The UN passed resolution 743 in February 1992 creating the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR). NATO was asked by the United Nations to intervene in the Bosnian War after allegations of war crimes against civilians were made. Operation Deliberate Force, the bombing campaign carried out by NATO and UNPROFOR to weaken the Bosnian Serb Army, began on 30 August 1995 and was completed on 20 September 1995. The operation was led by Admiral Leighton W. Smith, US Navy. The US and the UK were now leading the way, along with other allied forces in NATO, toward defeating the Serbian forces.
German Forces March
Germany was back on the road to redrawing the map of Europe and would shortly embark on the use of military force outside its borders for the first time since the Third Reich. Berlin later deployed 4,000 troops to Bosnia in 1995, its largest mission abroad since World War II, but its return to direct military aggression after an almost 55-year hold on military activity outside its own borders would occur with NATOs war against Yugoslavia in 1999 – Kosovo.
History is quickly forgotten
On June 22nd 1941, General Tito, via a secretly printed newspaper, called on the people of Yugoslavia to rise up to help the Russians. On June 27th, the Partisan Army was officially created under the leadership of Tito. The official call to the people of Yugoslavia came on July 4th. This call led to an intensive campaign against the Germans. Tito himself took charge of Serbia. The response to Titos call to arms was huge. Tito could rally his troops via a radio station called Free Yugoslavia set up in the Soviet Union. By September 1941, it is estimated that there were about 70,000 resistance fighters in Yugoslavia. Serbia suffered great loss of life during WW II, and a united Yugoslavia managed to fight against the dictates of German dominion during the war, and later Russian influence after the war under Titos leadership.
After Titos death in May 1980, and the loss of his strong leadership, old troubles began to surface once again.
In 1997, the Serbs saw Germany supporting a guerrilla army of Albanians. The guerrillas called themselves the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). A large majority of Kosovos population was Albanian. These Kosovo Albanians, along with Albania and Germany, supported the guerrilla army against the Serbs. There are ca. 600,000 Albanians in Germany. Many of the KLA guerrillas left their families behind in Germany to fight against the Serbs in a civil war that the German-supported Albanians started.
By 1998, the KLA escalated its guerrilla warfare from sporadic attacks on Serbian police units into a substantial armed rebellion. The Yugoslav army and Serbian forces launched a major offensive against the KLA in February 1999 to reassert Yugoslav government control over the region. After negotiations broke down, NATO began to launch air strikes against Serbian military targets in March – Operation Allied Force.
The standard quoted Western motive for that mission is that it was an intervention to prevent alleged genocide in the Serbian province of Kosovo. Its actual aim was to separate Kosovo from Serbia and was the final act of a decade long mission to reduce the once federal republic of Yugoslavia to a number of independent states all controlled by Europe.
It was in Kosovo that Germany crossed the post-World War II red line when the Luftwaffe engaged in combat operations for the first time since 1945. A thousand German troops entered Kosovo along with their NATO allies in June of 1999. A German general assumed command of the 50,000-troop NATO Kosovo Force (KFOR).
It should be remembered that the Kosovo operation was the first time that NATO had used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council and against a sovereign nation that had not posed any threat to any member of the alliance.
Had there been evidence of genocide in Kosovo? — Read the following – just one of many reports that paint another picture than that of the officially accepted one: http://www.counterpunch.org/1999/10/22/genocide-in-kosovo/
The war ended with the Kumanovo Treaty, concluded on 9 June 1999, with Yugoslav forces agreeing to withdraw from Kosovo to make way for an international presence.
The NATO bombing [In the course of the campaign, NATO launched 2,300 missiles at 990 targets and dropped 14,000 bombs, including depleted uranium bombs and cluster munitions. Over 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children, and thousands more were injured] and surrounding events have remained controversial, as it never gained the approval of the UN Security Council. Some legal academics have argued that the Kumanovo Agreement is dubious under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and, as a consequence, so too are parts of Resolution 1244 referring, implicitly or explicitly, to paragraph 10 of Annex 2 of the same resolution. One particular argument is that it is doubtful whether the Kumanovo Agreement can be considered valid according to Article 52 of the VCLT, which states that: a treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. The legal arguments continue that in fact to remedy the legal issues arising what is needed is for Status of Forces Agreement to be entered into with Belgrade.
State by state, the former Yugoslavian Federation has been conquered.
Diplomacy or Intrigue?
