>X-From_: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Apr 21 00:46:08 1999 >X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 23:15:40 -0700 >To: (Recipient list suppressed) >From: Kim Scipes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Copy of Rambouillet "Accord"--important > >April 20, 1999 > >Folks-- > >One of the key "justifications" for the war against the Yugoslavians was >that they refused to sign to Rambouillet Accord. But until now, that >accord has been kept secret. > >This accord has recently been published by the French newspaper LE MONDE >diplomatique, with a date of April 17. I found it on the ZNet site ><www.zmag.org>, but that was linked from the original site: ><www.monde-diplomatique.fr/dossiers/kosovo/rambouillet.html>. This version >that I saw is in English, but I believe it was also posted in French on the >monde-diplomatique site. It is quite long--68 pages, but it IS now >available. > >One acronym in the English version is never forthrightly identified and >that is KFOR. COMKFOR is identified at one point as being the Commander of >the Kosovo Force, so I think it is logical to believe that KFOR refers to >Kosovo Force which is, in reality, US/NATO's force to be operational in >Kosovo after the accord was signed. (It never was signed by the >Yugoslavians, and the Kosovo Liberation Army initially refused to >sign--they wanted an agreement from NATO re independence after three years >before signing--and then all the sudden signed.) > >Also on the ZNet site is a "review" of the Accord by a man named Peter >Schwarz, who is not identified. What is posted is two pages long, but >appears to have accidentally not been posted in its entirety. Its title is >"Rambouillet Accord foresaw the occupation of all Yugoslavia" > >I have only quickly scanned the entire 68 page document. It's a lawyer's >delight. Again, I have only scanned the whole document. But I did find >Article XV: Final Authority to Interpet of Chapter 7 ("Implementation II") >stunning. (This is on page 60 of a 68 page document). Chapter 7, Article >XV reads in part: "1. Subject to paragraph 2, the KFOR Commander is the >final authority in theater regarding interpretation of this Chapter and his >determinations are binding on all Parties and persons." I say we should do >away with all this military bullshit, and make this man "god." > >Schwarz does draw attention to the meat of the agreement, which I have >checked to make sure is accurate with the document posted by Le >Monde-diplomatique. I will quote several paragraphs from Schwarz: >"The refusal of the Milosevic government to sign the Rambouillet Accord >provided NATO with the official justification for its war against >Yugoslavia. For a long time, however, the precise contents of this accord >were unknown. The Contact Group, responsible for the talks at Rambouillet >and Paris, had agreed to remain silent. The complete text was only >recently published on the Internet site of theAlbanian Kosova Crisis Center. > >"As can now be seen, the accord contains provisions that would have >subjected the whole of Yugoslavia to NATO occupation. The official >presentation repeatedly stated that it was a matter of autonomy for Kosovo, >which would be secured by the stationing of a 'peace force' in Kosovo. >However, Appendix B, "Status of Multi-National Military Implementation >Force', grants NATO freedom of movement 'throughout all Yugoslavia', i.e., >Serbia and Montenegro as well as Kosovo. > > >"The text of Article 8 of this Appendix reads: 'NATO personnel shall >enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free >and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY [Federal >Republic of Yugoslavia] including associated airspace and territorial >waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, >maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilitites as required >for support, training, and operations.' > >"Article 6 guarantees the occupying forces absolute immunity. 'NATO >personnel, under all circumstances and all times, shall be imune from the >Parties' jurisdiction in respect of any civil, administrative, criminal or >disciplinary offenese which may be committed by them in the FRY.' > >[Kim note: actually, that is Article 6 b. Article 6 a refers to NATO >itself and reads "NATO shall be immune for all legal process, whether >civil, administrative, or criminal."] > >"Article 10 secures NATO the cost-free use of all Yugoslavian streets, >airports and ports. > >[Kim note: actually, that is Article 11, part of which specifically reads: > "NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails, and ports without >payment of fees, duties, dues, tolls, or charges occasioned by mere use." >Article 10 actually provides priority access to NATO movements throughout >Yugoslavia. Article 10 reads in part: "The authorities in FRY shall >facilitate, on a priority basis and with all appropriate means, all >movement of personnel, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, equipment, or supplies, >through or in the airspace, ports, airports, or roads used."] > >"If the Yugoslav government had signed the accord, they would have been >relignishing all claims to sovereignty over their own territory. The >Berliner Zeitung noted, 'This passage sounds like a surrender treaty >following a war that was lost.... The fact that Yugoslavian President >Milosevic did not want to sign such a paper is understandable. > >"The way in which the government was called upon to sign this >diktat--delivered as an ultimatum--and the secretiveness regarding its >content, suggest that the Rambouillet and Paris conferences were aimed at >providing a pretext to war, not a political solution to the Kosovo conflict." > >Again, everything in quotes--with the exception of the material listed as >[Kim note:], which is from me--is from the above referenced paper by Peter >Schwarz. The paper continues on for a few more paragraphs and is worthy of >reading the rest. > >I hope people will obtain and read the initial document for themselves, and >pass this message on as widely as possible. In addition to informational >and mobilizing efforts, I would write a personal note above this and send >it to your political officials and newsmedia. > >In solidarity-- > >Kim Scipes >US Marine Corps, 1969-1973 > > > > > > regards, Tom Walker http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm