrayed as the unilateralist foreign policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Mr. Obama acknowledged that he had a "hard sell" with Congress and announced that he would deliver a televised address to the nation Tuesday evening from the White House.
"Failing to respond to this breach of this international norm would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that they can use W.M.D. and not pay a consequence," he said at a news conference, using the initials for weapons of mass destruction. "And that's not a world we want to live in."
But much of the world, at least as represented at the Group of 20 meeting here in this St. Petersburg suburb, did not favor Mr. Obama's proposed course of action. Mr. Putin said a majority of the leaders joined him in opposing a military strike independent of United Nations approval, including those from Argentina, Brazil, China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy and South Africa.
Citing remarks by Jacob Zuma, the South African president, Mr. Putin said: " 'Small countries in today's world in general are feeling increasingly vulnerable and unprotected. There is an impression any superpower at any moment at its discretion may use force.' And he's right."
The only countries that supported Mr. Obama's plan, the Russian leader said, were Canada, France, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, all nations that were on Mr. Obama's side when he arrived here on Thursday.
Trying to counter the impression of isolation, the White House arranged for a joint statement including those allies as well as Australia, Britain, Italy, Japan, Spain and South Korea condemning the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of the Syrian capital, Damascus, which according to American intelligence agencies, killed more than 1,400 people.
"We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world's rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated," the statement said. "Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable." Still, the statement did not explicitly endorse military action.
But Mr. Putin pointed to a statement issued by Pope Francis on Thursday opposing military strikes and cited polls showing that the citizens of most countries, including the United States, also did not favor an American-led strike. "I can assure you — and the latest polls say this as well — the overwhelming majority of the populations in these countries is on our side," he said, his voice rising combatively.
Even as Mr. Putin ardently argued against an American-led intervention, Russia's Navy continued preparations in the event of an attack. It has already dispatched at least four warships to the Mediterranean Sea, including three that passed through the Bosporus on Thursday, two landing ships and a destroyer.
Russian news agencies on Friday reported that additional ships would join the armada, but not until later in September. Mr. Putin's chief of staff, Sergei B. Ivanov, told reporters that the landing vessels were being sent in case it was necessary to evacuate Russian citizens from Syria.
Russia's deputy defense minister, Anatoly I. Antonov, said on Thursday that the ships would not intervene against American and other NATO warships that have also assembled in the region. "We don't intend, either directly or indirectly, to take part in a possible regional conflict," he said, according to the Web site of the Ministry of Defense.
Speaking with reporters as he was about to end his three-day overseas trip, Mr. Obama repeatedly refused to say whether he would abide by the Congressional vote he asked for authorizing the use of force against Syria if lawmakers say no.
"You're not getting any direct response," he said. But Antony Blinken, his principal deputy national security adviser, told NPR that while the president maintains that he has the authority to act regardless of Congress, "it's neither his desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him."
The Syria dispute came to dominate the G-20 meeting and underscored the difficulty Mr. Obama has faced with Mr. Putin in recent months. After Russia gave temporary asylum to Edward J. Snowden, the National Security Agency contractor who disclosed secret American surveillance programs, Mr. Obama canceled a separate one-on-one meeting with Mr. Putin in Moscow.
But the two ended up talking on the sideline of the group session on Friday, mainly about their disagreement over Syria. Mr. Obama said Mr. Snowden's case did not really come up. "It was a candid and constructive conversation, which characterizes my relationship with him," Mr. Obama said.
For his part, Mr. Putin said the two leaders agreed to disagree during a friendly encounter on Thursday that lasted more than 20 minutes.
"We hear each other and understand the arguments," he said. "We simply don't agree with them. I don't agree with his arguments and he doesn't agree with mine, but we hear and try to analyze."
He added that they did agree that Syria ultimately needed a political settlement, and delegated the question to Russia's foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, and Secretary of State John Kerry. In May, the two officials announced an effort to begin negotiations for a settlement in Syria, to be held in Geneva, but that effort has since stalled and now seems further away than ever.
The president said he appreciated that Mr. Putin had allowed a full airing of views about Syria at the dinner on Thursday. By several accounts, it was a vigorous discussion in which Mr. Obama and Mr. Putin in effect were competing for support. Mr. Obama emerged having changed no one's mind about military force, but most of the leaders at least agreed with his assessment that the government of Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, was responsible for the attack, something Mr. Putin has dismissed as "utter nonsense."
"I've been encouraged by my discussions with my fellow leaders this week," Mr. Obama said Friday. "There is a growing recognition that the world cannot stand idly by."
But he acknowledged the deep reservations over the use of force and said he reminded the leaders at the dinner that he had opposed Mr. Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003. "I was elected to end wars, not start them," Mr. Obama said he told them. "I'm not itching for military action."
In addition to the talk with Mr. Putin, Mr. Obama held more formal meetings with the leaders of Brazil, China, France, Japan and Mexico. His session with President François Hollande of France was his one meeting with an unalloyed supporter of military action against Syria. "Doing nothing would mean impunity," Mr. Hollande told reporters, "and there would be a risk of repeating, so we must take responsibility."
