UNDERNEWS By Sam Smith April 19, 1999 The Progressive Review 1739 Conn. Ave. NW Washington DC 20009 202-232-5544 Fax: 202- 234-6222 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] INDEX : http://prorev.com NEWS : http://prorev.com/indexa.htm ALTERNATIVE NEWS SOURCES: http://prorev.com/altnews.htm BALKAN ARCHIVES: http://prorev.com/balkan.htm FORUMS: http://dejanews.com/~prorev For a free trial subscription to our hard copy edition and e-mail updates send your postal address with zip code. To unsubscribe, reply with the word 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. Copyright 1999, The Progressive Review. Matter not independently copyrighted may be reprinted provided TPR is paid your normal reprint fees, if any, and is given proper credit. ==================================================== WHO'S SIDE ARE YOU ON? THE QUESTION WITH NO RIGHT ANSWER A friend forwards a message from a prominent environmentalist writer who offers a litany of conflicting information coming from the Balkans. Small sample: "Dissident friends in Belgrade are furious that, as their independent presses are shut down and as the Serbs rally behind Milosevic, their fight for democracy 'has been set back 10 years.' Friends of those friends in the U.S. are furious with those dissidents, because they show more concern for their own struggle than they do for the suffering of the Albanian Kosovars. But then I'm told that nobody in Serbia has heard anything about the suffering of the Albanian Kosovars -- which we see every night on our TV. The Serbs are trying to rid Kosovo of Albanians, but, I am told, the KLA was trying to rid Kosovo of Serbs." Then she asks: how can we take sides here? The question unconsciously presumes the righteousness of conflict, leaving to us only the choice of loyalty. Once we accept this question we have joined the battle. And how do we make this choice? How much of the right has to be one side or the other to justify our billion-dollar-a-week bombardment? 80%? 60% or perhaps just 50.5%? The alternative is to come up with better questions. Such as how can we mitigate the harm being caused by various parties in the Balkans? How can save we the most lives and the greatest amount of habitat of those living in the region? How can we bring peace? We live in a highly dichotomized time. Propagandists constantly ask us to make abysmally simplistic bifurcations that serve no one but those for whom they spin. Only when we stop choosing sides and start choosing resolutions will real alternatives begin to appear. There is no shortage of these; there is a terrible shortage of voices demanding them. WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT RAMBOUILLET? >From FAIR Since the beginning of the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, the war has been presented by the media as the consequence of Yugoslavia's stubborn refusal to settle for any reasonable peace plan, in particular its rejection of plans for an international security force to implement a peace plan in Kosovo. An article in the April 14 New York Times stated that Yugoslavian President Milosevic "has absolutely refused to entertain an outside force in Kosovo, arguing that the province is sovereign territory of Serbia and Yugoslavia." Negotiations between the Serb and Albanian delegations at the Rambouillet meeting in France ended with Yugoslavia's rejection of the agreement adopted, after much prodding, by the Albanian party. But is that the whole story? On February 21, the Yugoslavs assented to the terms of the political portion of the Rambouillet agreement. Their rejection stemmed from their opposition to the requirement that 28,000 NATO troops be stationed in Kosovo to oversee the implementation of the accord. This military clause, requiring NATO troops, was inserted without the knowledge of the Russian representatives, who opposed the provision. [The Institute for Public Accuracy reports that the Rambouillet text of Feb. 23, a month before NATO began bombing, also contains provisions that seem to have allowed NATO to occupy the entire Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, not just Kosovo. Excerpts from Appendix (B): 7. NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY. 8. NATO personnel shall enjoy... free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. 11. NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails and ports without payment... 15. [NATO shall have] the right to use all of the electromagnetic spectrum... ] By the close of the first round of the Rambouillet talks in late February, Serb President Milan Milutinovic had already declared Serbia's willingness to discuss "an international presence in Kosovo" to monitor the implementation of the accords. On February 21, Madeleine Albright responded by insisting that "We accept nothing less than a complete agreement, including a NATO-led force." On March 23, the day before the NATO bombing began, the Serbian parliament adopted a resolution again rejecting the military portion of the accords, but expressing willingness to review the "range and character of an international presence" in Kosovo. According to the Toronto Star's correspondent in Belgrade on March 24, "There have been hints Serbia might ultimately accept a UN force." But the U.S. appears to have been unwilling to consider any option other than NATO troops. At a March 24 State Department press briefing, spokesman James Rubin was asked about this development: QUESTION: Was there any follow-up to the Serbian Assembly's yesterday? They had a two-pronged decision. One was to not allow NATO troops to come in; but the second part was to say they would consider an international force if all of the Kosovo ethnic groups agreed to some kind of a peace plan. It was an ambiguous collection of resolutions. Did anybody try to pursue that and find out what was the meaning of that? MR. RUBIN: Ambassador Holbrooke was in Belgrade, discussed these matters extensively with President Milosevic, left with the conclusion that he was not prepared to engage seriously on the two relevant subjects. I think the decision of the Serb Parliament opposing military-led implementation was the message that most people received from the parliamentary debate. I'm not aware that people saw any silver linings. QUESTION: But there was a second message, as well; there was a second resolution. MR. RUBIN: I am aware that there was work done, but I'm not aware that anybody in this building regarded it as a silver lining. In other words, the State Department was aware that the Serbian parliament expressed openness to an "international presence," but this was not seen as a "silver lining," apparently because only a NATO force was acceptable to the U.S. Those who support the bombing of Yugoslavia argue that all peaceful options for arriving at a settlement in Kosovo had been exhausted. Journalists need to do more reporting on the Rambouillet process to see if that in fact was the case. FAIR http://www.fair.org INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC ACCURACY http://www.accuracy.org WAR NOTES ROBERT NOVAK: Members of Congress who, during their spring recess, met in Brussels with Gen. Wesley Clark, the NATO supreme commander, were startled by his bellicosity. According to the lawmakers, Clark suggested the best way to handle Russia's supply of oil to Yugoslavia would be aerial bombardment of the pipeline that runs through Hungary. He also proposed bombing Russian warships that enter the battle zone. The American general was described by the members of the congressional delegation as waging a personal vendetta against Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. "I think the general might need a little sleep," commented one House member. LONDON TELEGRAPH: Senior officials in Paris are claiming that the French government has vetoed plans by the Western allies to intensify the war against President Milosevic with an all-out aerial onslaught. According to the Elyssee Palace, President Chirac blocked a move to begin a new offensive that would involve unlimited attacks on Serbian "centres of power" for fear of provoking Russia. In detailed briefings to senior French journalists, the Elysee conceded that opposition to what it calls "Phase Three" of the campaign has effectively isolated France from her allies. While the government remains committed to stepping up pressure on Milosevic - specifically approving the deployment of America's tank-busting helicopters - it remains convinced that it is too risky to confront Moscow with what amounts to "total war". SUSAN HOELL FOR REUTERS: Gila Altmann, a [German] deputy environment minister, told Reuters she had added her signature to a cease-fire petition by some 1,000 Green party members to be published on Monday. ~~ Polls show public support and personal ratings for Schroeder, a Social Democrat, and his Green Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer have shot up. Der Spiegel news magazine quoted a source close to Schroeder as saying Altmann had effectively signed 'her own resignation,' although there was no official word on her fate. A cease-fire suggestion by Fischer last week was received coolly by the United States and other allies. It was seen by some analysts as being partly aimed at salving domestic opinion, which favors quick peace. ~~ Other leading Greens, including hard-line party co-chief Antj Radcke, called for a cease-fire over the weekend, cranking up pressure on Schroeder and especially deputy chancellor Fischer. ATHENS NEWS: [Greek] Prime Minister Costas Simitis yesterday combined a call for an end to hostilities in Yugoslavia with a scathing assessment of the ineffectiveness of NATO's military campaign that represents the deepest fissure yet in the alliance's united front. "Death, disease, hunger and catastrophe now constitute a permanent phenomenon in the region. The intervention has led to the death of unarmed civilians who are not a party to the conflict, something that is unacceptable. We express our sorrow for these actions and this result... The Milosevic regime instead of being weakened has been stabilized," said Simitis in a nationally televised press conference following an inner cabinet meeting yesterday. CLINTON SCANDALS The Washington Weekly reports that as far back as 1974 the FBI knew that a Montreal-based blood plasma middleman "violated the law" in shipping tainted blood from the US. The FDA was also aware that the plasma broker might be involved in "criminal activity." The article quotes a 1974 memo from John Furesz, the director of the Canadian Bureau of Biologics: "FDA is keeping a close eye on their plasma, they have tested so far about 20 lots, of the last six lots four were found to be HB [hepatitis B] antigen positive." The FDA is denying any knowledge of the document. Bad blood from Arkansas prisons during the tenure of Governor W.J. Clinton was a major source of the plasma that resulted in a major Canadian HIV and hepatitis outbreak. THE REVIEW LIST Recent efforts by government to recruit snitches [From James Bovard, whose new book is Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen] -- In 1996 the IRS paid out $6.6 million in rewards to 708 individuals who accused others of dodging taxes. -- The Clinton administration sponsored pep rallies in 31 cities to encourage the nation's 39 million Medicare recipients to become informants. Those who accuse their doctors of fraud are eligible for $1,000 bounties. -- Schools from Oregon to Ohio to South Carolina are offering students cash payments for reporting other students for smoking, drinking alcohol, using drugs or violating other school rules. -- The Fairfax County, Va., government is recruiting homeowners to report such zoning offenses as too-tall grass or cluttered yards. -- The percentage of federal search warrants relying exclusively on unidentified snitches nearly tripled between 1980 and 1993 to 71%. -- Drug Abuse Resistance Education and other school-based drug programs have taught children to turn in their parents for marijuana or other drug violations. -- The Clinton administration has almost tripled federal funds for private organizations to snare realtors, landlords, banks and others into violating fair housing laws. -- Other informant schemes call for people to turn in others for not wearing seatbelts, for telling ethnic or racist jokes and for failing to recycle their garbage properly. THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW 1739 Connecticut Ave NW Washington DC 20009 202-232-5544 202-234-6222 Fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] Editor: Sam Smith WEBSITE: http://prorev.com READERS' FORUM: http://dejanews.com/~prorev For a free trial subscription to both our bi-monthly hard copy edition and our regular e-mail updates send e-mail and terrestrial address to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To order "Sam Smith's Great American Political Repair Manual" (WW Norton) direct from Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0393316270/progressiverevieA/
