>From the Cold War to NATO's "Humanitarian Wars" - The Complicity of the United
>Nations
By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, April 4, 2012
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001-R4EmRIeAIqndy2AZdajEyABFGQK6-9JGIgTOGLAngzQNndpADrSWKv6p2PoEGNxk62epF3sJdsmUtJBMbq5jsrEeSz2zMgCoUqh6Kni6f_fnbd8Iko0qb9xS22rGKwYmpE9kOmuMkyHfX12TaG-T14-EdaOzD4GIytTDGEmOeA=>
&aid=30114
Humanitarian wars, especially under the guise of the “Responsibility to Protect
(R2P),” are a modern form of imperialism. The standard pattern that the United
States and its allies use to execute them is one where genocide and ethnic
cleansing are vociferously alleged by a coalition of governments, media
organizations, and non-governmental front organizations. The allegations –
often lurid and unfounded – then provide moral and diplomatic cover for a
variety of sanctions that undermine and isolate the target country in question,
and thereby pave the way for military intervention. This is the post-Cold War
modus operandi of the US and NATO.
In facilitating this neo-imperialism, the United Nations has been complicit in
the hijacking of its own posts and offices by Washington.
Former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan has been appointed a “special peace
envoy” with a mediating role in Syria. Yet, how can Annan be evaluated as an
“honest broker” considering his past instrumental role in developing the
doctrine of R2P – the very pretext that has served to facilitate several
US/NATO criminal wars of aggression? Furthermore, the evidence attests that the
US and its allies – despite mouthing support for Annan’s supposed peace plan –
are not interested in a mediated, peaceful solution in Syria.
>From the Cold War to Humanitarian Wars
As the Cold War began to wind down in the late-1980s and early-1990s, NATO saw
the opportunity that would arise from the geopolitical vacuum following the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc. Not only
did NATO begin transforming from a defensive organization into an offensive
military body, the US-led alliance began to embrace a supposed humanitarian
mandate for this purpose. It is through this purported embrace of
humanitarianism that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was able to change
into an offensive, interventionist military force – indeed the largest such
force ever in the history of the world.
NATO’s biggest military operation up until a decade after the Cold War was the
First Persian Gulf War following the invasion in 1991 of Kuwait by Iraqi forces
under the command of Saddam Hussein. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, at the
time a US ally, was mired in a territorial oil dispute over colonial-era
borders to which Washington at first appeared to show cool indifference.
Immediately after Iraqi forces entered Kuwait, however, a strident US
government and media campaign was mounted claiming the sanctity of Kuwait’s
sovereign territory and the “defence of small nations.” There were also lurid
media reports – later shown to be fabrications – of atrocities committed by
Iraqi troops, such as the butchering of babies taken from hospital incubators.
The international public was successfully manipulated to accept a US-led war
against Iraq to iconically liberate the Emirate of Kuwait only to reinstate an
absolute and despotic monarch.
Equipped with UN resolutions, the US-led NATO powers – along with a “coalition
of willing” Arab states – launched a war on Iraq supposedly in the name of
“humanitarianism.” Operations exlusively run by several NATO powers in Iraqi
Kurdistan would also become the basis for NATO’s future humanitarian mandates.
The precedent and tempo was now set for NATO’s subsequent “humanitarian” wars.
The no-fly zones and legal semantics that were innovated by the Western powers
to justify their intervention in Iraq were also applied by these same powers
with regard to the former Yugoslavia. Variants of this humanitarian pretext for
war included “upholding international law” and “international security” and
were deployed for the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and again against Iraq in
2003 – the Second Persian Gulf War – this time to justify the all-out conquest
of that country. The same rhetorical justification for military intervention
was used by NATO powers to unleash a seven-month aerial bombing campaign in
Libya in 2011 that led to the overthrow of the government and to the murder of
the country’s leader Muammar Qaddafi. The thematic R2P is currently being
amplified to decibel levels by NATO state governments and mainstream media with
regard to Syria, where a NATO-led intervention is also covertly underway.
Yugoslavia: Srebrenica’s Sacrifice for NATO Intervention
On July 11, 1995, the forces of the Bosnian Serbs would march into the
so-called UN Srebrenica Safe Area. The official NATO narrative is that UN
troops agreed to withdraw from Srebrenica and let the Bosnian Serb forces take
care of the local Bosniaks, but that once the Bosnian Serbs entered the area
they proceeded to slaughter 8,000 Bosniaks. This would be billed as the worst
massacre in Europe since the Second World War.
In reality, the events of Srebrenica would be used and warped to justify a
massive NATO response on the basis of public outrage. Bosniak leaders would
also refuse to give the Red Cross the names of people who had fled Srebrenica,
thus resulting in an inflated number of missing people. The number of the dead
would later turn out to be significantly lower than originally reported. Media
estimates also changed over time. The most senior UN official inside
Bosnia-Herzegovina, Philip Corwin, would also lend his voice to those saying
that the events in Srebrenica were distorted for political gain and military
intervention by NATO.
Then US President Bill Clinton had actually instructed Alija Izetbegovic that
5,000 Bosniaks would need to be sacrificed to bring NATO into the war as a
combatant. Surviving members of the Bosniak delegation from Srebrenica have
stated on the record that Izerbegovic said that NATO would militarily intervene
against the Republika Srpska if at least 5,000 dead bodies could be produced.
The Fall of Srebrenica, a UN report issued on November 15, 1999, casually
mentions this in paragraph 115. The Bosniak police chief of Srebrenica has also
confirmed Clinton’s demand for a “sacrifice” from Izerbegovic to open the doors
for NATO attacks against the Bosnian Serbs.
In the Bosnian War, all sides committed horrific atrocities. But the crime of
the Bosnian Serbs that appeared to rouse NATO was not ethnic cleansing. The
crime of the Bosnian Serbs was that they were fighting to preserve Yugoslavia.
Even Croats and Bosniaks in both Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina who wanted to
preserve Yugoslavia and inter-ethnic peace were targeted, demonized, or killed.
For example, the Bosniak Fikret Abdic was charged as a war criminal in Croatia
after he fled Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Josip Rejhl-Kir, the Croat police chief
of Osijek, was murdered by Croat nationalists for working to preserve the
harmony between Croats and Croatian Serbs.
NATO intervened in Bosnia-Herzegovina to change the balance of power. The
Bosnian Serbs were up until then the superior military force. Had NATO powers
not internationalized the fighting and intervened, the Bosnian Serbs would have
taken control of the country and maintained it as an integral part of
Yugoslavia. This would have crippled or halted Euro-Atlantic expansion in the
Balkans.
On January 15, 1999, the fighting in Racak between Serbian forces and the
outlawed Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which the US State Department itself
labelled a terrorist organization, would be used to paint a similar picture of
genocide and ethnic cleansing to justify war. By this time, the Serbs had
successfully been demonized by NATO and the media as the perpetrators of ethnic
cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, so NATO’s efforts to vilify the Serbs were
made relatively easy. It is a matter of public record that US Secretary of
State Madeline Albright and the KLA leadership were working to create a
humanitarian pretext for intervention. It was in this context that the US and
NATO had pressured the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to accept an arrangement
where their military forces would leave Kosovo, but allowed the KLA to continue
its attacks. This stoking of tensions is what NATO has tried to replicate in
Syria through the so-called Free Syrian Army, which in reality is a terrorist
organization linked to NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
In the Arab World: Libya and Syria
In 2011, the humanitarian card would be played again by NATO, this time in the
North African country of Libya. Colonel Qaddafi was accused of massacring his
own people in Libya, particularly in Benghazi. Packaged with unverified claims
of jet attacks and foreign mercenaries, this prompted the UN to permit the US
and its NATO allies to impose another no-fly zone, as in Iraq and Yugoslavia.
