|
National Radio Project1714 Franklin Street #100-251 • Oakland, CA 94612 • 510-251-1332ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. For permission to reproduce and/or reprint, please contact us. |
MAKING CONTACT Transcript: #15-99 Morality or Western Interests: NATO in Yugoslavia Phillip Babich: Welcome to Making Contact, an international radio program seeking to create connections between people, vital ideas and important information. This week on Making Contact: Michel Chossudovsky: The NATO charter says, it clearly stipulates, that they only intervene in defensive actions, they don’t intervene in a military offensive of this nature. Nadja Tesich: NATO is a policeman. It’s not some sort of sweet, wonderful, peaceful force, the way Americans think. They’re just cops. They’re policemen. And their aim is conquest and colonization. Phillip Babich: On this program we take a look at some of the less-reported factors behind the U.S.-led attacks on Yugoslavia: NATO expansion and forced economic reforms in that region. I’m Phillip Babich, your host this week on Making Contact. When the bombs started falling on Yugoslavia in late March, President Clinton claimed that it was a moral thing to do. Spokespeople were trotted out to talk shows to promote this point of view, including a religious organization called "The God Squad." A rabbi and a priest told an MSNBC audience, for example, that it is rare for U.S. foreign policy to be carried out strictly for moral reasons, but here was such an occasion Americans could be proud of. In the piles of corporate-media coverage of the conflicts in Yugoslavia, it's difficult to sift out what's really going on. We're encouraged to believe that while the Serbs, led by Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, are the bad guys, the Kosovo Liberation Army, fighters for independence, are the good guys. But, independent reports reveal that atrocities have been committed by both the KLA and the Serbian army. One perspective comes from Sara Flounders Flounders, co-editor of "NATO in the Balkans: Voices of Opposition," and with the International Action Center in New York. She talks about how Yugoslavia looked ten years ago, just before we began to hear reports of rising ethnic tensions that were leading to fragmentation of the region. Sara Flounders: It’s very important to see that it’s not...it’s always described as ancient ethnic hatred suddenly reaching a wild and unpredictable level. Yugoslavia, ten years, ago was a prosperous, multinational, multicultural, multiethnic society with health care and education on a level with Western Europe. And with a rapidly developing industry. It wasn’t quite at the level of Western Europe, but it was certainly an extremely prosperous society. Sarajevo was where the Olympics were held. Western European people had historically vacationed on the Adriatic throughout the ‘70s and ‘80s. And so on. Phillip Babich: According to Michel Chossudovsky, professor of economics at the University of Ottawa in Canada, the Yugoslav Republic began to fracture at a time when U.S. policy was calling for major shifts in that region’s economy. This policy was implemented through the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, says Chossudovsky, and resulted in economic hardship for working people. Michel Chossudovsky: This was also preceded in the early ‘80s by a statement a strategic and geopolitical statement by the United States, which was contained in a national security decision directive - which has recently been declassified. And it identifies the direction of change in Yugoslavia. In other words, to encourage the transition toward a so-called free market economy, but ultimately, in practice; what that meant was the dismantling of the system of self-managed enterprises. And, in fact, that was implemented alongside changes in the legal codes and so on. So, this is the background. In other words, it’s a country that had been literally impoverished as the result of macroeconomic reforms. At the same time, that has created conditions that fueled ethnic conflicts. Yugoslavia has been subjected to very major macroeconomic reforms going back to the 1980s, but the climax was reached in 1990, under the pro-US government of Prime Minister Ante Markovic, where the IMF-sponsored reform was implemented. And it virtually contributed to fracturing the Yugoslav Federation, because it froze all transfer payments to the Republics and redirected state revenues to meet the demands of creditors. At the same time, a very deadly bankruptcy program was implemented under World Bank jurisdiction. It literally ordered the closing down of half the industrial sector in a matter of months. If you look at the levels of unemployment, the lay-offs which took place during that period, we’re talking about something like two million people only in industry who lost their jobs. Phillip Babich: A little-known clause in the November 1990 foreign appropriations bill, says Flounders, added to the economic downward spiral for Yugoslavia. Sara Flounders: At the time of the Gulf War, there was a very important piece of legislation - November, 1990, in a foreign appropriations bill - that explicitly stated that within six months of the passage of the legislation, all loans, all trade, all credits, and all aid to the Yugoslav Federation would end. Now, there was peace at this time in Yugoslavia, there was no civil war, it was before any of the cessations or breakup. All of this would end within six months and funding would not resume to the region until