Mr. Hollande has called forcefully for intervention and spoken with certitude about Mr. Assad's responsibility for the chemical attack. France has no intention of intervening without an international coalition, however, and Mr. Hollande has been obliged to await the Congressional vote before taking action of any kind. On Friday, he announced that France would also await the findings of United Nations weapons inspectors who visited the site of the Aug. 21 attack. Their reports are not expected for at least two weeks.
"We're now going to wait for the decision by Congress," Mr. Hollande said Friday, "then the inspectors' report. And in light of these elements, I will, here again, have to take decisions."
Mr. Hollande offered no explanation for his decision to await the United Nations findings, but French lawmakers have in recent days increasingly called for him to do so.
The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, tried to dissuade Mr. Obama from the use of force during their talk on Friday, said Benjamin J. Rhodes, deputy national security adviser. "We've obviously had a difference with China on this issue," he said.
President Obama's conversations with President Dilma Rousseff of Brazil and President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico were intended to smooth over consternation in both countries about reports, based on Mr. Snowden's leaks, that the National Security Agency eavesdropped on both leaders' telephone calls, e-mails and text messages.
Ms. Rousseff told reporters afterward that Mr. Obama promised an investigation, but she held out the possibility that she might cancel a trip to Washington scheduled for next month. Mr. Peña Nieto told BBC that he also got a promise of an inquiry into the allegations and that Mr. Obama committed "to impose corresponding sanctions" if they were true.
While White House officials said that tension did not influence the Syria debate, neither leader backed military action.
Mr. Obama also made a point before leaving town of meeting with nine Russian activists to show support for groups and individuals who have come under pressure from Mr. Putin's government. Among them was a leader from a gay rights group, raising an issue that has grown especially sensitive in Europe and the United States since Russia outlawed pro-gay "propaganda" this summer.
But Mr. Obama had no critical words for Mr. Putin or his government during his comments in front of news cameras, instead focusing on his own history as a community organizer and offering general statements about the value of free press, independent opposition and civil society.
Mr. Obama was scheduled to land back in Washington on Friday night as he braced for what advisers consider one of the most critical Congressional debates of his presidency.
"I knew this was going to be a heavy lift," he said. "I was under no illusions when I embarked on this path. But I think it's the right thing to do. I think it's good for our democracy. We will be more effective if we are unified going forward."
Scott Sayare contributed reporting from Paris.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/world/middleeast/obama-syria-strike.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all&pagewanted=print
September 03, 2013
Found at last! After searching for 10 years, the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have finally been found – in Syria!
Found at last! After searching for 10 years, the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have finally been found – in Syria!
September 01, 2013
Iran, not Syria, is the West's real target
Friday 30 August 2013
Iran, not Syria, is the West's real target
Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran. And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West
Before the stupidest Western war in the history of the modern world begins – I am, of course, referring to the attack on Syria that we all yet have to swallow – it might be as well to say that the cruise missiles which we confidently expect to sweep onto one of mankind's oldest cities have absolutely nothing to do with Syria.
They are intended to harm Iran. They are intended to strike at the Islamic republic now that it has a new and vibrant president – as opposed to the crackpot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – and when it just might be a little more stable.
Iran is Israel's enemy. Iran is therefore, naturally, America's enemy. So fire the missiles at Iran's only Arab ally.
There is nothing pleasant about the regime in Damascus. Nor do these comments let the regime off the hook when it comes to mass gassing. But I am old enough to remember that when Iraq – then America's ally – used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988, we did not assault Baghdad. Indeed, that attack would have to wait until 2003, when Saddam no longer had any gas or any of the other weapons we had nightmares over.
And I also happen to remember that the CIA put it about in 1988 that Iran was responsible for the Hallabjah gassings, a palpable lie that focused on America's enemy whom Saddam was then fighting on our behalf. And thousands – not hundreds – died in Hallabjah. But there you go. Different days, different standards.
And I suppose it's worth noting that when Israel killed up to 17,000 men, women and children in Lebanon in 1982, in an invasion supposedly provoked by the attempted PLO murder of the Israeli ambassador in London – it was Saddam's mate Abu Nidal who arranged the killing, not the PLO, but that doesn't matter now – America merely called for both sides to exercise "restraint". And when, a few months before that invasion, Hafez al-Assad – father of Bashar – sent his brother up to Hama to wipe out thousands of Muslim Brotherhood rebels, nobody muttered a word of condemnation. "Hama Rules" is how my old mate Tom Friedman cynically styled this bloodbath.
Anyway, there's a different Brotherhood around these days – and Obama couldn't even bring himself to say "boo" when their elected president got deposed.
But hold on. Didn't Iraq – when it was "our" ally against Iran – also use gas on the Iranian army? It did. I saw the Ypres-like wounded of this foul attack by Saddam – US officers, I should add, toured the battlefield later and reported back to Washington – and we didn't care a tinker's curse about it. Thousands of Iranian soldiers in the 1980-88 war were poisoned to death by this vile weapon.
