Re:Human Rights

[Elias.Karagiannis@xxxxxxx]

Peter,

The invasion of Yugoslavia is not about human rights. NATO does not give a
damn about violations of human rights in its own member states, why should
it care about the human rights of the Kosovar Albanians?
Let me justify my statement. Read the following headline from the
Associated Press and ask yourself why NATO does not care about the rights
of the Kurds. Or even better, go back and check the AP reports on the
number of Kurds killed by the NATO country with NATO arms since the
beginning of the year, or if you wish, since 1998. (you may go back to 1984
if you want). Compare it with the killings of Albanians in Kosovo.  The
NATO member country wins hands down.

Turkish troops kill 44 Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq
By Associated Press, 04/10/99 08:11
<WIRE_BODY
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Turkish troops killed 44 Kurdish rebels in their
latest cross-border offensive in neighboring Iraq, the military said today.
Ten Turkish soldiers were also killed.

I do not believe that the American-led NATO discriminates against the human
rights of the Kurds. And in case you are wondering, the violation of the
rights of the Kurds did not take place few years ago, as is the case with
the Serbians of Croatia. It is taking place as we exchange emails, as the
morally superior NATO bombs everything that moves in Yugoslavia.
I understand your statement and you are embarrassed and regretful for what
the Croats did to the Serbs. Is anybody proud of what a NATO member country
does to its minority?
The Kurds would be glad if the morally superior NATO forced one of its
member state to give them the same rights as the Kosovo Albanians had
before the bombing.
Does anybody present Turkey with an ultimatum to sign an agreement to cede
part of its territory? Of course not. Does anybody argue for the bombing of
Ankara? Of course not.
Will the bombing of Ankara solve the Kurdish problem? Of course not.
If you feel that NATO is doing the right thing in Yugoslavia, why don't you
advocate the bombing of Ankara? The human rights violations are far greater
in Turkey than in Yugoslavia.
(Let me just state for the record that I do not advocate the bombing of
Ankara and, if it were to happen, I would oppose it as I oppose now the
barbarism that NATO exhibits against Yugoslavia).
Let me look at the other side and examine the KLA, the organization that
has been recently promoted as the potential government of Kosovo which will
presumably protect human rights and uphold democratic principles.
Yesterday's Globe and Mail, a leading newspaper in Canada, conservative and
avid supporter of the invasion of Yugoslavia had this to say about KLA:
"þsaid Michael Radu, an analyst at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in
Philadelphia. "The KLA is a Marxist organization that supports itself by
drug trafficking. Are these the sort of people that NATO wants to get into
bed with?"þ..Western governments are also uncomfortable with the KLA's
tactics. Since its ascent from obscurity a couple of years ago, KLA
guerillas have killed Albanians accused of being collaborators,
assassinated Serb policemen and sometimes forced Serb civilians from their
homes- the KLA's own version of "ethnic cleansing"" (April 13, p. A10).
Are these the people that NATO wants to run an independent Kosovo? Is this
where the moral case of NATO lies? Is NATO now in the business of
supporting Marxist organizations and aiding them in drug trafficking?
Somehow, somebody has to explain to the Serbs why is it that when they are
a minority in another country they either have to be expelled, as in the
case of Croatia, or be denied the right to secede, as in the case in
Bosnia. But when there is a minority in their own country, this minority
must have the right to secede. Is this called racism, stupidity,
incompetence or high level Mcpolicy?
 NATO has demonized the Serbs and lifted the KLA to sainthood. The result
is that even liberal Serbs have turned against the West. Aleksa Djilas, a
historian and sociologist, son of the famous dissident under Tito, and in
the recent past visiting scholar at Harvard, has this to say about the way
the West sees the Serbs.
"The Serbs are ideal prey now. Not only that they are small and weak, they
don't have any lobby in the U.S.A. to speak for them. Thus for the
rightists
they are still the communists, for the leftists they are the synonym of
ethnic cleansing. For those who believe that the western civilization is a
Catholic-protestant civilization, the Serbs are some Balkan Barbarians. For
those who hate Russians, the Serbs are the Russians of the Balkan. The
leading public opinion of the West is that the Serbs should be treated very
tough."
The creation of the mini-states NATO wants to create in the name of
avoiding ethnic cleansing is in fact the institutionalization of ethnic
cleansing in its purest form.
The war is, in my opinion, about the destruction of the International law
and order and about American hegemony. It is about the invasion of a
sovereign state however imperfect its human rights record was. It has
nothing to do with human rights. If Milosevic did not exist the Americans
would have to invent him to impose their hegemony. They needed a local
bully to demonstrate to the world who is the boss, Russians included. They
found him in the name of Milosevic. But if he did not exist, they would
have created him.
The Americans are leading us to international anarchy because they took
upon themselves to police the world. Nobody has assigned this role to them.
They completely disregarded the United Nations and they did it because they
want to be seen as the only superpower of the world.
The argument that the UN would not have approved the invasion because of
the veto power of both Russia and China does not hold at all. The veto is
there to prevent abuses, as a sort of countervailing power. If the UN had
to rubber stamp all the decisions the US is taking against the people of
the world, then it would have been a department of the US Administration
and not an independent body.
And I say Americans because I find it hard to believe that the EU would
like to create and erect new borders while in the meantime working hard to
eliminate them within its member states. I could be wrong though. And if
John Gelles thinks that this is anti-Americanism then he should look up to
the White House to find the anti-Americans. Does anybody believe that an
American president who has no regard whatsoever for the laws of his own
country, would give a hoot about international law? Does a liar have the
moral authority to talk about justice and morality?
Let me just state that the authoritarianism of American foreign policy is a
reflection of its own authoritarianism in domestic policy and in particular
its social policy.
Milosevic is a thug but in the market for thugs he is not alone. He has
competition from the NATO leaders who are thugs squared and war criminals.
The other day, Tony Blair announced that he would send troops to Macedonia
and Greece, as if these two countries are his protectorates and he decides
when to send troops and how many. He does not even bother with the
formalities. He did not even bother to go through NATO. He aspires to
become the Bill Clinton of Europe but in reality he performs very well the
role of Monica. From now on, we will have a number of the local Monicas
trying to bully small states to their way of thinking.
The peoples of Balkans-all of them-the Serbs, the Albanians, Macedonians,
Greeks, Turks, Bosnians, Bulgarians, Romanians, would suffer the
consequences of the war for decades to come. In the meantime, the Americans
will enjoy their high standard of living by selling arms to the Balkans to
protect one from another and be looking for the next Balkans to impose
their order.
Had NATO countries spent the up to date cost of the war in infrastructure
projects in the Balkans, they would have made it an ideal place to live and
work without anybody cleansing anybody else. The fact that they chose not
to do so and opted for war reflects their true concerns about human life
and human rights.

Elias Karagiannis