Media Monitors Network

.....where truth prevails

Advertise @ MMN
Posted: June 19, 2001

Toll-free: 1 866 MediaNet 

E-mail: Editor@MediaMonitors.net

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

Perspective

 
Truth is the first casualty of war: Often uttered, rarely learned

by Stephen Gowans
 
hob•gob•lin,  hob'gob''lin, n. Something causing dread or unreasonable fear.
 
"Don't send me anything like that again," he wrote, the words spelled out in capitals to emphasize his anger. "Milosevic is a cold-blooded murderer. And you're a holocaust denier." I flinched. When I had asked about a hundred people to sign a petition appealing for Slobodan Milosevic's release from jail, I fully expected I'd draw a few fevered replies, but nothing quite so heated. I was hoping a few would sign. A silly hope, really. Why would anyone sign a petition to free Slobodan Milosevic, the butcher of Belgrade, the genocidist, the ethnic cleanser, the modern-day Hitler? I'm mean, this guy was evil. Just about everyone said so. NATO said so. The White House said so. Tony Blair said so. Newspapers said so. Even Noam Chomsky, a ferocious critic of US foreign policy, and no friend of NATO, had nothing good to say of Milosevic. Was I crazy, or just sick?
Let's just say I was skeptical.
 
Milosevic was accused by NATO of organizing the murder of 100,000 Albanian Kosovars, a claim which, in the course of NATO's 78-day bombing campaign, the north Atlantic alliance could make without the public having any way of checking. What many people don't know is that NATO has backed away from the claim; that pathologists failed to turn up anywhere near the number of bodies NATO warned were strewn across Kosovo; that Milosevic had been indicted on war crimes that involved fewer deaths than the number killed by NATO's bombs; that there was only one pre-bombing incident Milosevic was indicted on -- the infamous Racak massacre -- and it was probably a fake, engineered by the KLA, with the collusion, if not at the behest, of the US; that there are compelling reasons to question the impartiality and purpose of the tribunal that has indicted Milosevic.
 
Every war proceeds along this path. Those who stand to be killed, dismembered, and dispossessed, are demonized, turned into the hobgoblins the American journalist H.L. Menken accused practical politicians of using to menace the population into consenting to what would otherwise not be consented to. Few are going to consent to the killing of innocents. So you turn the innocent into the guilty. Butchers. Murderers. Genocidists. Only later are the stories revealed to be gross exaggerations, often outright fabrications.
 
Less than a decade before NATO planes began their bombing runs on Serb cities, Iraqi soldiers were reviled for dumping Kuwaiti babies out of incubators, cruelly leaving them to die on cold hospital floors. This was the height of savagery, demanding a response. Nayirah, a Kuwaiti teenager, testifying before the US Congressional Human Rights Caucus Committee in October, 1990, told of how as a volunteer at the Al-Idar Hospital, she witnessed the horrific scene of Iraqi soldiers brutally tossing newborns from their incubators. Such was Iraqi disrespect for life. This was how Iraq treated the defenseless. But long after the story inflamed the world's indignation, reporters discovered it was pure fiction, carefully crafted with the help of the PR firm Hill and Knowlton. And far from being an impartial witness, Nayirah was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the US.
 
By the time the deception was uncovered, it was too late. The story had done its job. Americans were firmly onside their government's decision to bomb Baghdad back to the middle-ages, Baghdad had been bombed back into the middle-ages, countless innocent civilians were dead, and human rights organizations Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch had been deceived, accepting the story uncritically, failing to check its veracity. This prompted Harper's publisher John R. MacArthur, to declare that "human rights hawks have become less interested in the objective investigation of atrocities than they are in their own arguments for armed intervention, whether genuine or merely alleged." With the press taking a delight in sensational stories of atrocities, human rights organizations prepared to believe the worse on the flimsiest evidence, and the public's weakness for being misled by lying politicians, getting consent to bomb a modern, secular, Middle-Eastern society back into the middle-ages wasn't all that difficult. Today, Americans still remember the original story of the incubators. Few remember the debunking. It's always like that. "It is the first assertion that really counts," says one PR executive.
 
Three years later, James Harff, director of the Washington-based PR firm, Ruder Finn Global Public Affairs, boasted to French TV of how his firm scored a PR coup for its clients, the breakaway Yugoslav republics of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. He'd turned Serbs into the new Nazis, he crowed, and he'd done it by targeting the Jewish community.
 