I travelled back to Tehran overnight on a train of military wounded and actually smelled the stuff, opening the windows in the corridors to release the stench of the gas. These young men had wounds upon wounds – quite literally. They had horrible sores wherein floated even more painful sores that were close to indescribable. Yet when the soldiers were sent to Western hospitals for treatment, we journos called these wounded – after evidence from the UN infinitely more convincing than what we're likely to get from outside Damascus – "alleged" gas victims.
So what in heaven's name are we doing? After countless thousands have died in Syria's awesome tragedy, suddenly – now, after months and years of prevarication – we are getting upset about a few hundred deaths. Terrible. Unconscionable. Yes, that is true. But we should have been traumatised into action by this war in 2011. And 2012. But why now?
I suspect I know the reason. I think that Bashar al-Assad's ruthless army might just be winning against the rebels whom we secretly arm. With the assistance of the Lebanese Hezbollah – Iran's ally in Lebanon – the Damascus regime broke the rebels in Qusayr and may be in the process of breaking them north of Homs. Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran. And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West.
And while we're on the subject of war, what happened to those magnificent Palestinian-Israeli negotiations that John Kerry was boasting about? While we express our anguish at the hideous gassings in Syria, the land of Palestine continues to be gobbled up. Israel's Likudist policy – to negotiate for peace until there is no Palestine left – continues apace, which is why King Abdullah of Jordan's nightmare (a much more potent one than the "weapons of mass destruction" we dreamed up in 2003) grows larger: that "Palestine" will be in Jordan, not in Palestine.
But if we are to believe the nonsense coming out of Washington, London, Paris and the rest of the "civilised" world, it's only a matter of time before our swift and avenging sword smiteth the Damascenes. To observe the leadership of the rest of the Arab world applauding this destruction is perhaps the most painful historical experience for the region to endure. And the most shameful. Save for the fact that we will be attacking Shia Muslims and their allies to the handclapping of Sunni Muslims. And that's what civil war is made of.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html?origin=internalSearch
August 24, 2013
Air War in Kosovo Seen as Precedent in Possible Response to Syria Chemical Attack
August 23, 2013
Air War in Kosovo Seen as Precedent in Possible Response to Syria Chemical Attack
By MARK LANDLER and MICHAEL R. GORDON
WASHINGTON — As President Obama weighs options for responding to a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria, his national security aides are studying the NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the United Nations.
With Russia still likely to veto any military action in the Security Council, the president appears to be wrestling with whether to bypass the United Nations, although he warned that doing so would require a robust international coalition and legal justification.
"If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it, do we have the coalition to make it work?" Mr. Obama said on Friday to CNN, in his first public comments after the deadly attack on Wednesday.
Mr. Obama described the attack as "clearly a big event of grave concern" and acknowledged that the United States had limited time to respond. But he said United Nations investigators needed to determine whether chemical weapons had been used.
Mr. Obama was meeting on Saturday morning with his national security staff to discuss Syria, according to a White House official, having returned from a two-day bus tour of upstate New York and Pennsylvania.
"We are going to act very deliberately so that we're making decisions consistent with our national interest as well as our assessment of what can advance our objectives in Syria," the official said.
Kosovo is an obvious precedent for Mr. Obama because, as in Syria, civilians were killed and Russia had longstanding ties to the government authorities accused of the abuses. In 1999, President Bill Clinton used the endorsement of NATO and the rationale of protecting a vulnerable population to justify 78 days of airstrikes.
A senior administration official said the Kosovo precedent was one of many subjects discussed in continuing White House meetings on the crisis in Syria. Officials are also debating whether a military strike would have unintended consequences, destabilize neighbors like Lebanon, or lead to even greater flows of refugees into Jordan, Turkey and Egypt.
"It's a step too far to say we're drawing up legal justifications for an action, given that the president hasn't made a decision," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the deliberations. "But Kosovo, of course, is a precedent of something that is perhaps similar."
In the Mediterranean, the Navy's regional commander postponed a scheduled port call in Naples, Italy, for a destroyer so that the ship would remain with a second destroyer in striking distance of Syria during the crisis. Pentagon officials said the decision did not reflect any specific orders from Washington, but both destroyers had on board Tomahawk cruise missiles, long-range weapons that probably would be among the first launched against targets in Syria should the president decide to take military action.
On Friday, the Russian government called on President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to allow United Nations investigators into the areas east of Damascus where the attack occurred. But American and foreign diplomats said Russia's move did not reflect any shift in its backing of Mr. Assad or its resistance to punitive measures in the Security Council.
In a statement, Russia's foreign ministry put the onus on Syria's opposition forces to provide secure access to the site of the "reported incident." A second statement suggested that the Russians believed the attack was actually a provocation by the rebels. It cited reports criticizing government troops that were posted on the Internet hours before the attack.
"More and more evidence emerges indicating that this criminal act had an openly provocative character," Aleksandr K. Lukashevich, a spokesman for Russia's foreign ministry, said in the statement. "The talk here is about a previously planned action."