and unless each of the Republics held separate, independent elections, the results of which the State Department approved. Now, of course, State Department approval of dictatorships around the world is really based on U.S. interests and what approval they have of the government as a whole, not how democratic the election is. Literally within six months to the day of the passage of this legislation, both Croatia and Slovenia withdrew from the Yugoslav Federation. Two months later, Bosnia. And this was the beginning of the civil war. Phillip Babich: Chossudovsky adds that valuable natural resources are at stake in the region. Michel Chossudovsky: There’s a lot of mineral wealth in the Balkans. There’s oil in Yugoslavia, definitely, There’s also oil in Albania. There’s chrome - absolutely very large fields of chrome in Albania, which is now being - there are negotiations with a U.S. company. These are important considerations, the control of strategic energy and minerals; I think it’s certainly part of this war. Phillip Babich: Central to the disputes in Yugoslavia and Kosovo are two major peace agreements: The Dayton Accords, signed in November 1995, and the Rambouillet Agreement, which was signed by a delegation of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo, in March of this year. Chossudovsky says that the two agreements are similar and essentially call for a Western-controlled Kosovo, an unacceptable arrangement for Yugoslav President Milosevic. Michel Chossudovsky: One thing that is not always understood is that the Constitution of Bosnia-Herzegovina was an appendix of the Dayton Agreement which had been drafted by Western lawyers and consultants. And one of the articles of this Constitution specifically stipulated the governor of the Central Bank of Bosnia-Herzegovna will be appointed by the IMF and the governor of the Central Banks of Bosnia-Herzegovna shall not be a citizen of Bosnia-Herzegovnia or a neighboring country. Now that’s in the Constitution, which essentially means that what the Western, essentially the Europeans and Americans have imposed is a colonial administration in Bosnia, with an occupation force which initially, as we know, was over 70,000 troops. And what they have under the proposed Rambouillet Agreement is virtually the same thing. It’s to transform Kosovo into a territory under the mandate and administration of the West. Phillip Babich: Another pivotal moment in modern Yugoslav history came in 1990, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev no longer claimed the right to defend Eastern Bloc countries, according to Barry Lituchy, teacher of modern European history at Kingsborough Community College and author of numerous articles on the crisis in Yugoslavia. In a conversation, moderated by Ellen Andors, Lituchy spoke with Nadja Tesich, a filmmaker and novelist from Yugoslavia, who now lives in New York, about some of the factors that led to the break up of Yugoslavia. Barry Lituchy: The turning point came with the rise of Gorbachev to power in the Soviet Union, and the beginning of the decline, the beginning of the end of the Eastern Bloc. And once Gorbachev essentially signed away the right to defend the Eastern Bloc countries or the Communist countries in Eastern Europe, that altered U.S. and Western policy toward Yugoslavia. At that point, Yugoslavia was no longer necessary and it became necessary from an American point of view, from British and German point of view, to destroy Yugoslavia. And that destruction began almost immediately in 1989; as the Berlin wall was coming down, George Bush called the leaders of, at that time, the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, Ante Markovic, to Washington. He threatened Ante Markovic in Washington. He told Markovic that Yugoslavia had to call for so-called ‘free and democratic elections’ in the Republics of Yugoslavia. The purpose of which, from the American point of view, was to complete the process of dismembering Yugoslavia and restoring a capitalist economy in Yugoslavia. The United States said, "If you do not do that, we will undermine you and destroy you anyway." Nadja Tesich: Then he said you will have all these little countries. All these countries cannot support themselves. They will have to be dependent on someone else, instead of what Yugoslavia was able to do. The economy functioned in such a way that something produced in Slovenia went to other republics, something like in Serbia like fruits and vegetables, went to Slovenia, etc, they were complementing each other. And of course, now, in Slovenia, they have to buy things from Austria, at five times more- Barry Lituchy: De-industrializing the peoples of Yugoslavia and essentially adding these peoples to other empires for economic exploitation. Sara Flounders: Well, they said they’d be getting a force which will be cheap, but in addition they will be more educated, they say, than they could find in some underdeveloped countries. So, they are going to get two things: cheap labor and trained workers who will do their work for nothing. Barry Lituchy: Elections were held in 1990 in Serbia and Montenegro. The Socialist, formerly the Communists, retained power. They were still committed to essentially a Socialist political program, whereas the new Croatian leadership, the Slovenian leadership, the Macedonian leadership, and the Bosnian leadership (the Bosnia-Muslim leadership, anyway) was committed to capitalist restoration, neo-colonialism. That really established the basis for the civil wars in Yugoslavia that began