Illegally, the NATO powers arrogated the no-fly zone provision of UN Security
Council Resolution 1973 to mount an aerial bombing campaign. The massive
onslaught involving over 10,000 bombing missions was conducted in concert with
NATO special forces and proxy militias on the ground. NATO warplanes targeted
civilian population centres and civilian infrastructure, such as food stores
and water and power utilities – acts that are war crimes under international
law. Such a blatant campaign of state terrorism – obscenely in the name of
“protecting human rights” – was instrumental in overthrowing the sovereign
government in Tripoli and installing a proxy regime composed of an extremely
volatile amalgam of opportunist para-militaries, terrorists, NATO intelligence
operatives, and fractious tribal warlords. Recent reports of internecine
bloodletting and revenge killing erupting across Libya, “post-NATO liberation,”
attest to the real criminal enterprise of NATO’s regime change in Libya that
was cynically perpetrated under the guise of protecting civilians.
Meanwhile, in Syria, the US and its cohorts have sought to replay the city of
Homs like another Srebrenica, Racak, and Benghazi. They have sought to use the
same tactic for inciting sectarian tensions and then blaming the government of
President Bashar Al-Assad for conducting a “brutal crackdown.” The US and its
allies are demanding that the Syrian Army stops fighting while the insurgent
forces of the Syrian National Council’s Syrian Free Army are given a free hand
to launch attacks, just as the NATO power demanded of the Yugoslav military
while giving a green light to the KLA. Russian and Chinese demands that both
sides observe a ceasefire offset this strategy.
What stands in the way of yet another NATO intervention is a firm resolve by
Moscow and Beijing at the UN Security Council as well as the alliance between
Syria and Iran. Damascus and its allies, however, should be wary of more traps
to tie Syria down politically and legally through one-sided agreements. Nor
should the Syrians place their trust in the United Nations to act as an “honest
broker.”
Kofi Annan and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
Much praise is being given to Kofi Annan as the special envoy of both the Arab
League and United Nations. There should, however, be caution applied when
dealing with Annan. In this regard, his history with regard to humanitarian
interventions needs to be assessed.
According to American diplomat Richard Holbrooke, who was intimately tied to
the balkanization of Yugoslavia, Annan was one of the most supportive figures
for US foreign policy in the Balkans. Annan was actually instrumental in
helping to put together the R2P doctrine with Canadian diplomats. Furthermore,
the Ghanian-born career diplomat owes his rise to power to senior Washington
connections and specifically to the events of Srebrenica and the fighting in
the former Yugoslavia. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali was pushed aside
by Washington to make way for Annan as the head of the United Nations.
Kofi Annan is also openly supportive of R2P. He participated as a panelist in a
discussion about R2P (The Responsibility to Protect – 10 Years On: Reflections
on its Past, Present and Future) held at the University of Ottawa on November
4, 2011. A week prior to this event, Allan Rock, president of the University of
Ottawa and former Canadian ambassador to the UN, together Lloyd Axworthy,
president of the University of Winnipeg and former Canadian foreign minister
co-authored an article about R2P in the Ottawa Citizen (October 25, 2011). Both
Axworthy, who was on the panel with Annan and Allan Rock, praised the war in
Libya, calling it a victory for R2P.
At the panel, Annan was joined by the decidedly pro-NATO Canadian
parliamentarian Christopher Alexander. Alexander is the parliamentary secretary
to Peter MacKay. Mackay is the current defence minister of Canada and has
voiced support for open wars against Syria and Iran. Christopher Alexander was
also a Canadian diplomat in Russia for several years, the former Canadian
ambassador to NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and the deputy special
representative of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA).
The R2P panel was moderated by Lyse Doucet, a correspondent for the British
Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and a friend of Alexander.
What is important to note about the R2P Ottawa panel is that it was largely
supportive of R2P. Kofi Annan also voiced his support for NATO’s military
intervention in Libya. When asked about using R2P in Syria, no firm answer was
given by Annan. He did, however, appear to give his tacit support to
intervention against Syria. Finally, both Annan and Axworthy proposed that
regional organizations be given R2P mandates. For example, the African Union
should be able to intervene on the behalf of the international community in
African countries, such as Uganda and Sudan, or that the Arab League likewise
be given an R2P mandate in countries, such as Syria.