However, Mr. Lukashevich may have been confused by YouTube's practice of time-stamping uploaded videos based on the time in its California headquarters, no matter the originating time zone. The attacks occurred early Wednesday in Syria, when it would still have been Tuesday in California for about eight more hours.
Mr. Lukashevich praised the Assad government for welcoming Carla del Ponte, a member of a United Nations commission on Syria who suggested in May that the rebels had used chemical weapons, and he accused the Syrian opposition of not cooperating with the investigation by United Nations experts.
The Syrian government did not comment on Friday.
On Friday CBS News, citing administration officials, reported that American intelligence agencies detected activity at locations known to be chemical weapons sites before Wednesday's attack. The activity, these officials believe, may have been preparations for the assault.
Other Western officials have been less cautious than Mr. Obama. "I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria," said William Hague, Britain's foreign secretary, in an interview with Sky News. "I think the chances of that are vanishingly small, and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime."
Mr. Hague did not speak of using force, as France has, if the government was found to have been behind the attack. But he said it was "not something that a humane or civilized world can ignore."
Such statements carry echoes of Kosovo, where the Yugoslav government of Slobodan Milosevic brutally cracked down on ethnic Albanians in 1998 and 1999, prompting the Clinton administration to decide to act militarily in concert with NATO allies.
Mr. Clinton knew there was no prospect of securing a resolution from the Security Council authorizing the use of force. Russia was a longtime supporter of the Milosevic government and was certain to wield its vote in the Security Council to block action.
So the Clinton administration justified its actions, in part, as an intervention to protect a vulnerable and embattled population. NATO carried out airstrikes before Mr. Milosevic agreed to NATO demands, which required the withdrawal of Yugoslav forces.
"The argument in 1999 in the case of Kosovo was that there was a grave humanitarian emergency and the international community had the responsibility to act and, if necessary, to do so with force," said Ivo H. Daalder, a former United States ambassador to NATO who is now the president of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
In the case of Syria, Mr. Daalder said, the administration could argue that the use of chemical weapons had created a grave humanitarian emergency and that without a forceful response there would be a danger that the Assad government might use it on a large scale once again. Another basis for intervening in Syria, Mr. Daalder said, might be violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which outlaws the use in war of poison gas. Dennis B. Ross, a former adviser to Mr. Obama on the Middle East, said that if the president wanted to develop a legal justification for acting, "there are lots of ways to do it outside the U.N. context."
Reporting was contributed by Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker from Washington, Steven Lee Myers from Moscow and David Jolly from Paris.
June 28, 2013
Globe and Mail : Why this strategy won’t fly in Syria - by Lewis MacKenzie
"No-Fly Zones-not what they used to be!"
LEWIS MacKENZIE
Why this strategy won't fly in Syria
Lewis MacKenzie Special to The Globe and Mail Published Jun. 25 2013
So, here we go again. President Barack Obama has decided that the U.S. will supply small-arms to the rebels in Syria fighting the al-Assad regime for control of the country. Record this decision as the equivalent of a bobsled leaving the downhill start at the top of the St. Moritz run in Switzerland. We now have the West, led by the U.S. with potentially Canada sharing the sled, on a slippery slop toward what has become well known over the years as "mission creep." Anyone remember Iraq, Kosovo or Libya?
If recent history is a guide, the next development as the slope gets steeper will be a call for a no-fly zone over Syria. No-fly zones were originally imposed by the allies following the first Persian Gulf war in 1991. Primarily U.S. and British fighter aircraft patrolled the skies over Iraq to ensure no Iraqi aircraft could threaten groups like the minority Kurdish population in the north of the country. In the memorable words of Senator John McCain, the technique, in its simplest description, tells pilots: "Don't fly or you're going to die." As the 12-year operation of patrolling the skies over Iraq got under way, an additional caveat was inserted into the no-fly protocol. Iraqi ground-based air defence units could continue to be deployed; however, if they turned their radars on and "painted" Allied aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone they would be destroyed on the spot. The no-fly zone operation was successful and achieved its objective of grounding all Iraqi military aircraft.
In 1999, with NATO celebrating its 50th anniversary and no enemy in sight to justify its existence, it sought a new role and solicited a UN resolution to establish a no-fly zone over Serbia/Kosovo – the scene of a civil conflict in the latter, with involvement of the former. When it proved impossible for the UN Security Council to approve such a resolution, NATO, in a highly questionable and arguably illegal move, commenced bombing a sovereign nation, the former Yugoslavia (Serbia/Kosovo).
Justification, it was argued, was provided by a dated, no-longer-applicable UN resolution that provided for a no-fly zone to protect European Union monitors in Kosovo. The fact that the EU monitors were no longer deployed in Kosovo was conveniently ignored. What followed was an all-out bombing campaign against the infrastructure of the former Yugoslavia, all under the guise of enforcing a "no-fly zone." The term was beginning to get a bad reputation.
In March of 2011, the UN Security Council agonized over what to do about Moammar Gadhafi's heavy-handed treatment of parts of his population as he sought to put down a rebellion in the eastern coastal regions of his country. After debating what the response should be, the Security Council came up with a result that will haunt its deliberations for the foreseeable future, including how to deal with the current crisis in Syria.
UN Resolution 1973 proposed a no-fly zone over Libya, and following extensive discussions among the Permanent Five (the U.S., Britain, Russia, France and China), both Russia and China went along, having been convinced that the no-fly zone would be the version espoused by the aforementioned Mr. McCain.
From Day 1 of UN Resolution 1973's approval, NATO commenced all-out attacks on Libya's aircraft on the ground, airfields, command-and control centres, supply depots, military units and so on. Russia and China had been well and truly duped and it is highly doubtful they will ever allow that to happen again, given the abused interpretation of what constitutes a no-fly zone.
Does Russia's recent accelerated delivery of S-300 long-range surface-to-air missiles to Syria have anything to do with being embarrassed by NATO's aggressive application of the UN-approved no-fly zone in Libya and not wanting to see a repeat performance? Probably. Would it preclude the establishment of a no-fly zone over parts or all of Syria? Probably not, as a good deal of the enforcement could be imposed from outside Syria's borders by stand-off weapons, including air-to-air missiles and cruise missiles, both air- and sea-launched.
The complex situation in Syria's civil war becomes increasingly so by the day, as more and more outsiders get involved on both sides. Canada is wise to limit its support to helping the war's displaced persons and refugees. Signing up to another no-fly zone "solution" would not be wise.
Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of United Nations peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo.
June 24, 2013
The Evisceration of Yugoslavia: Part IV: The Kosovo/Albania Golden Triangle
The Evisceration of Yugoslavia: Part IV: The Kosovo/Albania Golden Triangle
February 27, 2013 — Dean Henderson
(Part four of a five-part series excerpted from Chapter 15: Yugoslavia Bad, Greater Albania Good: Big Oil & Their Bankers…)
In 1996 the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) began training the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). The Bundesnachrichtendienst had been launched in 1956 to succeed the Nazi Gehlen organization. The idea of a Greater Albania was a vision of the Nazis during their WWII occupation of Yugoslavia. That vision was now shared by NATO. BND was headed by Hasjorg Geiger, who set up a huge BND regional station in Tirana, Albania in 1995.
The CIA set up a large operation in Tirana a year earlier. President Sali Berisha had taken charge of the country of Albania earlier in the 1990's. Darling of the IMF, he opened Albania's economy to Western multinationals and banks and was rewarded with a huge IMF loan package.
In 1994, the same year the Company landed in Tirana, a bank pyramid scheme over which Berisha presided with his new IMF kitty suddenly collapsed, obliterating the life savings of thousands of Albanians. The scheme fit into a pattern of earlier IMF/BCCI coordinated rip-offs of Third World debtor nations. Berisha was ousted from Tirana, but fled to northern Albania and took control of this increasingly lawless region, which became a major smuggling route for Golden Crescent heroin and arms.
With help from the Albanian secret police (SHIK), CIA and BND recruited potential KLA fighters from the ranks of these smugglers, many of whom the CIA had helped get into the smack business in Peshawar, Pakistan a decade earlier[1]. German Kommandos Spezialkrafte (KSS) wearing black uniforms trained the KLA and armed them with East German weapons. Later in neighboring Kosovo there were many reports of men wearing black uniforms terrorizing Kosovo peasants. While the US claimed these were Yugoslav Special Forces they were likely members of the German KSS who were leading KLA raids inside Kosovo.
The KLA took to wearing Bundeshehr combat jackets with German insignia. Germany was the first country to recognize Croatia in 1990, even before Croatian separatists had begun their revolt against Belgrade. The Germans spearheaded the campaign that encouraged Croatia to secede from Yugoslavia. When the new government was established in Zagreb, it adopted the flag and national anthem of Hitler's puppet Utashe. In 1998 the KLA had been a small terrorist cell with only 300 members. After a year of steady arms shipments and training from the US, Britain and Germany; the KLA became a major guerrilla army with 30,000 members. Osama bin Laden senior lieutenant Mohammed al-Zawahiri served as a KLA commander.
KLA provocations served as the pretext for NATO aggression against Yugoslavia and for the partition of mineral and oil-rich Kosovo. Yugoslav security forces battled KLA terrorism while also clamping down on incidents of excessive Serb retaliation, arresting more than 500 Serbs for crimes against Albanian civilians. [2] President Milosevic had always advocated ethnic equality and harmony. His delegation to the Rambouillet peace talks in France consisted of people from every ethnic group in Yugoslavia, including Albanians. Serbs were actually a minority in the delegation.
