>From: Rick Rozoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [STOPNATO] Yugoslavia: Collateral Damage Of The Environmental Kind > >Collateral Damage of the Environmental Kind > >A year after NATO's bombing campaign, Yugoslav and >international ecology experts say that environmental >damage caused by the air war is far more extensive >than NATO will admit -- and they want to take NATO to >court to force the issue. > >by Claude V.Z. Morgan >Sept. 6, 2000 > >Pancevo's petrochemical plant was destroyed by NATO >bombs last year. > > >It's a sizzling summer day in Pancevo, Serbia. Out in >the rubble that was part of this town's petrochemical >plant before it was bombed by NATO last year, the air >smells sickly sweet. Large holding tanks, ripped by >shrapnel, lie dormant, baking in the sun. A large >spherical tank used to store the plant's deadly vinyl >chloride monomer now sits like a cauldron with a >ragged, torn lip facing the sky, a casualty of NATO >"smart" bombs. > >The morning after NATO bombed the plant, it rained >paint chips the size of quarters, says Nenad Zivkovic, >a journalist for the city's newspaper. Later that day, >he recalls, the real rains came, washing down most of >the remaining jet-black cloud. > >But while the rains did their best to erase the >visible blight in the sky, he says, they left an >invisible blight elsewhere: 80,000 tons of oil had >burned in the night, much of it spilling into the >nearby Danube river. Another 2,500-plus tons of >ethylene dichloride, vinyl chloride monomer, and >metallic mercury -- all known toxins -- likewise >seeped into the nearby earth and the Danube. Zivkovic, >like many Pancevians, wonders just how much of those >toxins wound up where -- a crucial question from an >environmental standpoint. > >One year and several international fact-finding >missions later, that question still haunts Pancevo, a >tree-shaded suburb of Belgrade. The uncertainty around >the fate of those toxins continues to generate >questions about the size and shape of the >environmental damage caused by the recent war. The >toxic mystery also raises new questions about who >bears the moral -- and legal -- responsibility for >setting environmental wrongs aright after >environmentally disruptive conflicts. > >NATO has steadfastly refused to accept responsibility >for cleaning up the former Yugoslavia's blighted >environment, saying the damage caused by its bombing >was acceptable under international law. > >"Fuel supplies are a key element of any nation's >military machine," says Mark Laity, a NATO spokesman, >defending the air strike on Pancevo's petrochemical >plant. "That is recognized under international law. >NATO also believes that a proportion of the pollution >we have been alleged to cause, in fact, reflects poor >environmental standards on [Yugoslavian] industry, and >was not caused by us." > >But Yugoslav and international environmental experts >maintain that the environmental damage caused by the >78-day war is far more extensive than NATO will admit >-- and Yugoslavia wants to take NATO to court to force >the issue. > >"I think we are seeing a new kind of war being waged >here," says Fedor Zdanski, a former professor of >chemical engineering at Belgrade University, now head >of the natural sciences department at the Alternative >Academic Network. He and colleagues in Belgrade are >tracking and studying the long-term human health and >environmental consequences of the war. > >Aside from the NATO strike on Pancevo, 73,000 tons of >crude oil and oil products burned and seeped into the >groundwater in the northern city of Novi Sad, where it >may now be contaminating the region's water supply. >Elsewhere, heavy metals, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and >other caustics, spewed from burning industrial >facilities into the air, ground, and rivers in the >former Yugoslavia, leaving many experts convinced that >the impact of the toxic releases reach far beyond >Yugoslavia's borders. > >"It's a catastrophe," says Zdanski. > >It may also be a crime. > >Legal experts say that NATO countries may have >violated a number of international laws and treaties >(including the Geneva Convention) created specifically >to protect the environment and long-term human health >during wartime -- an issue the international community >may soon be forced to address. > >Responding to reports of a widespread environmental >disaster, the United Nations formed a special Balkan >Task Force to investigate. The Task Force, led by >former Finnish environment minister Pekka Haavisto, >released its report in October identifying several >environmental "hot spots"created by the bombing in the >former Yugoslavia -- areas in need of immediate >cleaning -- but said that otherwise, most of the >country's pollution predates the air war. Serbian >experts and others reject the findings of that report. > > >Dragana Tar, head of the Regional Environmental Center >(REC) in Serbia -- a group based in Hungary and funded >by international donors -- says the damage is far more >widespread than a handful of environmental "hot >spots." > >"At this point, we could argue over the details of the >impact for years," she says. "I'm afraid we'll see the >real effects -- so and so many people dying of cancer >-- long after it's too late." > >Recently, the REC issued a report to European Union >ministers stating that the bombing of chemical >facilities posed "a serious threat both locally and >regionally to human health in the long-term." > >A 1999 World