'Nato causing medical catastrophe'

26 May 1999
The Times of India

'NATO causing medical catastrophe’

By Siddharth Varadarajan

BELGRADE: Every time there is an air raid warning -- and that
means every night and sometimes every afternoon -- all the 100-odd
patients of the Institute for Mental Health are bundled out of bed
and rushed to the basement of the hospital for protection from NATO
bombs. ``This is very traumatic for them’’ said Dr Smijlka Popovic,
head of the children and adolescent department, ``but we cannot take
the risk of not shifting them. Certainly not after what happened to
the Dragisa Misovic hospital last week’’.

The Dragisa Misovic hospital in central Belgrade was struck
by NATO bombs, killing two patients and a guard.

With NATO stepping up its attacks on power stations across Yugoslavia,
however, doctors and patients have begun to fear something more
than a direct hit. According to Dr Leposava Milisivic, Serbia’s
minister of health, the repeated disruption of the country’s power
and water supply is leading to a ``medical catastrophe’’. She told a
press conference on Tuesday that as a result of NATO’s new
targeting strategy, thousands of patients were in direct
danger. The lack of power and water was severely affecting the
normal functioning of hospitals and there was not enough diesel to
power back-up generators even in emergency situations.

Dr Milisivic said those at greatest risk were 300 premature
babies in incubators, 9500 patients in intensive care, 2000 patients
requiring dialysis and 400 cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy.
Besides, more than 1000 patients need to undergo major operations,
13,000 are awaiting critical lab results and 500 patients are in need of
computerised brain scams. These figures are for Serbia as a whole. She
said all diagnostic and curative machines need constant and invariable
voltage and that frequent power breakdowns and surges had ruined a lot
of expensive equipment. ``If NATO persists in this strategy’’, she said,
``we will be the healthiest nation in the world because everyone who is
not healthy will be dead’’. In the Premature Baby Institute alone, she
claimed, the latest mortality figures indicate an eight per cent
increase over last year.

In Novi Sad, where NATO has destroyed all the bridges over the
Danube, renal patients on one side of the city have been unable to
travel to the other side for their daily dialysis treatment. The
authorities have managed to shift some equipment across the river but
treatment schedules have been badly disrupted.

The chairperson of the Yugoslav committee for cooperation with
UNICEF, Ms Margit Savovic, predicts that after the war is over, the
country would experience a fall in birth rate, a deterioration in
people’s immune system and an increase in the number of malignant
disorders. Children, she said, already accounted for 30 per cent of the
1200 civilians killed so far by NATO bombing but the number of those who
are wounded physically and psychologically is much higher.

According to Dr Popovic, children have been particularly
traumatised by NATO’s intensive bombing of urban areas. ``Since the
bombing started, children are forced to experience sirens, air attacks,
blasts’’, she said. ``They have to go down to bomb shelters to protect
themselves’’. Small children, and even babies, have become very
sensitive to sirens. Their sleep patterns have been disrupted and they
are not eating well. ``Many children are hyper-sensitive to any sound
that is loud. A passing bus, anything.’’

Dr Popovic told me about the case of a 17-year-old girl who is
currently undergoing treatment in her hospital. She lived in a church
close to the house of President Slobodan Milosevic, which NATO hit with
a large number of missiles more than three weeks ago. ``She is like a
small beast in an acute state of anxiety, always trembling. She feels
comforted only when we embrace her. But when the air raid warnings
start, she starts crying again.’’

Read more

Yugoslavia: NATO waging a war of deprivation

25 May 1999
The Times of India


NATO waging war of deprivation

By Siddharth Varadarajan

BELGRADE: NATO bombers have been attacking power stations near Belgrade with missiles and special graphite bombs, causing widespread black-outs. There is even a rumour that the city’s water supply plant has been bombed since many neighbourhoods have been without a drop of water for two days. As most bakeries use electric ovens, there is a shortage of bread. Even though hospitals are considered priority users of electricity and water, patients too have been affected by the severe power shortage.

On the streets, there is a great deal of anger at NATO’s new tactic of increasing psychological pressure on ordinary civilians. Milan, a retired glassworker who remembers the Nazi bombing of Belgrade in 1941, said even Hitler was more humane. “They never bombed power plants, water, hospitals and bridges like Clinton is doing.” The destruction of Yugoslavia’s cigarette factories at the start of the war is also seen as part of NATO’s psychological warfare against civilians. “They know that a smoker has to smoke. In fact, at moments of stress, we smoke more.” But cigarettes are now in short supply. Tense and lengthy queues snake around streets where a few cartons suddenly arrive. On the black market, the price of a packet is double.

“We can deal with everything — the bombing, the shortages — but when you cut off electricity and water, life becomes intolerable,” said Sima Avramovic, a law professor at the University of Belgrade. For more than 72 hours, the Avramovics and their neighbours in a Belgrade suburb have had no water or electricity. So what do they do? Well, they all sit around, chat and tell jokes. Mrs Boba Avramovic had everybody in her dark apartment roaring with these two: “What do you get when you cross Bill Clinton with Dolly the sheep?” “Bla-a-a-a-a-i-r.” And “How did NATO decide to attack Yugoslavia?” “Madeleine Albright went to Brussels and said, ‘Look here guys, either we make love or we make war!'."

Sima explained how his family has been coping. “Fortunately, my son Gaga is in love and is simply full of positive feelings about life. Since our neighbourhood is reasonably safe, his girlfriend’s parents have allowed her to stay at our house, so he is absolutely thrilled”. Gaga and his girlfriend, Lola, bounced in a few minutes later, lost to the world. “As for my daughter, Gaga taught her to play the guitar when the bombing started and now she spends every evening singing with her friends.”

Boba was apologetic that the planned feast for a foreign visitor had been ruined by NATO. Most people use electric stoves, so prolonged power cuts mean no cooking. Food stored in refrigerators and freezers spoils. And then there is no bread. Nevertheless, she procured a jar of caviar and a platter of salami. Neighbours chipped in with cake and coffee and soon she had a full-scale party going.

“Don’t be fooled by the fact that we are always laughing,” Yelena, a law student, later said. “People here have internalised their problems.” She pointed to her stomach and clenched her fists. “We all feel sick inside. After all this is over, we are going to have tremendous problems.” Boba remarked: “All Serbs will either become crazy or they will be alcoholics.”

On the drive home, I told the taxi driver that in India we are used to power cuts. “I don’t mean any offence to your country,” he said kindly, “but a power cut caused by lack of efficiency or genuine shortage is not the same as one caused deliberately by enemy bombing. This is so much more frustrating. It makes me mad.”

NATO commanders have spoken about the need to bring the war closer to the people of Belgrade, and disrupting their power supply seems to be the weapon of choice. “The violence that results is emotional, not physical,” said one Yugoslav businessman who asked his name be withheld. “From Clinton’s point of view, disturbing the mental balance of the people is better. There is no footage of mangled concrete and bloodied bodies that will make him look like the fascist he really is.”

The comparison with Hitler may be exaggerated but it is all pervasive. Street art and posters routinely depict Clinton with Hitler’s trademark moustache. Sima’s 15-year-old daughter has a large sheet of paper on her bedroom wall. “Monica”, it says simply, “Don’t be like Eva Braun.” When I mentioned this to an acquaintance, he said, “We have nothing against Monica. But I am sure most Yugoslavs wouldn’t mind if Clinton ended up in a bunker without water, bread and electricity.”

Read more

Yugoslavs itch for ground war

22 May 1999
The Times of India

Yugoslavs itch for ground war

By Siddharth Varadarajan

BELGRADE: Before NATO bombs started exploding around him, Prof Sima Avramovic spent most of his time immersed in research on ancient law. A professor of legal history and rhetoric at the University of Belgrade, he would clearly much rather be discussing the finer points of Justinian’s Digest than questions of war and peace.

Over a glass of tart Balkan wine at a downtown cafe he recounts the terror he and his family felt when the first air raid warnings howled through the night and Cruise missiles came raining down. Having spent the better part of the previous night shaking like a leaf in my hotel bed, I knew exactly what he was talking about.

‘'Today'', he said, ‘'it’s not so much fear but frustration that we feel. We are down here and their pilots are 40,000 feet above. What kind of war is this in which the enemy refuses to face us?'’ Though he admits his lack of knowledge of military matters, Prof Avramovic is convinced a ground war would be less one-sided. His preference is for an end to the bombing but if it is to be a choice between NATO’s invisible war and one in which there is eyeball contact, it is the second option he would choose. ‘'At least we can fight back.''

Veljko Popovic, a thirty-something employee of a US-based NGO, is even more forthright. ‘'I really hope NATO starts the ground war because that will bring this conflict to an end very soon,'’ he said. ‘'Ordinary citizens will make them fight every inch of the way.'’ Mild and sensitive, Veljiko is far removed from the stereotype of the militarist Serb. His wife is seven months pregnant and he is overjoyed at the prospect of becoming a father. And yet, he says that if NATO invades ‘'I won’t wait to be called up. I will be at the front of the queue.''

Goran Jovanic, a young lecturer in criminology, echoed the same sentiments. For him, the choice facing Yugoslavs is clear: ‘'Either we become a neo-colony of NATO and the Americans like Bosnia and Macedonia or we shall defeat them in battle, on the ground.''

Though Washington considers President Milosevic’s supposed intransigence to be the cause of the present conflict, street sentiment is decidedly hostile to the idea of NATO ‘peacekeepers’ entering Kosovo, even if under a UN flag. Indeed, one of the ironies of this war is that a surprisingly large number of Yugoslavs believe Milosevic has struck some kind of secret agreement with the US.

Conspiracy theories run thick and fast. Often, they are tautological and self-fulfilling. For example, virtually everyone here believes the rumour that Yugoslav pilots launched a sneak attack on Tirana airport in Albania and Tuzla in Bosnia, destroying several US planes and Apache gunships. When asked why this sensational news was not publicised by Belgrade, a cafe waiter said because there was a secret deal. ‘'The Americans must have promised him something in return for his silence.''

Even if they have faith in Milosevic, ordinary Yugoslavs have virtually no confidence in the Russians. A deal between Russian envoy Chernomyrdin and Bill Clinton can produce only one thing, goes a local joke, and that is ‘Chernobyl’. People here believe Moscow is too dependent on the West to take a firm stand. Rather than peace on NATO’s terms, many would like the US to take the plunge and send in ground troops.

Anton Knezevic, the driver of a well- maintained Mercedes taxi, punched the air angrily as we pulled up at a police cordon. Just an hour ago, missiles had struck a Jugopetrol depot some 500 metres away and thick black smoke was billowing around. ‘'I will die,'’ he said, ‘'but I will never allow these bandits to push me around in my own country. Human life is something precious and I hate all death. But let them send their soldiers here. Then we shall see.''

Read more

NATO strikes hospital as peace efforts continue

21 May 1999
The Times of India

NATO strikes hospital as peace efforts continue

By Siddharth Varadarajan

BELGRADE: Barely hours after Russian special envoy Viktor Chernomyrdin
left Belgrade at the conclusion of his latest peace mission to
Yugoslavia, NATO bombs slammed into a hospital near the city centre,
killing at least three patients and wounding dozens of others.

The Dragisa Misovic hospital is in the Dedinje residential district of
the capital, not far from the bombed residence of Yugoslav president
Slobodan Milosevic. According to the authorities, the nearest military
installation is more than a kilometer away. The attack took place in
the early hours of Thursday morning. The city centre was convulsed by
loud thuds in the distance and hideous flashes of orange lit up the
sky. This was the heaviest night of bombing the Yugoslav capital had
experienced in days.

When I visited the bombed-out hospital several hours later, the scene
was one of utter devastation. Groups of workers stood around looking
shell-shocked. Spread out over a leafy campus, the hospital consists
of several two-storey buildings with slanted red roofs. The main
building, which housed the intensive care section, took a direct hit.
The wall on one side was knocked down completely and sections of the
roof had fallen through. Amidst the rubble: the tangled remnants of
beds, syringes and ampoules, plaster, medical records. There were even
diapers peeping out from under a pile of bricks and glass shards. The
dead patients were being treated in the neurological department, said
nurses at the hospital.

The children's ward and gynaecological clinic also suffered extensive
damage. According to Dr Miodrag Lazic, deputy director of the
hospital, dozens of patients were inside, including new-born babies
and their mothers. The last Caesarean delivery had finished 10 minutes
before the bombs struck. The baby survived but had to be rushed out,
all of 11-minutes-old, to another hospital for intensive care. "What
kind of people would do such a thing?," asked Dr Lazic angrily.
"Nobody, no principle, nothing can justify the bombing of a hospital."

What has stunned people in Belgrade is the fact that the attack on the
hospital came so soon after Mr Chernomyrdin's successful talks with Mr
Milosevic. Before he flew out Wednesday night, the Russian envoy said
that he had reached a broad understanding with the Yugoslav leader.

On its part, Mr Milosevic's office released a terse statement saying:
"The solution could be found only politically and within the UN, and
with the active and direct participation of Yugoslavia, starting from
the principles of G-8." The G-8 principles, though framed jointly by
key NATO countries and Russia, differ from NATO's original war aims in
one crucial respect. They call for UN-sponsored "international civil
and military presences" and not for an "international force with NATO
at the core." If the US stops insisting on NATO running a prospective
UN peacekeeping force, a solution to the crisis would be at hand
within hours.

Since traditionally, UN peacekeepers are drawn from neutral countries,
this convention should logically rule out the participation of troops
from any of the 10 NATO belligerents. However, it does seem as if the
US wants to have control over the UN force, if and when it is
deployed, and is prepared to step up the bombing in order to force
Belgrade to agree. Rather than spending time closeted with Mr
Milosevic, therefore, many ordinary Yugoslavs feel the Russian envoy
needs to do some serious talking in Washington.

Read more

Dateline Belgrade: Bridge over troubled waters

20 May 1999
The Times of India

Dateline Belgrade
Bridge over troubled waters

By Siddharth Varadarajan

BELGRADE: Two months ago, visitors to Belgrade had a range of travel options. Now, the only reliable way in is by road from Budapest. Thanks to NATO, which has bombed every bridge over the Danube except one in Belgrade, travellers must navigate a circuitous route to the Yugoslav capital.

The highway is excellent but one is forced to weave in and out --moving on to secondary roads that cut a narrow, bumpy swathe through flat but achingly beautiful countryside --in order to bypass bridges which no longer exist.

Some 50 persons make the journey to Belgrade every day. A petrol station near Budapest airport is the `bus stop'. A handful of Yugoslav drivers sit drinking endless cups of coffee, cellular phones on the ready, waiting for their minivans to fill up. Mine doesn't, but since it is getting late and it is dangerous to be driving through the Serbian countryside at night --that's when the chances of becoming `collateral damage' are the greatest -- the driver, Duschko, decides to leave with just three passengers.

At the border, Duschko and my two Yugoslav co-passengers stock up on cigarettes, detergent, cooking oil and other articles in short supply at home. To smoothen matters at the frontier, I am `assigned' five gallons of cooking oil, several cartons of Pall Mall and an enormous packet of nappies. Fortunately, customs proves quite understanding and we are soon on our way. The sun has gone down and Duschko's gallows humour gives way to a brooding watchfulness.

Shortly before Novi Sad, one of the passengers gets off -- a fat old lady, her husband is waiting for her at a petrol station on the road. She hugs us warmly. Long after we have sped away, I can still see her waving at us. So far, the only evidence that a war is on is the lousy reception on the car radio -- NATO has bombed relay stations all over Yugoslavia -- and Duschko's reluctance to drive anywhere close to another vehicle. ``If they see a convoy, `boom!'''

However, just as we roll off the bridge over the Tisa river between Novi Sad >and Zrenjanin, Duschko points to the side where a fire is burning. Smoke is billowing around but he speeds on. Was it a bomb that missed? He shrugs his shoulder. In the back, my remaining co-passenger is fast asleep. Perhaps our imagination is playing tricks. Finally, Belgrade appears on the horizon, twinkling faintly in the inky night. We are on the bridge over the Danube when there is a faint whoosh. I don't pay any attention but Duschko takes his foot off the accelerator and looks up. Suddenly, about two kilometers from us, somewhere in the centre of Belgrade, there is a thud and then a flash of orange. A few seconds later, another thud, another flash of orange. `Tomahawks' Duschko mutters angrily. The woman who was asleep in the back starts cursing NATO. I too am angry and stunned. But above all, I am scared. Duschko drops me off at my hotel in the centre and assures me I will be safe. Tomorrow, I will find out where those missiles struck. And who they killed.

Read more

NATO attacks enter deadlier phase

18 May 1999
The Times of India

NATO attacks enter deadlier phase

By Siddharth Varadarajan

The Times of India News Service

BUDAPEST: The massacre of more than 80 ethnic Albanians at Korisa in
southern Kosovo by NATO bombs on Friday marks a new phase in the western
military alliance's war against Yugoslavia.

Unlike previous incidents in which civilians have been killed, NATO
spokespersons have refused to strike an apologetic tone or even suggest that
the carnage was the result of wrongful targeting. Instead, they insist that
Korisa was a ``legitimate military target'' and that the Kosovar Albanians
should not have been there in the first place. British defence minister John
Spellar said the Serb forces had brought the Albanians to Korisa as ``human
shields,'' though he refused to comment on how the Serbs knew so precisely
that a NATO attack was imminent.

On the other hand, independent Western journalists on the ground have
pointed out that the absence of military fortifications at the bomb site
suggests the village was entirely a civilian target. The refugees, it seems,
had merely halted there overnight on their way back to their own villages.

In many ways the bombing of Korisa is the direct consequence of NATO
warplanes being pressed into service on behalf of the Kosovo Liberation
Army, which recently stepped up its activities against Serb forces in the
region. Before the present conflict started on March 24, NATO leaders had
repeatedly said they did not want the alliance to become the ``air force of
the KLA.'' However, the lack of consensus on an allied ground invasion of
Yugoslavia has meant NATO commanders planning joint air and ground
operations with the KLA. This has led to increased targeting of anything
that looks even remotely military.

The Korisa incident also comes close on the heels of statements by
Lt-General Michael C Short, NATO's air war commander, that the bombing of
Yugoslavia has to be greatly intensified. Criticising those who have called
for restraint in the wake of the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade,
Lt-Gen Short told the New York Times Yugoslav civilians had to be made to
suffer. ``I think no power to your refrigerator, no gas to your stove, you
can't get to work because the bridge is down -- the bridge on which you held
your rock concerts and you all stood with targets on your heads. That needs
to disappear at three o'clock in the morning.'' As for targets in Kosovo,
Lt-Gen Short said he wanted to ``take the monkey off the (bomber's) back.''

``They're up there at 400 to 500 miles an hour, people shooting at them,
dodging in and out of weather. They don't need the additional responsibility
of, `What'll happen if I miss that tank (and hit a house)? Will I be in
trouble?','' Lt-Gen Short said. The tragedy at Korisa is perhaps the first
outcome of this new gloves-off strategy. In the days and weeks ahead, the
civilian death toll is bound to mount.

Read more

Lawyers charge Nato leaders before U.N. war crimes tribunal

15 May 1999
The Times of India

LAWYERS CHARGE NATO LEADERS BEFORE
UN WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL

By Siddharth Varadarajan
The Times of India News Service

The Hague - In a novel case that is bound to test the
impartiality of the UN's International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), a group of
North American lawyers has filed a formal complaint
accusing NATO leaders of committing war crimes in their
military campaign against Yugoslavia. Those named
include the heads of government of the US, Canada,
Britain and several other belligerent states. The
Hague-based ICTY was set up in 1993 by a resolution of
the UN Security Council and is mandated to prosecute
persons responsible for serious violations of
international humanitarian law committed on the
territory of the former Yugoslavia.