A 1992 speech was typical of Milosevic's thinking on ethnic tensions in Kosovo, which Western intelligence agencies had historically exploited. He stated, "We know that there are many Albanians in Kosovo who do not approve of the separatist policy of their nationalist leaders. They are under pressure, intimidated and blackmailed. But we shall not respond with the like. We must respond by offering our hand, living with them in equality and not permitting that a single Albanian child, woman or man be discriminated against in Kosovo in any way. We must…insist on a policy of brotherhood, unity and ethnic equality in Kosovo. We shall persevere on this policy."[3]
By the end of its Yugoslav bombing campaign NATO had moved into Kosovo as an occupation force under the auspices of KFOR. NATO continued to turn a blind eye to renegade KLA bands who attacked Serb civilians under KFOR watch, while aiding and abetting NLA rebels now attempting to lop off a piece of Macedonia for the international banker cause. The US built its biggest military base since Vietnam in Kosovo. [4]
Meanwhile Albania was being turned into a CIA terrorist training camp, heroin production center and arms supermarket. A March 6, 1995 report from the Greek Athens News Agency quoted Greek Public Order Minister Sifis Valyrakis as saying that he believed the government of Albania was involved in the production and trafficking of narcotics from Skopje, Macedonia, where US and NATO troops massed during the war in Kosovo.
Valyrakis said opium was being grown in the Chimarra area of southern Albania where heroin labs had sprung up in a triangle area formed by the cities of Gevgeli, Prilep and Pristina in the countries of Albania, Macedonia and breakaway Kosovo. He cited involvement in the heroin traffic of the US-allied Macedonian military and the Turkish Gray Wolves mafia, long a CIA ally. He noted a flourishing arms trade developing in Macedonia and Kosovo and said Albanian separatists in Yugoslavia were at the center of both heroin and arms rings, which were being based out of Pristina, home to the NATO KFOR "peacekeeping" effort in Kosovo.
According to historian Alfred McCoy, "Albanian exiles used drug profits to ship Czech and Swiss arms back to Kosovo for the separatist guerrillas of the KLA. In 1997-1998, these Kosovar drug syndicates armed the KLA for a revolt against Belgrade's army… Even after the 1999 Kumanovo agreement settled the Kosovo conflict, the UN administration of the province… allowed thriving heroin traffic… Commanders of the KLA… continued to dominate the transit traffic through the Balkans."[5]
A report filed with Reuters on June 16, 1995 by Benet Koleka from Tirana charged the Albanian government with secretly dumping tons of weaponry into Rwanda prior to the genocide which occurred in that central African country. Albania's largest daily Koha Jone reported that several Antonov 122 cargo planes left Gjadri Airbase in Albania loaded with arms bound for Rwanda. Amnesty International interviewed four of the pilots who flew the Antonovs. All claimed they were working for a British company.
They said they flew the weapons to the Democratic Republic of Congo and unloaded them at Goma airport near the Rwandan border. They said they also flew loads of weapons to Goma from Israel and that there were Israeli Mossad agents working at Gjadri Airbase who supervised the Albanian operation. That same year a spooky US defense contractor known as RONCO was in Rwanda under the pretext of de-mining. Ronco was actually importing military hardware for the Pentagon and passing it out to Rwandan forces just before the Rwandan depopulation began. [6]
The Washington Times reported in 1999, "The Kosovo Liberation Army, which the Clinton Administration has embraced and some members of Congress want to arm as part of a NATO bombing campaign, is a terrorist organization that has financed much of its war effort with profits from the sale of heroin". [7]
In 1999 a Times of London expose found that the KLA was the world's main supplier of heroin, inheriting that claim from the last CIA surrogates – the mujahadeen. Europol joined the governments of Sweden, Switzerland and Germany in investigating KLA ties to the heroin trade. Walter Kege, head of the drug enforcement unit of Swedish police intelligence stated, "We have intelligence leading us to believe that there is a connection between drug money and the Kosovo Liberation Army." Germany's Berliner Zeitung quoted a Western intelligence report which stated that 900 million Deutsch marks had flowed into Kosovo since the KLA began attacking the Yugoslav government in 1997. Half was derived from drug proceeds.
German police noted a parallel between the rise of the KLA and an increase in ethnic Albanian heroin trafficking in Germany, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries. Police in Czechoslovakia tracked down an Albanian who escaped a Norwegian prison where he was serving 12 years for heroin trafficking. In his apartment they found documents linking him to several arms purchases made on behalf of the KLA. [8] Germany's Federal Criminal Agency concluded, "Ethnic Albanians are now the most prominent group in the distribution of heroin in Western consumer countries." Europol is preparing a detailed report on KLA/Albanian heroin trafficking for the World Court in The Hague. Many KLA fighters had been trained at the same heroin-infested camps in Pakistan from which the Afghan Taliban emerged.
In 1997 Chechen warlords trained at those same camps began buying large chunks of real estate in Kosovo. Saudi-born Chechen rebel leader Emir al-Khattab set up camps in Chechnya to train KLA troops. Both endeavors were financed through heroin sales, prostitution rings, arms dealing and counterfeiting. [9] After the KLA was unable to take Kosovo from what remained of Yugoslavia on their own, the US propaganda machine once again ratcheted up the pressure, accusing the Serb majority of conducting another ethnic cleansing campaign, this time against the Kosovo Albanian heroin mafia. Again the media parroted the CIA campaign to demonize the Serbs.