towards the end of 1990 and have continued ever since. And ever since then, we have seen the United States and the NATO powers essentially use various international organizations to undermine the sovereignty of the peoples of Yugoslavia. If I recall correctly, Yugoslavia had a 23 billion dollar debt at the time at which the effort to destabilize and destroy Yugoslavia began, in 1990. And that 23 billion dollar debt represented the leverage, the leverage that the NATO or Western neocolonial powers had over Yugoslavia and the peoples of Yugoslavia. If foreign loans were not a sufficient tool, there was always the possibility of moving on towards economic sanctions. Nadja Tesich: In order to prepare U.S. children for what they’re going to be doing to my people, to prepare them and brainwash them, there was a special issue done by the New York Times, that nobody can buy. You cannot buy it, nor can I. It was simply given to schools, and there is something just unbelievable. Sharp, sinister, montage of pictures, articles, where there’s only one enemy and that enemy is a Serb. And who are the good guys? NATO are the good guys. NATO as the liberator appears. As the only liberator that will bring peace. Where, in fact, it’s obvious that NATO is a policeman. It’s not some sort of sweet, wonderful, peaceful force; the way Americans think. They’re just cops. They’re policemen. And their aim is conquest and colonization. And what are they doing? They’re bombing civilians, they’re bombing hospitals, they’re bombing schools, they’re bombing small towns, they’re bombing towns where there’s nothing else. They’re bombing to kill us, and the media prepared the way, each step. Barry Lituchy: What this conflict is really about is about colonial expansion, it’s about NATO expansion, it’s about setting new precedents for violating national rights. And the KLA, even towards its own people, kills everyone or has intimidated or murdered Albanians who disagree with its political authority. In other words, they’re fundamentally antidemocratic were talking about a fundamentally anti-democratic - if you don’t want to use the word facist, then highly authoritarian, racist, nationalist movement. And so it’s the worst thing in the world for the Albanians themselves. Phillip Babich: Barry Lituchy and Nadja Tesich speaking with Ellen Andors of the People's Video Network. Laura Livoti: You’re listening to Making Contact, a production of the National Radio Project. This program can now be heard across the United States and Canada, in Haiti, South Africa and around the world on Radio for Peace International on short-wave. You can also hear us on the Internet. It you want more information about the subject of this week’s program, or you would like to learn how you can get involved with Making Contact, please give us a call. It’s toll free: 800-529-5736. Call that same phone number for tape and transcript orders. That’s 800-529-576. We also welcome comments and suggestions for future programs. Phillip Babich: Critics of the U.S.-led bombings of Yugoslavia say that one of the factors that led to these attacks is to exert Western interests in dominating that region through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. Michel Chossudovsky says that NATO's air strikes violate the organization's own charter which limits the alliance to defensive military action only. Michel Chossudovsky: The NATO charter says, clearly stipulates, that they only intervene in defensive actions, they don’t intervene in military a offensive of this nature. But, of course, what the statements made by, particularly by Clinton to this effect, say that "this is not war, this is a humanitarian operation." We are waging a war against a people, using the pretext of an internal problem within the province of Kosovo, where there is a civil war ongoing, to intervene. I don’t buy that. The KLA is linked to organized crime and to the drug trade, but nonetheless they consider them freedom fighters and [the KLA are] receiving support from Washington. What is the legitimacy of this organization? Phillip Babich: Sara Flounders adds that the bombings in Yugoslavia represent the first time that NATO has launched an offensive strike. She spoke with Making Contact from her office in New York. Sara Flounders: As a matter of fact, there was a New York Times article back in November, November 28th, entitled, "The Policy Struggles: Stories Within NATO," talking about this precedent and the debate within Europe about defining NATO into a global police force to be used for intervention not only within Europe or in dispute between countries in Europe or what its role was during the Cold War which was supposedly as an alliance...a defensive alliance but now, as a police force that could be used in the Middle East, in Africa, and in Asia. The same discussion was taken up in an article in the Los Angeles Times and the International Herald Tribune on December 5th: William Path described, just to take a quote, "Washington sees this as a precedent for a new NATO. It goes beyond the Balkans," and he talks about actions against Iraq, Iran, and in South Africa, South Asia, and other trouble-making "rogue states." Phillip Babich: Citing from an article from the Multinational Monitor (this is March, 1998): The largest U.S. military contractors have been aggressively promoting a scheme that could cost U.S. taxpayers up to $250 billion between now and the year 2010, and that’s for NATO expansion. Is there really this enormous push for NATO expansion? Sara Flounders: There certainly is. Within Russia and in all of the former Soviet states. In Azerbaijan, in Uzbekistan, and so on, there is only a small corrupt grouping at the top. There’s no support for the governments and yet there’s billions of dollars of resources at stake. For example, the oil in the Caspian Sea. How will these vast resources and industries that have now been privatized, be secure? This is a real problem facing the big corporations, facing U.S. policy makers, facing Pentagon planners in the decade to come. And their solution is NATO. As a police force for the region, NATO is really a U.S.