-Caveat Lector- ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Wed, 09 Jun 1999 11:22:29 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Was This War Necessary? Institute for Public Accuracy 915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045 (202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________ Wednesday, June 9, 1999 WAS THIS WAR NECESSARY? While many are claiming the peace agreement shows that Milosevic backed down, some analysts are suggesting that essentially the same agreement could have been achieved without bombing. They point to U.S. demands at Rambouillet in February that are absent from the current agreement. While some elements of the new accords remain unclear, apparent major differences between the Rambouillet text and the current agreement include: WHAT MILOSEVIC GAVE UP * Can keep only a few hundred, not a few thousand, troops in Kosovo WHAT NATO GAVE UP * The international force can be deployed only in Kosovo, not throughout Yugoslavia * International force under UN -- not NATO -- auspices, with Russian component * UNHCR, not NATO, supervises return of refugees * No referendum on Kosovo independence PHYLLIS BENNIS, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.zmag.org/zmag/kosovo.htm Author of "Calling the Shots: How Washington Dominates Today's UN" and a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, Bennis said: "This agreement might have been achievable months earlier, without the devastation of Yugoslavia and the escalation of the anti-Albanian 'ethnic cleansing' in Kosovo wrought by NATO's bombing campaign." MARJORIE COHN, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/article/0,1051,SAV-99052 00 163,000.html Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, Cohn said: "At Rambouillet, NATO presented Milosevic with an ultimatum impossible for him to accept. NATO has now diluted its demands but, to justify two months of bombing, claims Milosevic capitulated..." STEPHEN ZUNES, [EMAIL PROTECTED] An associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace and Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco, Zunes said: "Most crucially, the insistence at Rambouillet that NATO troops have 'unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia' has been dropped, limiting their role only to Kosovo..." SETH ACKERMAN, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.fair.org A media analyst with Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, Ackerman said: "Last week's Serb agreement was falsely reported as a total NATO victory. Then, when military talks broke down, it was claimed that the Serbs were reneging. In fact, those military talks were largely a NATO ploy -- unsuccessful -- to totally bypass the UN." For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 14:31:49 -0400 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: FAIR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [FAIR-L] MEDIA ADVISORY: CEASEFIRE SUBTERFUGE To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FAIR-L Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting Media analysis, critiques and news reports Media Advisory: CEASEFIRE SUBTERFUGE: Despite Claims of Serb "Stalling," NATO Ploy Delayed Kosovo Deal June 9, 1999 The June 7 breakdown of military talks between Yugoslav and NATO generals was almost uniformly greeted by the major U.S. media as a sign that the Serbs were reneging on their agreement to pull troops out of Kosovo and allow in an international security force. Tom Aspell of NBC News reported that morning that "all hopes of a cease-fire have evaporated" because the "Yugoslavians are balking at the idea of NATO troops replacing their forces in Kosovo." But, with little fanfare, it has emerged that the talks' disruption was in fact caused by the failure of a bizarre NATO diplomatic gambit intended to sideline the United Nations from a settlement - contradicting NATO's earlier commitment to include the U.N. On Thursday, June 3, when the Serb Assembly agreed to the Kosovo peace plan presented by Russian envoy Victor Chernomyrdin and Finnish President Marti Ahtissari, the news media interpreted the accord as a capitulation by Yugoslavia that would bring a swift end to the conflict. Reporters talked of a NATO "victory." Sunday morning pundits were already doling out credit and assigning blame. The papers gave prominent coverage to NATO assertions that the bombing could end "as early as Tuesday," giving the impression that the war was winding down. On Monday, the coverage suddenly changed gears. The front-page headline in USA Today (6/7/99) read "Kosovo Talks Break Down: Yugoslavs Balk at NATO's Conditions to End Bombing." The words "balk," "renege" and "stall" were constantly used to describe Yugoslavia's actions. NBC News reporter Tom Aspell said (6/7/99) that at the military talks between Yugoslav and NATO generals, the "Yugoslavs stalled and haggled over the details until the talks collapsed." The New York Times' lead story Monday (6/7/99), by reporter Elizabeth Becker, carried a bold, three-column headline: "Kosovo Talks Break Down As Serbs Balk Over Details." But in the next day's paper (New York Times, 6/8/99), Becker quietly reported that the media's spin - including her own - had been misleading. Becker's article on page 17 explained that Sunday's military talks on the Macedonian border had in fact broken down because Yugoslavia had failed to fall for a bizarre NATO ploy: In order to get around a provision in the Chernomyrdin-Ahtissari plan explicitly requiring any Kosovo peacekeeping force to be "under U.N. auspices," NATO generals had tried to force Yugoslavia to sign a legally binding military document on a peacekeeping force that contained no mention of the United Nations. Becker reported that "Western political leaders had tried to disguise that omission by offering what was supposed to be a highly detailed technical agreement." She quoted a senior Western diplomat as saying the idea behind the ploy was that "if you call it a technical document it would hide the fact that it went beyond the nuts and bolts of the military arrangement and was essentially creating the legal basis for the Kosovo peacekeeping force" - with no role for the U.N. Becker quotes a senior European diplomat who seems genuinely perplexed that NATO had thought it could get away with such a scheme: "We knew the problem of the U.N. would be exposed during the talks. Why, then, was the military encouraged to pursue the talks without the U.N.?" Becker's article was obliquely headlined, "Tricky Point For Serbs: No Mention of U.N. Role" (which is itself somewhat misleading, since NATO's omission of a U.N. role was not a mere "tricky point"; it directly contradicted NATO's promise last week of a Kosovo force "under U.N. auspices.") Strangely, the piece was placed under the heading "Macedonia." Nevertheless, the lead editorial in that edition of the Times (6/8/99) begins: "Slobodan Milosevic is a master at using delay, surprise, and confusion to divide his opponents, and he is now using all three to undermine the peace agreement that he accepted in Belgrade last week." Ignoring its own correspondent's reporting, the editorial adds that "the immediate obstacle to peace is Belgrade's refusal to accept a detailed NATO plan" for Kosovo. The Washington Post (6/8/99) reported on the break-down of talks in Macedonia this way: "By holding up implementation of the peace deal, Milosevic demonstrated once again that he is a master of the last- minute tactical ploy." In a war that the media have covered by portraying one side's leader - Slobodan Milosevic - as a wily master of diplomatic subterfuge, a very real instance of subterfuge by the other side - NATO - has been ignored and even misrepresented. This media advisory was written by FAIR media analyst Seth Ackerman ( mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ). ---------- Feel free to respond to FAIR ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented example of media bias or censorship. All messages to the 'FAIR-L' list will be forwarded to the editor of the list. Also, please send copies of email correspondence, including any responses, to us at: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Feel free to spread this message around. Put it on conferences where it is appropriate. We depend on word of mouth to get our message out, so please let others know about FAIR and this mailing list. Don't miss a single email from FAIR-L. To subscribe to FAIR-L send a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name" command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The subscriber list is kept confidential, so no need to worry about spammers. You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF FAIR-L" command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please support FAIR by becoming a member. You will receive FAIR's magazine, EXTRA! and its newsletter, EXTRA! Update. You can become a member by calling 1-800-847-3993 from 9 to 5 Eastern Time (be sure to tell them you got the information on-line) or by sending $19 with your name and address to: FAIR/EXTRA! Subscription Service P.O. Box 170 Congers, NY 10920-9930 FAIR (212) 633-6700 http://www.fair.org/ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] list administrators: [EMAIL PROTECTED] A<>E<>R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, German Writer (1759-1805) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