On March 24, 1999 US bombs rained down on Belgrade. Milosevic was stalked by Armenian contract killers hired by CIA. Schools, factories, hospitals, power plants, buses, trains and hay carts loaded with civilians were bombed. The economic infrastructure of Yugoslavia was decimated- Pink Plan-style. In a moment of historical irony NATO bombed the same Novi Sad Bridge over the Danube River where thousands of Serbs had died fighting during the Nazi invasion of 1941. The city of Novi Sad lost two other bridges and an oil refinery. Resident Jasminka Bajic told of how she lost her husband Milan, as he stood in the doorway of their Novi Sad house, "It was 12:20 AM on June 8, 1999. No one expected the bombs to hit that close to the houses. I had to sell all my cattle to buy the gravestone."[10]
The city of Pancevo near Belgrade was leveled along with numerous fertilizer and petrochemical plants and an oil refinery. Noxious gases filled the air. Ammonia, mercury and crude oil polluted the Danube. Pancevo mayor Borislava Kruska called the NATO bombing, "An environmental disaster…a crime against humanity. The international community is primarily concerned about Novi Sad bridges not because of our suffering but because they want their navigational route opened."[11] On May 7, 1999 a NATO bomb destroyed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, provoking sharp rebukes from the Chinese government and its people. That same day NATO bombs destroyed a hospital and market in Nis killing fifteen people. Protestors in Belgrade took to calling NATO the Nazi American Terrorist Organization.
All told 2,000 Yugoslav civilians were killed by the NATO bombings and 10,000 more injured. Thousands more lost their homes and apartments, which were deliberately targeted by NATO bombs in an attempt to convince the Yugoslav people to cry "uncle". [12] At Stari Trg mine Director Novak Bjelic, who worked for the Yugoslav state-owned Trepca, said when the US bombing began, "The war in Kosovo is all about the mines, nothing else. In addition, Kosovo has seventeen billion tons of coal reserves".
One of the most publicized "massacres" purportedly carried out by the Yugoslav Army against Kosovo Albanians occurred at Racak. A group called Kosovo International Monitors spearheaded the hype. Its leader was William Walker, who earlier helped Oliver North's Enterprise arm the contras. While Walker spewed his version of the events at Racak to an eager US media, many European media outlets including the BBC, the German Die Welt, Radio France International and the French Le Figaro, began to question Walker's account, which of course blamed the Serbs.
A French TV crew in Racak when the alleged massacre occurred said the "massacre" had actually been a firefight between the Yugoslav Army and KLA ambushers. Later men in black uniforms came to the scene and redressed the KLA dead in civilian clothing. Yugoslav forensics experts agreed that the Racak Massacre was a hoax. It bore striking similarities to the Breadline Massacre in Bosnia, where it was later found that Muslim fighters had stage-managed a massacre for the Western media. [13] The incident led to UN sanctions against Yugoslavia. The French newspaper Le Monde reported from Pristina on January 21, 1999 that two AP journalists had contradicted Walker's account of the events at Racak. They said there were few empty rifle cartridges at the site and hardly any blood near the bodies.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe sent in a team of Finnish pathologists at the request of the Yugoslav government, which also invited a second team from Belarus. Both teams confirmed Yugoslav suspicions that the victims had died from long-range gunshots, with short-range bullet holes and knife wounds inflicted on the already dead bodies. They also found that bullet holes didn't match up with tears in the clothing on the bodies, indicating that the clothes had been changed by those black uniformed men- probably the same KSS German Special Forces who trained the KLA. Neither report was ever published in the US media. The incident was reminiscent of a maneuver that Adolf Hitler used in 1939 to justify his march into Poland. Hitler dressed dead prisoners in Polish Army uniforms and left them near a border radio station, which Hitler then claimed was attacked by the Polish Army. [14] Within a week 1.5 million Nazi troops marched into Poland.
BBC News reported in December 2004 that a $1.2 billion oil pipeline, south of that massive US Army base in Kosovo, was approved by the governments of Albania, Bulgaria and Macedonia. [15]
[1] "KLA a Creation of Western Intelligence". Anthony Wayne. http://www.lawgiver.org 4-11-99
[2] "Milosevic Defiantly Defends His Role in Kosovo Conflict". Fox News. 8-24-01
[3] "Milosevic Addresses Kosovo Polje Rally". Radio Belgrade. 12-17-92
[4] Escobar
[5] The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. Alfred W. McCoy. Lawrence Hill Books/Chicago Review Press. Chicago. 2001. p.517
[6] Silverstein
[7] Washington Times. 5-3-99
[8] "The KLA: Drug Money Linked to Kosovo Rebels". The Times of London. 3-24-99
[9] Chossudovsky
[10] "The Danube: Europe's River of Harmony and Discord". Cliff Tarpy. National Geographic. March 2002
[11] Ibid
[12] "War Criminals, Real and Imagined". Gregory Elich. Covert Action Quarterly. Winter 2001. p.22
[13] "Statement on Kosovo in Tandem with the Rockford Institute". Chronicles. 3-25-99
[14] Marrs. p.171
[15] "al-Qaeda, US Oil Companies and Central Asia". Peter Dale Scott. Nexus. May-June 2006. p.11-15
Dean Henderson is the author of four books: Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network, The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries, Das Kartell der Federal Reserve & Stickin' it to the Matrix. You can subscribe free to his weekly Left Hook column @ www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com
http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/the-evisceration-of-yugoslavia-part-iv-the-kosovoalbania-golden-triangle/
June 16, 2013
Judge at War Crimes Tribunal Faults Acquittals of Serb and Croat Commanders
Judge at War Crimes Tribunal Faults Acquittals of Serb and Croat Commanders
Published: June 14, 2013
PARIS — A judge at the United Nations war crimes tribunal in The Hague has exposed a deep rift at the highest levels of the court in a blistering letter suggesting that the court's president, an American, pressured other judges into approving the recent acquittals of top Serb and Croat commanders.