Serbs made up a significant part of the Croatian and Bosnian populations. When the republics decided to secede from the Yugoslav federation, egged on by the US and Germany, many Serbs rebelled. With Serbs in the way, something had to be done. Enter Ruder Finn.
 
"By a single move," explained Harff, "we were able to present a simple story of good guys and bad guys which would hereafter play itself. We won by targeting the Jewish audience. Almost immediately there was a clear change of language in the press, with use of words with high emotional content such as ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, etc., which evoke images of Nazi Germany and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. "
 
"But...you had no proof that what you said was true," objected Jacques Merlino, the interviewer.
 
"Our work is not to verify information," shot back Harff. "Our work is
to accelerate the circulation of information favorable to us."
 
There was nothing new in this. Fantastical tales have always been told of unbelievable, intolerable cruelties committed by the other side. Severed heads used as soccer balls, a W.W.I favorite, every now and then dusted off and pressed into service anew, along with equally gruesome, and entirely bogus stories. The history of tall tales of atrocities is as long as the history of war itself, and the people who craft the tales are as vital to waging war successfully as generals, pilots, infantrymen, and ordinance officers.
 
Would the information favorable to NATO, and unfavorable to Serbs, be circulated in the Kosovo crisis? With the press corps willingly letting itself be spoon-fed by Washington, the answer was straightforward. Investigative journalism is expensive. Playing back what politicians, generals and PR firms say, all of whom had an interest in portraying the Serbs as butchers, isn't. So the press passed along what it was told, looked where it was told to look, didn't see what official sources never mentioned. As a business, the press minimizes costs. If the truth gets minimized along the way, so be it.
 
Which isn't to say that all allegations of atrocities committed in war are politically-inspired fabrications. The United States, with its Mai Lais, its Thanh Phongs, its No Gun Ris, its carpet bombings and cluster bombs and depleted uranium ordinance, its napalm and Phoenix programs, its Fat Boys and Enola Gays, knows all too well, or would, if it wasn't so deluded by its own myths. But the transgressions of official enemies are amplified, twisted, distorted, and spun, even manufactured out of whole cloth, like the story of the incubators dashed upon the floor of the Kuwaiti hospital. American atrocities, and those of its allies, are covered up, minimized, rationalized, explained away, not only officially, but by human rights organizations, too. Human Rights Watch, shot through with links to the US foreign policy establishment, absolved NATO of war crimes in the alliance's 78-day air war against Yugoslavia, despite the bombing of civilian bridges, radio-television buildings, refugee convoys, trains, and factories. There were some very serious violations of humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch acknowledged, but only that. No war crimes. And yet evidence that NATO was gunning for civilians -- the defining feature of a war crime -- was staring everyone in the face. There were the civilian deaths. Unfortunate collateral damage, the same phrase Timothy McVeigh used to describe the 168 killed in the bombing of the Oklahoma federal building. But the issue was, Did NATO strike at civilian targets deliberately? Human Rights Watch said no.
 
US Air Force Lt. General Michael Short, who had something do with the bombing, had another view. Interviewed in the Washington Post, Short explained what the bombing of Yugoslavia was all about, "If you wake up in the morning and you have no power to your house and no gas to your stove and the bridge you take to work is down and will be lying in the Danube for the next 20 years, I think you begin to ask, 'Hey, Slobo, what's this all about? How much more of this do we have to withstand?'"
 
This was the deliberate use of terror to induce a civilian population to pressure a government for political change. But terror employed by governments, official terror, somehow escapes the ignominy of being labeled what it is -- terrorism. It's just good tactics, foreign policy, in the words of historian Howard Zinn, or boldly, humanitarian intervention.
 
And when NATO started bombing bridges, and automobile and cigarette factories, when it sent cruise missiles hurtling towards petrochemical plants and oil depots, when it disrupted the civilian electrical power grid, it was plain that NATO was cranking up the misery factor, terrorizing the civilian population, and doing a reprise of what the US-led coalition had done in Iraq: cripple a country's civilian infrastructure. Sanctions, which would ensure the civilian infrastructure remained crippled, and Washington's refusal to send heating oil to Serbia long after Serb security forces had withdrawn from Kosovo, only made it clearer that civilians, and civilian infrastructure, were targets. And it made clear that Washington's enmity had little to do with Kosovo.
 