Wildlife Fund report observed that >pollution from the targeted industrial areas -- far >from being contained to hot spots -- was actually >spreading to the environment at large. > >Arguing that, in peacetime, the international >community would have eagerly declared a large-scale >environmental catastrophe in the former Yugoslavia, >Jadranko Simic, a senior science advisor at Serbia's >Federal Ministry of the Environment and Development in >Belgrade, says that Haavisto and his team have >employed a double standard. "If a few tons of oil >spill in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of France," >says Simic, "it's an ecological disaster. If many more >times that amount of oil spills into a much smaller >body of water -- the Danube River -- why isn't this >also an ecological disaster?" > >Simic, who consulted with Task Force members several >times during their 28-day stay in the former >Yugoslavia, says the Finnish leader and his team >worked in isolation, investigating less than 10 >percent of the industrial and natural sites >recommended by experts. Furthermore, say many of those >experts, Haavisto and his team failed to report their >findings objectively. > >"Declaring an ecological catastrophe necessarily >produces a discussion about responsibility," says >Radoje Lausevic, an assistant professor of biology at >Belgrade University, who also conferred with the team. >He too studies the long-term environmental >consequences of the war. > >"Their report is a political document," charges >Lausevic. "The topic was intentionally switched from >the pollution that occurred as a result of the war to >our long-term pollution problem." > >Members of the Balkan Task Force say they cooperated >with local experts and reported their findings >objectively. "The [Task Force] was not attempting to >make a comparison" between ecological disasters in >Europe, says Robert Bisset, a spokesman for the group. >"[The Task Force] was mandated to conduct an >independent, scientifically-based assessment of the >environmental impact of the conflict." > >During the course of their work, he says, Task Force >members uncovered the historical levels of pollution >and chose to report them "to be scientifically >credible." > >The result, however, is that one year later, a >clean-up in the former Yugoslavia is nowhere in sight >-- in large part, because the international community >is relying on Task Force recommendations on whether or >not to offer financial aid to the Balkan nation. > >Stepping over rubble at the petrochemical plant in >Pancevo, Radojko Tomic, the plant's assistant >technical director, admits that Serbia doesn't have >the resources to clean up its post-war environment. > >"We can't do it all," he says. > >While most experts recognize that Yugoslavia had >pollution problems prior to the conflict, no one knows >for sure just how severe those problems were. > >"Our industrial growth here has never been followed >with medical statistics," admits Ivan Zafirovic, a >sociologist and Pancevo assemblyman. Yugoslavia, he >says, has been notoriously tight-lipped when it comes >to admitting problems about pollution. > >Legal experts say that sifting through these competing >layers of pollution -- the old and the new -- may well >be the first step in an international clean-up effort. >It may also be the first step in a plaintiff's plea >for justice. > >Recent News Wires >Colombia's Death Squads > >Undermining a Community > >Killer Grilles > >Cheney's Multi-Million Dollar Revolving Door > >According to experts, Serbia will now ask the >international community to examine whether or not NATO >members violated international law by inflicting >"widespread, long-term and severe damage to the >environment" -- language added to Protocol 1 (Article >55) of the Geneva Conventions in 1977 after an >international review of the US military's defoliation >campaign in Vietnam. > >If such an investigation were to proceed, says Jay >Austin, a senior attorney at the Environmental Law >Institute in Washington, DC, it could consequently >change the way wars are fought by forcing military >planners to consider the long-term environmental >consequences of their targets. > >"To the best of my knowledge, the environmental >language of Protocol 1 has never been tested in >court," says Austin. "Some of these allegations -- if >proven -- could be claimed to rise to the level of >violations of the Protocol," he adds. > >The World Court at the Hague, however, has so far >refused to hear Serbia's case, finding it lacked >jurisdiction over the parties in the dispute. > >More recently, a committee for the war crimes tribunal >at the Hague recommended the international body throw >out Serbia's claims because of ambiguous language in >the Protocol -- and because of the unfavorable >conclusions formed by the Balkan Task Force. The >question of who, if anyone, will clean up the former >Yugoslavia's blasted environment looks a long way from >being answered. > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! >http://mail.yahoo.com/ > > >______________________________________________________________________ >To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb _______________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi _______________________________________________________ Kominform list for general information. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anti-Imperialism list for anti-imperialist news. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________________
