>X-From_: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 21 00:46:08 1999
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:15:40 -0700
>To: (Recipient list suppressed)
>From: Kim Scipes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Copy of Rambouillet "Accord"--important
>
>April 20, 1999
>
>Folks--
>
>One of the key "justifications" for the war against the Yugoslavians was
>that they refused to sign to Rambouillet Accord. But until now, that
>accord has been kept secret.
>
>This accord has recently been published by the French newspaper LE MONDE
>diplomatique, with a date of April 17. I found it on the ZNet site
><www.zmag.org>, but that was linked from the original site:
><www.monde-diplomatique.fr/dossiers/kosovo/rambouillet.html>. This version
>that I saw is in English, but I believe it was also posted in French on the
>monde-diplomatique site. It is quite long--68 pages, but it IS now
>available.
>
>One acronym in the English version is never forthrightly identified and
>that is KFOR. COMKFOR is identified at one point as being the Commander of
>the Kosovo Force, so I think it is logical to believe that KFOR refers to
>Kosovo Force which is, in reality, US/NATO's force to be operational in
>Kosovo after the accord was signed. (It never was signed by the
>Yugoslavians, and the Kosovo Liberation Army initially refused to
>sign--they wanted an agreement from NATO re independence after three years
>before signing--and then all the sudden signed.)
>
>Also on the ZNet site is a "review" of the Accord by a man named Peter
>Schwarz, who is not identified. What is posted is two pages long, but
>appears to have accidentally not been posted in its entirety. Its title is
>"Rambouillet Accord foresaw the occupation of all Yugoslavia"
>
>I have only quickly scanned the entire 68 page document. It's a lawyer's
>delight. Again, I have only scanned the whole document. But I did find
>Article XV: Final Authority to Interpet of Chapter 7 ("Implementation II")
>stunning. (This is on page 60 of a 68 page document). Chapter 7, Article
>XV reads in part: "1. Subject to paragraph 2, the KFOR Commander is the
>final authority in theater regarding interpretation of this Chapter and his
>determinations are binding on all Parties and persons." I say we should do
>away with all this military bullshit, and make this man "god."
>
>Schwarz does draw attention to the meat of the agreement, which I have
>checked to make sure is accurate with the document posted by Le
>Monde-diplomatique. I will quote several paragraphs from Schwarz:
>"The refusal of the Milosevic government to sign the Rambouillet Accord
>provided NATO with the official justification for its war against
>Yugoslavia. For a long time, however, the precise contents of this accord
>were unknown. The Contact Group, responsible for the talks at Rambouillet
>and Paris, had agreed to remain silent. The complete text was only
>recently published on the Internet site of theAlbanian Kosova Crisis Center.
>
>"As can now be seen, the accord contains provisions that would have
>subjected the whole of Yugoslavia to NATO occupation. The official
>presentation repeatedly stated that it was a matter of autonomy for Kosovo,
>which would be secured by the stationing of a 'peace force' in Kosovo.
>However, Appendix B, "Status of Multi-National Military Implementation
>Force', grants NATO freedom of movement 'throughout all Yugoslavia', i.e.,
>Serbia and Montenegro as well as Kosovo.
>
>
>"The text of Article 8 of this Appendix reads: 'NATO personnel shall
>enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free
>and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY [Federal
>Republic of Yugoslavia] including associated airspace and territorial
>waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac,
>maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilitites as required
>for support, training, and operations.'
>
>"Article 6 guarantees the occupying forces absolute immunity. 'NATO
>personnel, under all circumstances and all times, shall be imune from the
>Parties' jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal or
>disciplinary offenese which may be committed by them in the FRY.'
>
>[Kim note: actually, that is Article 6 b. Article 6 a refers to NATO
>itself and reads "NATO shall be immune for all legal process, whether
>civil, administrative, or criminal."]
>
>"Article 10 secures NATO the cost-free use of all Yugoslavian streets,
>airports and ports.
>
>[Kim note: actually, that is Article 11, part of which specifically reads:
> "NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without
>payment of fees, duties, dues, tolls, or charges occasioned by mere use."
>Article 10 actually provides priority access to NATO movements throughout
>Yugoslavia. Article 10 reads in part: "The authorities in FRY shall
>facilitate, on a priority basis and with all appropriate means, all
>movement of personnel, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, equipment, or supplies,
>through or in the airspace, ports, airports, or roads used."]
>
>"If the Yugoslav government had signed the accord, they would have been
>relignishing all claims to sovereignty over their own territory. The
>Berliner Zeitung noted, 'This passage sounds like a surrender treaty
>following a war that was lost.... The fact that Yugoslavian President
>Milosevic did not want to sign such a paper is understandable.
>
>"The way in which the government was called upon to sign this
>diktat--delivered as an ultimatum--and the secretiveness regarding its
>content, suggest that the Rambouillet and Paris conferences were aimed at
>providing a pretext to war, not a political solution to the Kosovo conflict."
>
>Again, everything in quotes--with the exception of the material listed as
>[Kim note:], which is from me--is from the above referenced paper by Peter
>Schwarz. The paper continues on for a few more paragraphs and is worthy of
>reading the rest.
>
>I hope people will obtain and read the initial document for themselves, and
>pass this message on as widely as possible. In addition to informational
>and mobilizing efforts, I would write a personal note above this and send
>it to your political officials and newsmedia.
>
>In solidarity--
>
>Kim Scipes
>US Marine Corps, 1969-1973
>
>
>
>
>
>
regards,
Tom Walker
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm
