Back to Byronica Page Back to Home Page
ANNIVERSARY OF SHAME: MARCH 1999-MARCH 2002 KOSOVO, NATO’S FATAL ERROR Ambassador James Bissett Chairman, The Lord Byron Foundation On March 24 Serbian people around the world will
recall with horror the shameful destruction of their country by the US led NATO
Alliance. Three years ago, for 78 days and nights, NATO aircraft pounded
Yugoslavia inflicting terrible damage on the civilian infrastructure of
country. The use of cluster bombs and weapons containing depleted uranium
caused hundreds of civilian deaths and injuries. The psychological scars
inflicted on the people may never be reconciled. This was an illegal and
unjustified act of blatant aggression. That it was carried out by the
democratic nations of Western Europe and North America added to the bewilderment
and horror. The on-going trial of the former Serbian President, Slobodan
Milosevic can only be seen as a desperate attempt to justify NATO’s criminal
actions. It will not succeed. The legacy of Madeline Albright’s war will be the
dishonour it has brought to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Kosovo was
NATO’s fatal error. For more than
forty years, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization protected the West from the
very real threat of aggressive Soviet communism. It was an organization respected
and admired by all free men. NATO was more than just a powerful military
alliance. It was founded on a bedrock of morality and high principle. It stood
for the principles of the United Nations Charter. It stood for democracy, for
the rule of law and for all of those things our fathers and grandfathers had
fought for in two cataclysmic World Wars. All of this changed in the spring of
1999 when NATO bombers launched its unprovoked and illegal assault against the
sovereign state of Yugoslavia. The idea for NATO
grew out of a suggestion proposed in 1948 by the Canadian Minister of Foreign
Affairs, Louis St. Laurent, that the European Defense Alliance of five European
countries be expanded to include the United States and Canada. A year later in
April 1949 the treaty was signed in Washington and NATO was born. It was a
defensive alliance. The first article of the Treaty made this clear. Article 1
read in part, “The parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United
Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved, by
peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and
justice are not endangered…and to refrain in their international relations from
the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the
United Nations.” After the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the demise of the Warsaw Pact forces in
Eastern Europe the reason for NATO’s continuing existence began to come under
serious scrutiny. Why maintain such a large and expensive military organization
in Western Europe when any threat from the former Soviet Union had evaporated?
Before this question could be resolved, however, a new role for the Alliance
was discovered. The violent breakup of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the
early 1990’s provided NATO with a new mission- that of peace keeping. As violence
and bloodshed spread in Croatia and Bosnia, the peacekeeping role turned into
direct military action. Under the leadership of the United States, NATO
intervened in the civil war in Yugoslavia and carried out air strikes against
Serbian forces in Croatia and Bosnia. These air strikes were not conducted for
defensive purposes. None of the NATO countries was threatened by the Yugoslav
conflict. However, the strikes were carried out with the authority and approval
of the Security Council of the United Nations. Therefore, while clearly in
violation of the spirit of Article 1 of NATO’s Treaty, it could be argued the
military action was in keeping with the purposes of the United Nations. After Bosnia
there was no further talk about dismantling NATO. On the contrary, the air
strikes had given new life to the organization. Now the talk was of expansion
and for new missions to be undertaken. NATO was on a slippery slope. Armed rebellion
in the Serbian Province of Kosovo, fomented as we now know by the intelligence
services of at least three of the NATO countries, provided the United States
with the opportunity of employing NATO in an attempt to bring down the despised
Serbian leader, Slobodan Milosevic. Using as an excuse its failure to sign the
infamous Rambouillet Agreement, NATO began to bomb Yugoslavia in March 1999.
The bombing continued for 78 days and effectively destroyed the entire civilian
infrastructure of the country. The bombing
was a violation of NATO’s First Article, a violation of the United Nations
Charter and contrary to international law. Ironically- and shamefully- none of
the democratic leaders of NATO member countries [with the exception of Greece]
challenged the US led bombing. When Madeline Albright, the United States
Secretary of State, was informed shortly before the bombing by the British
Foreign Secretary, Robin Cooke, that lawyers in his Ministry believed the
bombing to be illegal if done without UN approval, she abruptly dismissed his
concern by telling him to, “Get new lawyers!” To ensure public opinion
supported the bombing, NATO’s political leaders- led by President Bill Clinton
and Madeline Albright- lied about the reasons for the attack against Yugoslavia. A passive and
ill-informed public was bombarded by a compliant and obedient media reinforced
by the full weight of NATO’s propaganda machinery, to accept that the bombing
was essential to stop genocide and massive ethnic cleansing taking place in
Kosovo. This was not the truth. It is now estimated that there were
approximately 2000 total deaths in Kosovo prior to the bombing. After almost
two years of armed rebellion this is not a surprisingly large figure and -as
tragic as it might be – it falls far short of genocide. According to the United
Nations approximately 200,000 to 250,000 Kosovars were displaced by the
fighting taking place prior to the bombing… but after the bombing started over
800,000 fled the Province. While the
bombing continued, NATO celebrated its fiftieth birthday in Washington. This
was the occasion to announce a new “Strategic Concept” for the organization.
Now there was no reference to Article 1 of the Treaty, no mention of settling
international disputes by peaceful means or complying with the principles of
the United Nations. NATO was no longer a “defensive organization.” It was to be
modernized and made ready for the new century. The niceties of international
law and the formalities of obtaining UN approval before intervening in the domestic
affairs of a sovereign state were to be set aside in favour of, “conflict
prevention,” of “crisis management,” and “ crisis response operations. ” These are the buzzwords
that have turned the original treaty on its head. But nobody seems to care. We
now have a treaty on wheels that can be used for whatever purposes the U.S.
wants it to be used for. Wheel it out whenever it is convenient and use it when
it is awkward to obtain legislative authority to wage war. A sad state of
affairs and a dreadful indictment of the readiness of today’s political leaders
to mould international instruments and treaties in whatever image serves their
immediate needs. If a Treaty is to be
amended or changed it must be approved and ratified by the legislatures of the
contracting states. This has not been done in the case of the North Atlantic
Treaty and it is unlikely it will be done. NATO has become just another tool of
American foreign policy. It serves as a useful political cover to justify
United States use of military power. NATO’s bombing
of Yugoslavia will be regarded by future historians as the act that completely
dismantled the international security framework so carefully crafted by
democratic statesmen in the aftermath of two World Wars and the advent of
nuclear weapons. It will be marked as the point in history when other so-called
democratic leaders acted dishonorably to set the clock back to the days before
1939 when military might was the only criterion that counted in the conduct of
international relations. |