So far, 84 individuals, mostly Serbs, have been
indicted for a wide range of crimes dating back to the
Bosnian civil war. The court's statute specifically
states that its prosecutor can initiate investigations
ex-officio or on the basis of information obtained from
any source, particularly from governments, UN organs
and NGOs. Moreover, the official position of any
accused person, "whether as Head of State or government
or as a responsible government official, shall not
relieve such person of criminal responsibility of
mitigate punishment". Several NATO leaders have said
they would like the ICTY to indict Yugoslav President
Slobodan Milosevic and his top commanders for war
crimes in Kosovo. But since the statute of the court
applies to all belligerents, NATO's actions also fall
under the ICTY's jurisdiction.

The list of crimes which the ICTY is mandated to
prosecute includes, "wilful killing, wilfully causing
great suffering or serious injury to body or health,
extensive destruction of property not justified by
military necessity and carried out unlawfully and
wantonly, employment of poisonous weapons...wanton
destruction of cities, towns of villages..."

Prof Michael Mandel of York University in Toronto, who
has initiated the formal complaint against NATO at the
ICTY, says that the bombing of civilian targets,
including trains, buses, refugee convoys and television
stations, as well as the use of highly poisonous
depleted uranium weapons all constitute war crimes and
should be investigated and prosecuted by the tribunal.
"The bombing of civilians is not only immoral, it is
criminal and punishable under the laws governing the
tribunal...You cannot kill a woman and child in
Belgrade on the theoretical possibility that it might
save (an ethnic Albanian) woman and child elsewhere,"
he said.

Louise Arbour, the Canadian judge who has been the
ICTY's chief prosecutor since 1996, has publicly stated
that by launching military operations in Yugoslavia,
the NATO countries have "voluntarily submitted
themselves to the jurisdiction" of the tribunal. She
told a public gathering in The Hague on Thursday that
she accepted NATO's assurances that its military
operations were "in full compliance with international
humanitarian law." However, she refused to comment on
how NATO's bombing record measures up to those
assurances. Graham Blewitt, the deputy prosecutor, told
The Times of India that Prof Mandel's complaint had
been received but refused to say whether the matter was
being investigated or not. "The ICTY does not comment
publicly on which cases it is investigating," he said.
When asked by this correspondent why Ms Arbour had
publicly stated that she was investigating the crimes
allegedly committed by Yugoslav forces, Mr Blewitt said
that was "an exception" in order to "deter the Serbs."
NATO, he felt, did not need a similar warning. "So far,
I have not seen any evidence to suggest NATO is
committing war crimes...History will be the final
judge." However, he did concede that the judgment of
history would be of little value to those civilians who
are being killed by NATO bombs today.

A non-NATO judge on the ICTY told The Times of India
requesting anonymity that since Ms Arbour, who is from
a NATO country, is being asked to rule on whether to
launch proceedings against NATO leaders, she needs to
be as transparent as possible. "If she decides not to
launch a case, she should give a public explanation,"
the judge said. Mr Blewett, however, denied that Ms
Arbour had any such obligation.

Read more

ICJ takes up case against NATO

The Times of India
13 May 1999

ICJ takes up case against NATO

By Siddharth Varadarajan

The Times of India News Service

THE HAGUE: Arguing that NATO's use of force against Yugoslavia is illegal
and potentially genocidal, Prof Ian Brownlie --Britain's leading authority
on international law -- urged the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to
order an immediate halt to the bombing campaign.

Brownlie is one of several reputed western jurists representing Yugoslavia
in a case at the ICJ against the US, Britain and eight other NATO countries
involved in `Operation Allied Force'. Yugoslavia's plaint is of immense
symbolic if not practical significance, for an adverse ruling against all
or even one of the 10 NATO states would be a lethal blow to the credibility
of the military alliance. The fact that Belgium and Holland had earlier
signed treaties with Yugoslavia agreeing to take their disputes to the ICJ
means these two countries are especially vulnerable to an adverse judgment.

According to ICJ staff, the court, which is temporarily headed by its
vice-president, Justice Weeramantry of Sri Lanka, could give an interim
ruling as early as next week. Of course, there is no telling what the court
will decide. Its 15 judges come from the US, Britain, France, Germany,
Netherlands, Hungary, Japan, Venezuela, Brazil, Algeria, Sierra Leone,
Madagascar, Sri Lanka, China and Russia. Six of these countries are members
of NATO and five are actually belligerents. Since judges tend not to vote
against ``their'' governments, Yugoslavia would be lucky to get any relief.

However, few observers here are willing to predict a judgment that NATO
would find very palatable either. In its submission, Yugoslavia contends
that NATO's use of force violates the UN Charter and the Vienna Convention
on the Law of Treaties. It also says the bombing of civilian areas and the
use of munitions like depleted uranium and cluster bombs violate the Geneva
Conventions. Finally, arguing that NATO's bombing has the stated objective
of putting pressure on the civilian population, Belgrade has invoked the
Genocide Convention, which grants the ICJ compulsory jurisdiction over the
crime of genocide.

In a dramatic flourish, Prof Brownlie pointed to NATO representatives in
the courtroom and asked: ``How many of the gentlemen sitting on the other
side of the room have ever been bombed?'' He said the phrase `military
operation' does not convey the horror of 600 bombing missions carried out
every day. He attacked Canada, France and Spain for claiming in court that
they were not legally liable for actions undertaken collectively by NATO.
``Coercion of a whole nation must involve responsibility for genocide,'' he
said.

Replying to Yugoslavia's petition, the 10 NATO countries argued against the
court taking up Yugoslavia's petition. The US lawyer called the accusation
of genocide against NATO ``cynicism of Orwellian proportions.''
Significantly, none of the 10 made any attempt to justify the use of force
with reference to UN resolutions or treaty law. Instead, they claimed NATO
had acted to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. The US, however,
concentrated on technicalities, insisting that the ICJ had no jurisdiction
in the matter and that Washington would not allow itself to be judged by
the court on the charge of genocide. One State Department lawyer repeated
the phrase ``The US has not consented to the jurisdiction of the court in
this case'' more than 15 times in a presentation which lasted as many minutes.

© Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. 1997. Reproduction in whole or in part
without written permission is prohibited. To access reprinting rights,
please contact Times Syndication Service.

Read more

Ruses for War: Nato's New Strategic Concept

10 May 1999
TheTimes of India

Ruses for War

NATO's New Strategic Concept

By SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN

CONFIRMING its belief in the maxim that theory must always follows practice, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) has adopted a new `Strategic Concept' which incorporates all the principles on which its current aggression against Yugoslavia is based. These include: an expanded definition of what constitutes a threat to the security of the `Euro-Atlantic area', the subordination of European strategic interests to that of the US, and, above all, the same unilateralism which led NATO to attack a sovereign country in violation of international law.

The new Strategic Concept was adopted by the alliance at its 50th anniversary conclave in Washington last month. Though not quite the victory summit the US thought it would be when NATO planes began bombing Yugoslavia on March 24, the meeting was conducted in an extravagantly triumphal register. The acrid smell of cordite hung over the participants as plans were drawn up for the future of not just NATO but the world. The summit documents, despite passing through the Internet, positively reek of the stuff.