These points are key factors. They should not be overlooked. Annan’s
impartiality with regard to his latest pivotal task in Syria should be
questioned, especially in light of his stated position on Libya and his
generally supportive views for NATO military interventions.
Humanitarianism: The Face of Modern Imperialism
The NATO military interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya were and
are colonial invasions masquerading as humanitarian endeavours. Moreover, what
NATO did in Yugoslavia was to intervene incrementally to divide and conquer the
country. According to General John Galvin, the former supreme commander of
NATO, this was done because NATO officials knew that an all-out invasion during
the disintegration of the country would result in a massive guerrilla war with
high costs for NATO. It can also be added that such a NATO intervention would
have had the inverse effect of unifying Yugoslavia instead of allowing the
federal state to dissolve.
At the start of 2011, both Libya and Syria were holdouts to NATO’s
Mediterranean Dialogue and they also had reservations about the EU’s Union for
the Mediterranean (UfM). This effectively means that they were both resistant
to Euro-Atlantic expansion. While popular protests in Bahrain and Jordan went
unnoticed, all public eyes were directed by NATO state governments and
corporate media towards Libya and Syria. This is because of imperialist
interests to subvert both the latter Arab states – while the former mentioned
states are allies and therefore must be bolstered despite their well-documented
repressive conducts.
Atlanticism is on the march. Both NATO’s operations in the Balkans and the Arab
World are intended to expand the Euro-Atlantic Zone. Its involvement in African
Union missions in East Africa are also tied to this. For all observers who take
a detailed look at the restructuring of states vanquished by NATO, this should
be clear. Humanitarianism has become the new face of modern imperialism..
And
former UN secretary general Kofi Annan is a man whose face fits the deceptive
humanitarian agenda of modern imperialism.
The above text is an adaptation of an article from the
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001-R4EmRIeAIr5Z5zeusJ7gCgn3yrHfHlPc7WE-ZSSEgRJW0-xO6NQeF9Ju5f01F6AbGuEWtZJ2P-tmZhnNCIUqXH1mY9y_wZw1gmHTuhmd8X1XHKPU-eZ_LxL8LozE1h2YF65Ap-huJH8SY5lAZlQnEsgLL13rTDJrDysYcJhhGSg-WBmAwJuOz58HylK1BH-_82-rgsbZSu8QtTT8eYH_MdM4fKvTi3K>
Journal of the Strategic Cultural Foundation (SCF).
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and award-winning author. He is a
Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal.
He specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He has been a contributor
and guest discussing the broader Middle East on numerous international programs
and networks such as Al Jazeera, Press TV, teleSUR and Russia Today. His
writings have been published in more than 10 languages. He also writes for the
Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF), Moscow.He is also the author of a
forthcoming book about Libya, The War on Libya and the Re-Colonization of
Africa (2012).
Please support Global Research
Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.
<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001-R4EmRIeAIpvXqBSDiauwM72rbeyP-2jXyURppCKIFTYSV63u5gH8ojHfACote2F6dZCcEkA00KVZVcHnRJyNlf7PVSzLuuUyz2oGvinY3kbBG0UtVScAPF1pEX6VwjHqC5WuDz2yKY=>
Your endorsement is greatly appreciated
To make sure you don't miss our emails add
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] to your
address book
_____
Forward email
<http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?llr=o8b4necab&m=1101807978350&ea=mnappster%40sbcglobal.net&a=1109705474020>
<http://visitor.constantcontact.com/do?p=un&mse=001Y9XAqyV8VF0P5VFIo8dIEvG3wdAaBsyFVwPim_40zlE%3D&t=00138vlg6Ms-cst0OF8fopr1A%3D%3D&l=001FCSs65SMrsI%3D&llr=o8b4necab>
<http://www.constantcontact.com/index.jsp?cc=custom01>
GLOBAL RESEARCH | PO Box 55019 | 11 Notre-Dame Ouest | Montreal | QC | H2Y 4A7
| Canada
_____
No infections found in this incoming message
Scanned by iolo System Shield®
http://www.iolo.com
_______________________________________
No infections found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo System Shield�
http://www.iolo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
