http://uruknet.info/?p=m41402 <http://uruknet.info/?p=m41402&s1=h1> &s1=h1
URUKNET (ITALY) A TALE OF TWO EMBASSIES Malcom Lagauche Chinese embassy in Belgrade after 1999 U.S. bombing February 23, 2008 Because of the issue of Iraq, many people have put the plight of Serbia behind them, or have not even paid any attention. Serbia has been the recipient of many vile actions from the U.S. In 1999, the country was heavily bombed, leaving as much depleted uranium behind per square mile as there is in Iraq. The U.S. then negated the election of Slobodan Milosevic as president and gave the opposition $42 million to defeat him. When Milosevic lost the rigged elections, Madeleine Albright said, "It was the best $42 million we have ever spent." Shortly after, Milosevic was sent to the International Court in the Hague to be tried for war crimes. After years of defending himself, speculation was that he would be acquitted. However, just before the final verdict, he died of poisoning. The U.S. said he poisoned himself. This is highly improbable knowing that he would be a free man in the near future. The U.S. has done the same with Serbia that it did with Iraq: it implemented a stooge government. But, even the U.S. friends in power in Serbia did not like the U.S. pushing through the independence of a part of Serbia called Kosovo. The Serbs called "foul." The U.S. said, "tough shit." A few day ago, Serbian protestors torched part of the U.S. embassy in Belgrade. The U.S. was not happy and gave the Serbian government, even those who kiss the U.S. backside, an unusually stern warning. If only these stooges would realize that the U.S. will turn on them at any given time. It happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. Once their appointed leaders decided to grow a backbone and criticize the U.S., they were both in Washington within 24 hours, reading prepared statements in English to the world declaring their thanks to the U.S. Despite all the news about the current burning of the U.S. embassy in Belgrade, few people have mentioned the attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999. U.S. bombs destroyed the building and killed innocent civilians. The outcome was much more dire than that of the current damaging of the U.S. embassy. To this day, there are two assessments of the bombing of the Chinese embassy. The first was the bombing was intentional; the alternate declaration, as the U.S. stated, a mistake was made because they were using outdated maps. I tend to side with the intentional targeting scenario. One aspect remains that is problematic: the burning of a portion of the U.S. embassy has gained more press than the destruction of the Chinese embassy. The U.S. puts more value on the costs of boards and furniture than it does on the lives of human beings not of U.S. origin. On October 22, 1999, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting published an article that addressed the issue. It brings up many points of the anomalies of the reporting of the destruction of the Chinese embassy. The issue should have been much more widely researched. U.S. MEDIA OVERLOOK EXPOSE ON CHINESE EMBASSY BOMBING Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting 10/22/99 A detailed investigative article in the October 17 London Observer reported that NATO deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade last May, after discovering that the embassy was relaying Yugoslav military radio signals. The report contradicted the public assurances of NATO leaders that the missile attack had been an accident. The Observer's sources included "a flight controller operating in Naples, an intelligence officer monitoring Yugoslav radio traffic from Macedonia and a senior [NATO] headquarters officer in Brussels." So far, the reaction in the mainstream U.S. media has been a deafening silence. To date, none of America's three major network evening news programs has mentioned the Observer's findings. Neither has the New York Times or USA Today, even though the story was covered by AP, Reuters and other major wires. The Washington Post relegated the story to a 90-word news brief in its "World Briefing" (10/18/99), under the headline "NATO Denies Story on Embassy Bombing." By contrast, the story appeared in England not only in the Observer and its sister paper, the Guardian (10/17/99), but also in their leading rival, the Times of London, which ran a follow-up article on the official reaction the next day (10/18/99). The Globe and Mail, Canada's most prestigious paper, ran the full Reuters account prominently in its international section (10/18/99). So did the Times of India, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Irish Times (all 10/18/99). The prominent Danish daily Politiken, which collaborated with the Observer on the investigation, was on strike, but ran the story on its website. The difference in perspective with which American journalists have greeted this story can be observed by comparing the headlines over several international news agencies' dispatches about the Observer exposé: Reuters (U.K.): "NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately--UK Paper" (10/18/99). Agence France Presse (France): "NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately: Report" (10/18/99). Deutche Presse-Agentur (Germany): "NATO Bombed Chinese Embassy Deliberately, Observer Claims" (10/18/99). Associated Press (U.S.): "NATO Denies Deliberate Embassy Hit." The U.S. media may today be uninterested in evidence that the attack was deliberate, but they had no trouble last May accepting NATO's explanation that the bombing was a mistake. Even before U.S. officials emerged with a full account of how the embassy could have been "mistakenly" targeted--an "outdated map" of Belgrade played a prominent role in the official explanation--the U.S. media began regularly referring, without evidence, to the "accidental bombing" of the embassy. When Chinese officials disputed the U.S. account, protesting that the attack could not have been a mistake, establishment journalists immediately took sides in this debate. New York Times diplomatic correspondent Jane Perlez (5/10/99) referred to "the accidental bombing, portrayed in China as deliberate." A Washington Post editorial (5/17/99) that discussed China's reaction to "NATO's unintentional bombing of China's embassy" was indignant that the official Chinese press was "milking the bombing for propaganda value" by reporting that the missile strike had been intentional. USA Today continues to refer to the "accidental bombing" of the embassy (10/20/99). Since the New York Times hasn't published the new information about the embassy attack, it's unclear whether the paper stands by its earlier reporting. Since May 7, the Times has referred to the "accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy" a total of 20 times. The last reference was in its October 17 edition--the day the Observer published its report. Since then, the Times has run an AP article on the Chinese president's visit to London (10/19/99), which mentioned only that "China broke off talks with Washington and the European Union after NATO bombed the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia"--taking no stand on the intention behind the attack. Even before the Observer's expose, there was no lack of evidence that China's suspicions were correct. A few days after the bombing, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder took the highly unusual step of publicly questioning NATO's explanation of the attack. "The explanation given by NATO on the tragic incident so far is far from enough and the Chinese government has every reason to demand a comprehensive, thorough, and in-depth investigation into the incident and affix the responsibility for it," Schroeder said in Beijing (AFP, 5/12/99). The London Daily Telegraph reported in June (6/27/99) that NATO's precision-guided missiles "carefully singled out the most sensitive section of the embassy complex for attack"--the intelligence directorate. "That's exactly why they don't buy our explanation," a Pentagon official was quoted as saying. In July, CIA director George Tenet testified in Congress that out of the 900 targets struck by NATO during the three-month bombing campaign, only one was developed by the CIA: the Chinese Embassy (AP, 7/22/99). What is perhaps most baffling about the major news outlets' indifference to the Chinese embassy story is that the same outlets regularly devote a great deal of attention to other stories concerning China and its relations with the U.S. Elite media report extensively on China's possible entry into the World Trade Organization, the political struggle between its "reformers" and conservatives, and allegations of Chinese nuclear spying and electoral influence-buying in the U.S. The op-ed pages abound with debates about China's intentions toward America: Is the country a threat to be contained or an opportunity for trade and investment? The Times of London noted in an October 21 book review that "the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade might yet turn out to be an important episode in a new Cold War." One might think that a well-sourced investigative article in a respected foreign newspaper providing evidence that the bombing was deliberate would be viewed by editors in the United States with the same interest they have shown in other aspects of China's relations with the West. Article nr. 41402 sent on 24-feb-2008 02:19 ECT