Those whose skepticism was dulled by jingoism, and those who suppressed open expressions of skepticism lest the allegations of Serb inhumanity to Albanian Kosovars turn out to be true, joined the greater number who believed what they were told. Serbs are animals, Milosevic no better than Hitler. They were only getting what they deserved. "Sure," said some, "NATO's going about this in entirely the wrong way, and its bombing campaign is immoral. But the Serbs are just as bad or worse." Others, like Canadian journalist Carol Off, said that she was glad NATO bombed Yugoslavia. Serbs were horrible animals. And anyone the Serbs liked, like former Canadian Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, who questioned NATO's intervention in Kosovo, were almost as bad as the Serbs, opined Off. Being admired by the Serbs, as MacKenzie was, was like being admired by Nazis -- a fate not to be wished for.
 
So here was Milosevic and his willing Serb executioners accused of organizing a genocide that NATO had to stop, when suddenly NATO's estimates of ethnic Albanian dead dropped to 10,000. Still a big number, yes, but a tenth of what it used to be. How solid could these estimates be if they could be reduced ten fold overnight?
 
And then another sign NATO's PR flacks were following Menken's create hobgoblins strategy. Press conferences started to reek of propaganda.
 
Take the case of the satellite photos of mass graves that never existed. If you pressed NATO today it could say, "We never said there were mass graves." And they'd be right, because they didn't. Instead they said that a photo taken by a satellite showed signs consistent with mass graves. Strangely, the satellite wasn't around when Serbs were dumping Albanians into ditches, so we didn't actually see the nasty deed the photos hinted at being committed. Curious how there was a gaping hole in the evidence. Maybe the film was being changed.

Instead, we got something that was consistent with mass graves. Having a education from some of the finest schools in the world is consistent with having a finely honed intelligence, but you wouldn't say George W. Bush is a bright light. Going to church every Sunday with the family bible clutched conspicuously under your arm may be consistent with leading a chaste life, but you'd never say that Bill Clinton, who was conspicuous in his church going, wasn't being felated in the Oval Office by a young intern. Likewise, many things can be consistent with mass graves without actually being mass graves. The disturbances in the terrain of my backyard are consistent with mass graves too, but you'll make no gruesome subterranean discoveries if you dig beneath the surface. All you'll find are the roots of flowers. Phrases like, "the disturbances in the terrain are consistent with mass graves", is political-speak for saying one thing without really saying it. If people believe what you didn't say, great. That's what PR, and politics, is all about.

And then after 78-days of NATO bombing, when forensic pathologists were dispatched to Kosovo to unearth the legions of dead Albanian civilians said to have been slaughtered by Milosevic's security forces, came more reason to believe NATO's stories of genocide were nothing more than gross hyperbole. The pathologists couldn't find all the bodies they were led to believe they'd find. Dr. Peter Markesteyn, a Winnipeg forensic pathologist, was among the first war crimes investigators to arrive in Kosovo after NATO ended its bombing campaign.

"We were told there were 100,000 bodies everywhere," said Dr. Markesteyn. "We performed 1,800 autopsies -- that's it."

Fewer than 2,000 corpses. None found in the Trepca mines. No remains in the vats of sulfuric acid. Most found in isolated graves -- not in the mass graves NATO warned about. And no clue as to whether the bodies were those of KLA fighters, civilians, even whether they were Serb or ethnic Albanian.

No wonder then that of all the incidents on which Slobodan Milosevic has been indicted for war crimes, the total body count is not 100,000, not 10,000, not even 1,800 -- but 391!

That's 109 lives fewer than the 500 Yugoslav civilians Human Rights Watch estimates were killed by NATO bombs, and it's many fewer than the larger number other groups estimate were ushered into early graves by NATO's humanitarian intervention. And it's far fewer than what the death toll will eventually be once those who have yet to die from cancers induced by the terrible environmental devastation of the war are finally carried off as late -- and unaccounted for -- casualties.

