Da: Alexandra
Date: 5/5/99
Time: 1:02:36 AM
Remote Name: 195.191.4.89
>A programme on British television claimed last week that the Serbian military had created a plan of military manouvres to 'sweep' ethnic Alabanian guerillas from their heartlands by precipitating a mass exodus through organised terror.
This tactics, of dispelling the population in order to deprive the guerrillias of their support in the population has already been used (e.g. by the U.S. in Vietnam), so it's possible that Milosevic has a similar intent. After having eliminated their enemies, the poplation can, or in some cases, has to go back. But since there is so much propaganda and disinformation on all sides, it is difficult to separate facts from propaganda.
>The programme claimed that the Serbian military launched this offensive shortly after the beginning of the bombing of Yugoslavia by NATO forces. My question is, did the NATO bombing allow Milosevic and his cronies the opportunity to dispose of the KLA strongholds, and Serbia's Albanian 'problem'?
That the Nato bombings have shown the opposite effect of what they should, we can see now. Before the war there has been a positive movement in Serbia, Milosevic had a small part of adherents. But the bombs of the Nato, their declaration of war under the pressure of the U.S., have provided the perfect situation for an oppressor to eliminate critics, keep silent opponents and get to power.
>Did NATO in fact play into his hands by launching what is now widely regarded as an increasingly ineffective air campaign?
After the 'humanitarian interventions' of the Nato the number of refugees has increased hugely. Why the Nato has intervened, I mean on which legal basis, is unclear to me, since the Nato should be an alliance for defence and not for aggression. Jamie Shea, a spokesman of the nato said in an interview, asked that the nato is violating it's own charter: " Article 5 of the Nato treaty says that the obligation to use force applies to self defence. It does not say that Nato cannot use force for other purposes ... There are other articles in the treaty that commit the allies to working for a peaceful international order based on the principle of the UN" Whether to bomb a country leads towards a peacful international order is very doubrful ... Also on which motivations they have chosen their target is not clear to me, since there are many countries in Europe and all over the world with similar tensions (Turkey, Ireland,Spain, Algeria, China ...). And why 'civilized countries' want to stop violence using violence does not seem being coherently. So, why most people tolerate the decision of the Nato???
Alexandra