Could the United States and its allies have undertaken anything other than military intervention to resolve the Kosovo crisis? In fact, they appear to have done so. After the bombing campaign, which strengthened support for Milosevic and weakened his opponents, it appears that the U.S. poured cash into rebuilding the Serbian opposition. The funding was dependant on the diverse opposition groups agreeing to work together and attending regular coordination meetings held in Budapest, and organized by people understood to represent the State Department. The plan for the anti-Milosevic revolution was worked out in these meetings down to the smallest detail, including where the leaders of each of the 18 participating political organizations would be if mass protests broke out in Belgrade – They did, in October 2000.
Slobodan Milosević’s overthrow was reported as a spontaneous revolution. However, there had been a year-long battle involving thousands of Serbs in a strategy to strip the leader of his legitimacy, turn his security forces against him, and force him to call for elections. The protest initially started with strikers at the Kolubara mines, which produce most of Serbia’s electricity needs. The protest reached its height on 5 October 2000. Several hundred thousand protesters from all over Serbia arrived in Belgrade to protest. Unlike previous protests, there was no large scale police crackdown. The parliament was partially burned during the protests.
Were the protests spontaneous or were they planned?
Slobodan Milosević was charged with crimes against humanity and genocide when his trial opened at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. However, the prosecution case was more than a little tainted. A number of prosecution witnesses gave evidence that was found to be less than truthful. The prosecution struggled to obtain proof that Milosević was complicit in, and had prior knowledge of, the worst massacre with which he was accused – between 2000 and 4000 murdered in Srebrenica in 1995. A five-year inquiry commissioned by the Dutch government resulted in “no proof that orders for the slaughter came from Serb political leaders in Belgrade“ – The results of the inquiry have been contentious, as they undermined the prosecution’s case. Some commentators have expressed the view that the inquiry was flawed due to the alleged foreknowledge of the Dutch UN peacekeeping force stationed at the UN enclave to the forthcoming massacre.
Not a single witness testified that Milosevic was complicit in ordering military actions that could be construed as being descriptive of war crimes. Many of the indictments made against him regarding Kosovo remain unproven to this day.
The chief prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, admitted that she did not have enough evidence to convict Milosevic on the most serious charges.
The International Criminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia has long been reportedly characterized as an unhealthy community of interests between the judges and the prosecutors;
To this day there is no absolute proof that ethnic cleansing and genocide really were the motives for the Balkans conflicts. However, there is proof that the Serbs were subjected to a form of ethnic cleansing! Admiral Gregory Johnson, U.S. commander of NATO forces for southern Europe, has been quoted as saying that “this kind of activity almost amounts to ethnic cleansing”. He was referring to 1,000 Serbs who were forced to leave their homes after Albanian Muslims attacked Serb Christians in their churches and villages in 2004. They were the latest of about 200,000 Serbs driven from Kosovo since NATO bombed Serbia into submission in 1999.
Are the generally accepted motives for NATOs intervention in the Balkans grounded in truth? It would appear that Germany, Austria and the Vatican were initially alone in supporting a break-up of the former Yugoslavia. The real motive for recognizing the break-away states was to destabilize the Yugoslavian Federation and remove Serbian control of the Balkans.
Slobodan Milosevićs real sin (in the eyes of some European leaders at least) was that he had a sense of history – as opposed to many others who appear to have mislaid theirs — he realized what the real motives behind Slovenia and Croatia’s claims to independence were. Simply stated he was an enemy of Germany and the Vatican and a stumbling block to further European expansionism towards the East. He had to be removed!!
In the Milosevic trial, the judges allowed evidence to be given by a number of so-called expert witnesses who were not, in fact, witnesses to anything. Hearsay evidence admitted in court?
The Hague tribunal, which is a blatantly political body set up and funded by the very NATO powers that waged war against Milosevic’s Yugoslavia – and that has refused to consider the prima facie evidence that western leaders were guilty of war crimes in that conflict — is clearly not an independent body capable of dispensing justice impartially.
This perhaps gives us a good insight into the justice system that may well be prevalent within the future European Union (empire)? – Roman justice – Guilty until proven Innocent!
Conveniently, Slobodan Milosevic died in custody on 11 March 2006, some months before the verdict was due on his 4 year trial. In February 2007, the International Court of Justice cleared Serbia under Milosević’s rule of direct responsibility for occurrences of genocide committed during the Bosnian War. However, the president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) did state that it was “conclusively proved” that the Serbian leadership, and Milosević in particular, “were fully aware … that massacres were likely to occur” – Surprise surprise. Note that the president of the court stated massacres were LIKELY to occur — and NOT were PLANNED and expected to occur.
I am not saying that atrocities did not occur – on all sides – but Serbia was singled out and Milosevic made the scapegoat to satisfy European aims.
With President Bill Clinton, and UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, leading the way, NATO bombed Serbia into submission – and then relinquished control of the Balkans to a German led Europe.