And it's also less than the number of Palestinians who have been killed so far by the IDF -- the Israeli army -- in the latest Palestinian uprising. The difference is that the IDF, under the direction of Ariel Sharon, is an occupying army, while the Yugoslav security forces, under Slobodan Milosevic, were conducting an counterinsurgency operation within their own borders. Moreover, we have evidence now that the insurgency was being helped along by Washington. A European KFOR battalion commander told the British newspaper, The Observer: "The CIA has been allowed to run riot in Kosovo with a private army designed to overthrow Slobodan Milosevic." Not a spontaneous uprising against Serb repression, but a calculated, US-engineered insurgency. Throwing kindling on the fires of armed rebellion, and sometimes dousing them with gasoline, is something the US, with its hypocritical denunciations of state-sponsored terrorism, has more than a little experience with. The "contras", Washington's proxy army in Nicaragua, comes to mind as just one of dozens of other guerilla groups funded, trained and encouraged by an incessantly meddling US. The KLA is just the latest in an endless series of US-sponsored terrorist groups.

But Sharon, the architect of a long string of atrocities, including the infamous Sabra and Shatila massacres, isn't under indictment for war

crimes. Nor is he ever likely to be -- not as long as the United States wields a veto at the UN. And nor, for that matter, is Clinton, Blair, Shroeder, Chretien or any other NATO leader under indictment, for the same reason.

Indeed, that itself is one of the main reasons the war crimes tribunal is a corruption. Because it was established by the UN Security Council, each of whose members wields a veto, Security Council members and their allies effectively enjoy immunity from prosecution. They can commit war crimes aplenty -- and do -- with impunity, all the while sanctimoniously using human rights as cover for extending their hegemony to those few remaining parts of the globe not yet under their heel.

What's more, there's some question as to whether at least one of the war crimes Milosevic is accused of ever happened. And then there's the revealing issue of when they happened.

It seems that all of the war crimes Milosevic is being tagged with, but one, happened after the bombing -- highly curious, since the bombing was said to be necessary to stop a genocide, that, it seems now, NATO had no evidence of. If they did, why haven't they brought it forward?

Moreover, the one pre-bombing incident, the Racak massacre -- which the United States cited as a major reason for the bombing campaign -- is more likely to have been faked by the KLA, than to have represented the cold-blooded killing of ethnic Albanian noncombatants, as the KLA, and Washington's man in Kosovo at the time, William Walker, alleged.

It was Walker, at the time head of the Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM) who, on the morning of January 16, 1999, led the press to the Kosovar village of Racak, a KLA stronghold. There some 20 bodies were found in a shallow trench, and 20 more were found scattered throughout the village. The KLA, and Walker, alleged that masked Serb policemen had entered the village the previous day, and killed men, women and children at close range, after torturing and mutilating them. Chillingly, the Serb police were said to have whistled merrily as they went about their work of slaughtering the villagers.

It was a horrible tableau, sure to whip up the indignation of the world -- and it did. Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, as eager to scratch her ever itchy trigger finger as her boss was to scratch his illimitable sexual itches, demanded that Yugoslavia be bombed immediately. Albright, like a kid agonizingly counting down the hours to Christmas, would have to wait until after Milosevic's rejection of NATO's ultimata at Rambouillet to get her wish.

Bill Clinton, not to be surpassed in expressing indignation, said, "We should remember what happened in the village of Racak...Innocent men, women, and children were taken from their homes to a gully, forced to kneel in the dirt, sprayed with gunfire -- not because of anything they had done, but because of who they were."

Sadly, you would have never heard Clinton, and you won't hear George W. Bush, say , "We should remember what happened in the villages of Mai Lai and Thanh Phong and No Gun Ri. Innocent men, women, and children were murdered by American soldiers." Americans don't commit atrocities. Only Iraqis. And other official enemies. And Serbs.

But not everyone was so sure that Walker's story was to be believed. The French newspaper La Monde had some trouble swallowing the story. It reported on Jan. 21, 1999, a few days after the incident, that an Associated Press TV crew had filmed a gun battle at Racak between Serb police and KLA guerillas. Indeed, the crew was present because the Serbs had tipped them off that they were going to enter the village to arrest a man accused of shooting a police officer. Also present were two teams of KVM monitors.

It seems unlikely that if you're about to carry out a massacre that you
would invite the press -- and international observers -- to watch.
 
The film showed that as soon as the Serbs entered Racak they came under heavy fire from KLA guerillas positioned in the surrounding hills. The idea that the police could dig a trench and then kill villagers at close range while under attack troubled La Monde. So too did the fact that, entering the village after the fire fight to assess the damage and
interview the villagers, the KVM observers saw no sign of a massacre.
What's more, the villagers said nothing about a massacre either.
Yet, when Walker returned the next day with the press -- at the KLA's invitation -- there was the trench with the bodies.

Could the police have returned later on and carried out the massacre under cover of darkness?

That seems unlikely. Racak is a KLA stronghold. Serb police had already discovered that if they were going to enter the village they would have to deal with the guerillas. How could they torture, mutilate and cold-bloodedly kill villagers at close range while harassed by KLA gunfire?

And why, wondered La Monde, were there few signs of spent cartridges and blood at the trench?

And now there's a report that the Finnish forensic pathologists who
investigated the incident on behalf of the European Union, say there was no evidence of a massacre. In an article published in Forensic Science International, the Finnish team writes that none of the bodies were mutilated, there was no evidence of torture, and only one was shot at close range.
 
Thirty-seven of the corpses had gunpowder residue on their hands,
suggesting that they had been using firearms, and only one of the
corpses was a woman, and only one was under 15 years of age. Not the picture Clinton painted of innocent men, women and children, dragged from their homes, and sprayed with gunfire.
 
The pathologists say Walker was quick to come to the conclusion that there was a massacre, even though the evidence was weak.
And they point out that there is no evidence that the deceased were from Racak.

The KLA, the Serbs charge, faked the massacre by laying out their fallen comrades in the trench they, themselves, prepared, and the United States used the staged massacre as a pretext for the bombing.

The Washington Post said, "Racak transformed the West's Balkan policy as singular events seldom do. The atrocity...convinced the administration and then its NATO allies that a six year effort to bottle up the ethnic conflict in Kosovo was doomed."
 
We'll never know for sure what really happened at Racak, but the
evidence linking Milosevic to a brutal massacre is pretty slim.
Paul Buteux, the political scientist, echoes a cliché that is
sententiously uttered after every war, but never learned from. "The
first casualty of war is the truth," he observes.
 
"It gets very murky. I have no doubt that whoever was putting those
intelligence reports together prior to the NATO air campaign would be
under pressure to put things in the worst possible light. There was a
point when the spin doctors came in."
 
Putting things in the worst possible light? There's a big difference
between putting things in the worst possible light and turning 1,800
corpses into 100,000, between arguing that a genocide had to be stopped by a bombing campaign, and being able to adduce only one incident of a war crime -- and a doubtful one at that -- occurring before the bombing.
 
And given the record of NATO's paltering with the truth, how sure can we be that incidents referred to in the war crimes indictment that happened after the bombing aren't similarly based on "pressure to put things in the worst possible light" and the handiwork of "spin doctors"? There are good reasons to question "the impartiality, and ultimately, the purpose of the International Criminal Tribunal," says Canadian lawyer Christopher Black.
 
The tribunal was established by the UN Security Council in 1993, in an effort, the UN Security Council said, to restore peace to war-torn
Bosnia, the break away Yugoslav republic.
 
Bosnia, one of six republics of the former Yugoslav Federation, was made up of Serbs, Croats and Muslims, none of which were in a majority. In 1992, the European Union brokered an agreement among all three communities to establish a unified state, after Croats and Muslims attempted to secede from Yugoslavia. But Washington encouraged Alija Itzebegovic, head of the Islamist, right-wing and anti-Communist Party for Democratic Action, to declare a sovereign state.
 
Itzebegovic, a nasty character, had been jailed in the 80's for
advocating an ethnically pure Islamic Bosnia. He had a long history of
anti-communism, belonging to a group that collaborated with Nazi
occupiers in W.W.II, and being involved in a 1949 revolt against Tito,
the founder of the Yugoslav federation. After being released from
prison, Itzebegovic maintained close contact with US-backed exile
groups. He was just the kind of person the US has always taken a shine to -- fanatically anti-Communist and willing to work with Washington to undermine a government pursuing an independent course. The result was a horrible civil war.
 
But the Security Council, or more specifically the US, whose interests
in Bosnia were aligned with Itzebegovic's, had a problem. It didn't have
jurisdiction to intervene in a civil war. So it simply redefined what
was domestic and what was international, and presto, it had an in.
Fighting in Bosnia represented a threat to international peace, the
Security Council reasoned, because it threatened to engulf the entire
region. And human rights violations could no longer be considered purely domestic concerns, it said. They were of concern to the entire
international community. The UN, therefore, was duty bound to act.
Madeline Albright, notes Black, could largely be credited with UN's
decision to arrogate onto itself the mandate to intervene in Bosnia. She persuaded Russia and China to vote for the tribunal's creation in return for economic goodies.
 