The letter from the judge, Frederik Harhoff of Denmark, raised serious questions about the credibility of the court, which was created in 1993 to address the atrocities committed in the wars in the former Yugoslavia.
Even before Judge Harhoff's letter was made public Thursday, in the Danish newspaper Berlingske, the recent acquittals had provoked a storm of complaints from international lawyers, human rights groups and other judges at the court, who claimed in private that the rulings had abruptly rewritten legal standards that had been applied in earlier cases.
Experts say they see a shift in the court toward protecting the interests of the military. "A decade ago, there was a very strong humanitarian message coming out of the tribunal, very concerned with the protection of civilians," said William Schabas, who teaches law at Middlesex University in London. "It was not concerned with the prerogatives of the military and the police. This message has now been weakened, there is less protection for civilians and human rights."
Other lawyers agreed that the tribunal, which has pioneered new laws, is sending a new message to other armies: they do not need to be as frightened of international justice as they might have been four or five years ago.
But until now, no judge at the tribunal had openly attributed the apparent change to the court's current president, Theodor Meron, 83, a longtime legal scholar and judge.
Judge Harhoff's letter, dated June 6, was e-mailed to 56 lawyers, friends and associates; the newspaper did not say how it obtained a copy.
In his letter, Judge Harhoff, 64, who has been on the tribunal since 2007, said that in two cases Judge Meron, a United States citizen who was formerly an Israeli diplomat, applied "tenacious pressure" on his fellow judges in such a way that it "makes you think he was determined to achieve an acquittal."
"Have any American or Israeli officials ever exerted pressure on the American presiding judge (the presiding judge for the court that is) to ensure a change of direction?" Judge Harhoff asked. "We will probably never know."
A spokesman at the court declined to comment on the letter. Other judges and lawyers were willing to speak, provided that their names were not used.
By their accounts, a mini-rebellion has been brewing against Judge Meron, prompting some of the 18 judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to group around an alternative candidate for the election for tribunal president this fall.
"I'd say about half the judges are feeling very uncomfortable and prefer to turn to a different candidate," said a senior court official. The official said he did not believe that American officials had pressured Judge Meron to rule a certain way in any case, "But I believe he wants to cooperate with his government," the official said. "He's putting on a lot of pressure and imposing internal deadlines that do not exist."
The legal dispute that is the focus of Judge Harhoff's letter and that has led to sharp language in dissents is the degree of responsibility that senior military leaders should bear for war crimes committed by their subordinates.
In earlier cases before the tribunal, a number of military or police officers and politicians were convicted of massacres and other war crimes committed by followers or subordinates on the principle that they had been members of a "joint criminal enterprise."
In contrast, three Serbian leaders and two Croatian generals who played crucial roles during the war were acquitted because judges argued that they had not specifically ordered or approved war crimes committed by subordinates.
Judge Meron has led a push for raising the bar for conviction in such cases, prosecutors say, to the point where a conviction has become nearly impossible. Critics say he misjudged the roles played by the high-level accused and has set legal precedents that will protect military commanders in the future.
The United Nations Security Council created the tribunal, a costly endeavor, and has been pressing it for years to speed up work and wind down, with the United States and Russia at the forefront of those efforts.
By early this year, 68 suspects had been sentenced and 18 acquitted. But some of the highest-ranking wartime leaders have been judged at a time when the tribunal is short-staffed and under pressure to close down.
Several senior court officials, while declining to discuss individual cases, said judges had been perturbed by pressures from Judge Meron to deliver judgments before they were ready.
After the only session to deliberate the acquittal that Judge Meron had drafted in the case of the two Croatian generals, one official said, the judge abruptly declined a request by two dissenting judges for further debate.
In his letter, Judge Harhoff also said Judge Michele Picard of France was recently given only four days to write her dissent against the majority decision to acquit two Serbian police chiefs, Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.
"She was very taken aback by the acquittal and deeply upset about the fast way it had to be handled," said an official close to the case.
Judge Harhoff's letter seems likely to add a bruise to the tribunal's reputation.
"The latest judgments here have brought before me a deep professional and moral dilemma not previously faced," he wrote in conclusion. "The worst is the suspicion that some of my colleagues have been behind a shortsighted political pressure that completely changes the premises of my work in my service to wisdom and the law."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