President Putin also realizes which future path both Germany and the Vatican wish to tread – taking other Eastern European states along with them.
Henry Kissinger warned that the war against Serbia represented an extraordinary and unprecedented redefinition of the “national interest”–which now, it would appear, includes the domestic policies of other countries.
The implication would appear to be that the United States may bomb and even invade countries whose domestic policies are not to its liking. This doctrine implies that any country in the world is a potential target for US bombing. It would not be difficult – based on the present state of world affairs – to draw up a list of countries that could be considered likely candidates for military attack by the United States (Unfortunately, the US has lost the willpower and the economic means to do so). Were a deterioration of world economic conditions to lead to increased trade tensions and civil unrest; the length of that list could, potentially, be extended.
The relatively recent annexation of the Crimea by Russia is only one step in Russias expansionist and empire building plans. President Putin does not accept the loss of Russian sovereignty over former East-bloc and Baltic states. President Putin’s determination to secure Russian influence over eastern Ukraine is also related to the region’s importance to the Russian armaments industry.
The US is certainly not interested in investing in a new cold war (they can not really afford to economically. The current national debt is ca. 21 trillion dollars and rising – http://www.usdebtclock.org/). After Iraq and Afghanistan, the American people are war-weary and expect Europe to carry more of the burden of NATO defence. One day, America may regret giving Europe that power.
Germany is, and will remain, the power-house of Europe. The U.S. is giving Germany control of the very nations that Hitler fought a bloody war attempting to conquer, with the loss of many American and allied lives – only 70 years ago.
Russia, China and perhaps now the USA – under the new administration – appear to have their strong leaders. Europe is still waiting expectantly for a new Charlemagne. If you believe that a united, federal Europe is axiomatic with Peace in our Time think again!
German reorganization of Europe
The “reorganisation” of Europe is a recurring justification, as well as an expressed goal of German expansionist policy. At the time of the foundation of the German Empire (1870/1871) this “reorganisation” was already being carried out by means of war, at that time war against France. During the following period, the German Empire continued to arm. This economical and political expansion made use of various theoretical structures to disguise the will to conquer?
Soon after the period of colonial acquisition, on the eve of the First World War, a “reorganisation of Europe” no longer sufficed the imperial program of expansion. It now strove for world dominance. Large sectors of the German population allowed themselves to be implemented in this aim. Increasing nationalist sentiment neutralised social demands, so that any flare-up of the internal contradictions present within society could largely be avoided. In order to integrate opposing and sceptical Germans into this policy of expansion, the “reorganisation of Europe” was presented as a peculiarly German obligation. Its professed goal was the liberation of oppressed European peoples as well as the spreading of economic and political progress. The “reorganisation of Europe” was ostensibly sought only for the preservation of peace.
1989-2002 – The end of the division of Germany led to national self-reflection on its history; this was termed “normalisation”. A reunited Germany must now take up its European “responsibility for peace”, it was said. Wherever the “autonomy of a people” or “ethnicities” were in danger, Berlin must become active. In the last instance Germany must carry out “peacekeeping through intervention from outside”, that is, must wage war. As in the earlier periods of imperialist major-power politics, the “reorganisation of Europe” remains both a justification for and a goal of German striving for dominance. Operational activities are pursued primarily in the east and the south-east of the continent. The Central Europe programme pursued in times of the Kaiser and of the National Socialists was brought up to date. German foreign policy now reaches out to Asia and Africa. By the middle of the nineties at the latest, German claims are measured against the United States, whose leadership role is called into question and disputed with growing frequency. It is maintained that “Europe” can only develop in opposition to America; that Germany must emerge from its subservient role. This concept begins to bridge domestic political differences, leading Social Democrats, Socialists and former opponents of the system to voice demands for an “international German presence”.
Global power bases are changing rapidly. The coming future is going to affect each and every one of us; regardless of where we live. Big Brother appears to becoming ever more watchful, vigilant and suspicious of us all.
..Just a few days ago, Foreign Minister Steinmeier declared in the US journal “Foreign Affairs” that Germany has become “a major power” and will “try its best” on the world stage “to hold as much ground as possible”.
With Britain, which had always adamantly opposed an integrated EU military policy, leaving the EU, Berlin sees an opportunity for reviving its efforts at restructuring the EU’s military and mobilizing as many member countries as possible for the EU’s future wars.
Interesting article: http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/59004
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, President-elect of the Federal Republic of Germany is the epitome of the past two decades of Berlin’s expansionist policy – from the war over Kosovo to intervention in the Syrian war. As State Secretary in the Federal Chancellery, Steinmeier was implicated in the aggression against Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999, with which Germany, in violation of international law, entered its first war of aggression since 1945.