It was hardly surprising then that Serbs, who were resisting
Itzebegovic's, and his US-backer's designs on Bosnia, would become the central focus of the war crimes tribunal. The greater part of the
indictments were directed at Serbs, though there was substantial
evidence of war crimes committed by the US-backed Muslim and Croat communities, as well.
 
Little has changed. Asked why the tribunal refuses to investigate NATO war crimes, Carla del Ponte, the Chief Prosecutor says, "The primary focus of the Office of the Prosecutor must be on the investigation and prosecution of the (leaders of Yugoslavia) and Serbia who have already been indicted." So, the US-backed tribunal acts to prosecute Serbs. And it doesn't act to prosecute NATO leaders, like Madeline Albright, who is known by prosecutors as "the mother of the Tribunal," lawyer Black explains. Walter Rockler, who prosecuted Nazis at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, describes the tribunal with unimpeachable common sense.
 
Says Rockler, "NATO policy makers clearly are guilty of war crimes in
Yugoslavia, but the prosecution staff...is not independent, so they are
not going to charge those who effectively appointed them. It's like
asking administration officials to jail their own boss." While the tribunal's connection to the US and NATO inspire little confidence in the impartiality of the body, neither do the tribunal's rules. Prisoners can be held indefinitely without bail. All confessions are assumed to be voluntary unless proved otherwise. And suspects can be held for 90 days without charge, plenty of time to extract phony confessions.
 
Today, Milosevic is held in a Belgrade jail by Serb authorities. His
arrest on April 1 by hooded men (since when do the police wear
balaclavas?), came at the deadline the US had set for progress to be
made in transferring Milosevic to the Hague to face war crimes charges.
 
Unless it was satisfied that steps were taken to put Milosevic behind
bars, the US administration announced, promised economic aid would not be forthcoming.
 
The US-backed Serb authorities -- they had come to power with the help of suitcases full of cash, courtesy of Washington, the Washington Post explained -- complied, citing abuse of power and corruption as the reason for the arrest. Months later, evidence has yet to be adduced. But evidence is beside the point. Zoran Djindic, head of the Serb republic, says Milosevic has to be handed over to the Hague, otherwise Yugoslavia will be isolated by the international community. What's right, or just, hardly matters. All that matters is what Washington demands. Last October, Vojislav Kostunica, the Yugoslav president, complained bitterly that the US was moving the goal posts on conditions to end sanctions, something anyone familiar with US policy on Iraq could well have anticipated. Sanctions, said Washington, would be removed once Milosevic was ousted. And yet with Milosevic driven from power, sanctions were kept in place. Deliver Milosevic to the Hague, said Washington, then sanctions will end. Will sanctions ever end?
 
Washington's boldness in crafting entirely unbelievable and absurd
reasons for keeping the vice of sanctions screwed down tight knows no limits. Iraq, a shriveled shell of its former self, is still held up
with inimitable American chutzpah as a threat to world peace and
security, and deserving of continued subjection to a vile and murderous regime of sanctions that have killed well over a million civilians. Sanctions, point out political scientists John and Karl Mueller, have "contributed to more deaths during the post-Cold War era than all the weapons of mass destruction throughout history." Meanwhile, Iraqi babies, placed in old and malfunctioning incubators, still in use because sanctions hold up replacement parts and new equipment, die from hypothermia -- a tragically ironic counterpoint to the carefully crafted lie about Iraqi soldiers destroying Kuwaiti incubators.
 
And now, President George W. Bush, has decided that the situation with respect to " Milosevic, his close associates and supporters and persons under open indictment for war crimes" constitutes "an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States," meriting the continued application of emergency powers to Yugoslavia. Apparently, Milosevic is cooking up plans to invade Maine from his Belgrade cell. Only when he's safely locked away at the Hague can the world rest soundly. Until the next hobgoblin comes along.

Mr. Steve Gowans is a writer and political activist who lives in Ottawa, Canada.

Source:

by courtesy & © 2001 Steve Gowans

by the same author:

                               More in 'Perspective'
 
  Copyright © 2001 Media Monitors Network. All rights reserved.  
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
 

Back to Top 

 
 
 

SUPPORT MMN

MMN SERVICES

 
  Recent Content

 
 
 
 
COMMENTS

News

 
 
 
 
  

Today's Feature

 

Content Needed On

 
 
 

Volunteer for MMN

 

 

 

 

 

Advertise @ MMN