-commanded military alliance. Also involving and including the other major West European powers, but it really has always pursued, primarily, the agenda of the United States and U.S. corporate interests. So, it’s become a vital player, and it’s important to set the precedent for interventions within the coming decade. Phillip Babich: Let’s talk about this NATO connection to the bombing in Yugoslavia and Kosovo. Sara Flounders: The real dispute of NATO against Yugoslavia is on the question of sending troops. Yugoslavia has said that it would accept any political agreement on the question of Kosovo. The only thing that it would not allow is foreign bases and foreign troops within their country. This was the one issue, the one breaking point, the one dividing point. And really Yugoslavia is the only country in Europe that has refused to allow U.S. bases or U.S. troops. The KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army, is very much a contra-army, such as we’ve seen built, financed, and trained in other parts of the world. We can see this most clearly both from Christopher Hedge’s articles in the New York Times at the beginning of last year, when the KLA was an army of 50 people growing very rapidly into an army with very sophisticated weapons that are not even available on the world arms market. Up to the recent article in Soldier of Fortune Magazine, the April issue - which also describes the KLA - how NATO had helped by ordering a pullback by the Yugoslavia army, and during that time helping the KLA refinance, rearm, train and refit itself. Soldier of Fortune magazine, of course, is a mercenary magazine. This is really not at all a liberation struggle. It is a creation, a tool of the Pentagon and its military planners. Phillip Babich: Well, lastly, I’m wondering if you can let a listener know what are the important points to remember about this situation. Clearly it’s very complicated, many factions involved, many interests involved, although you are describing unifying themes within it. But, what’s important for someone to understand? Sara Flounders: I think the most important thing for someone to understand is all of this is taking place without the knowledge of the American people. It’s a secret agenda that is in the interest of major corporations - military corporations, large oil corporations, and how they refashion Europe and Russia and the Middle East; whole regions are at stake. And yet, it’s all stolen, from social programs, right here at home. This is a time of enormous cutbacks in health care and social programs and education. We’re told again and again there isn’t money for any of these things and yet, there is enormous money to carry out wars that are destructive of whole peoples. It will create a firestorm of resistance. It’s important for people of the United States to weigh in on this issue; to actively impose, in the same way that if there was opposition to the wars in Central America. The American people can play a role, can oppose these wars, and really make it very difficult for the Pentagon to carry out their plans. Phillip Babich: Sara Flounders, co-editor of the book, "NATO in the Balkans: Voices of Opposition." Michel Chossudovsky says that the international movement against the bombings includes people from other NATO countries. Michel Chossudovsky: There have been demonstrations all over Europe. There have been demonstrations in the United States and Canada. In Australia, there was a large demonstration. And the question is, will the American people believe in the Hollywood style reports that they are getting over CNN and ABC news, which literally presents a distorted view of what is actually happening? Will they believe it when they see civilian casualties, destruction of cities, schools, hospitals, when women and children are being killed as a result of the bombings? Phillip Babich: Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa, in Canada. That's it for this edition of Making Contact, a look at U.S. economic and strategic interests in Yugoslavia. Thanks for listening. And special thanks this week to Sue Harris and Ellen Andors of the People's Video Network for providing recorded portions. We had production assistance from Stephanie Welch and Courtney Malone. Laura Livoti is our Managing Director. Peggy Law is Executive Director. Our Production Assistant is Shereen Meraji. Norman Solomon is Senior Advisor. Our National Producer is David Barsamian. And I'm your host and Managing Producer Phillip Babich. If you want more information about the subject of this week’s program, call the National Radio Project at 800-529-5736. Call that same phone number for tapes and transcripts. That’s 800-529-5736. Making Contact is an independent production. We’re committed to providing a forum for voices and opinions not often heard in the mass media. If you have suggestions for future programs, we’d like to hear from you. Our theme music is by the Charlie Hunter Trio. ‘Bye for now. |