New World Order

The first lesson to be learned is this: new world orders come with new world geographies. The term `North Atlantic' no longer refers to a compact, distinct geographical entity. Like Vamana, the diminutive avatar of Vishnu in Hindu cosmology, the `NA' in NATO has an immense capacity to expand across the three worlds. Bosnia was the first time NATO acted out of area, though it could claim that it did so under the authorisation of the UN Security Council. In
Yugoslavia, even that fig leaf is not there. Now, there is ominous talk about ``uncertainty and instability in and around the Euro-Atlantic area and the possibility of regional crises at the
periphery of the alliance''. And what are these crises? Regional conflicts, ethnic and religious rivalries and territorial disputes ``beyond alliance territory'', the abuse of human rights and the
dissolution of states. Even some things as vague as ``inadequate or failed efforts at reform'' and ``the uncontrolled movement of large numbers of people'' are said to ``pose problems for
security and stability affecting the alliance''.

Every country on the ``periphery of NATO'' or ``beyond alliance territory'' should make sure none of the above crises hits it or else it could find itself in the firing line of cruise missiles and
smart bombs. ``In the event of crises which jeopardise Euro-Atlantic stability and could affect the security of alliance members,'' the Strategic Concept states, ``the alliance's military
forces may be called upon to conduct crisis response operations...Some (of these) may be as demanding as some collective defence missions''. Now a ``collective defence mission'' is what NATO's raison d'etre is supposed to be all about. If ``crisis response operations'' can be as ``demanding'' in military terms as collective defence, we are talking about massive -- even
do-or-die -- levels of force. This is precisely the direction NATO's campaign against Yugoslavia is going in.

As for the spatial dimension of NATO's interventionist urges, the summit's `Defence Capabilities Initiative' talks of operations outside alliance territory which ``may need to be undertaken with no, or only limited access to existing NATO infrastructure''. Obviously, we are talking about operations that are pretty far afield. In line with this, the proliferation of nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons and their means of delivery is identified as a threat to NATO. ``The principle non- proliferation goal of the Alliance...is to prevent proliferation from occurring or, should it
occur, to reverse it though diplomatic means''. The non-reference to ``diplomatic means'' of preventing proliferation is not accidental; the use of force is clearly what NATO has in
mind.

Euro-Atlantic Pact

If NATO has an expanding agenda of intervention, does it plan to approach the UN Security Council for permission first? The Strategic Concept side-steps the question but the answer is clear enough once its cryptic language is decoded: In the event of ``crises which jeopardise Euro-Atlantic stability'', NATO forces will simply be ``called upon'' to conduct ``crisis-response
operations''. But called upon by whom? By NATO's political leadership, of course, and not the UN. How this approach is to be reconciled with NATO's supposed allegiance to the UN Charter is not explained.

If there is one theme which is generally overemphasised in NATO documents, it is the notion of the inseparability of North America and Europe. The war the US has dragged NATO into in Yugoslavia is calculated to ensure -- besides other things, of course -- the longevity of the Euro-Atlantic alliance. But the new Strategic Concept goes further. When it asserts that the
``security of North America is permanently tied to the security of Europe'', this is not some idle claim. Thanks to NATO's expansion, both in terms of territory and doctrine, all independent
pan-European security initiatives have virtually been scuttled. Like errant children of irresponsible parents, the European Security and Defence Identity and the Western European Union have been made wards of NATO and hence the US.

Nihilist Text

Gone is even the mild irritation with Washington some European leaders expressed during NATO's 1996 meeting in Berlin, when the issue of Europe mounting operations independently of the US came up. Gone too are the feeble attempts by the Europeans to alter NATO's doctrine on nuclear weapons. Far from forswearing the first use of nuclear weapons, as German foreign minister Joschka Fischer had suggested last year, NATO's new Strategic Concept affirms the centrality of first strike: ``(The nuclear forces) will continue to fulfil an essential role by
ensuring uncertainty in the mind of any aggressor about the nature of the allies' response to military aggression''. What is more, the utility of `sub-strategic forces' -- i.e. tactical nuclear
weapons -- is reaffirmed and a hint is made that NATO nukes might be stationed anywhere on alliance territory.

NATO's nuclearism, its aggressive self-image, and its conduct in Yugoslavia can only inspire anxiety in those who believe in peace and democracy. The new Strategic Concept is a nihilist text, filled with destructive intent. It is as if its authors have learned nothing from the history of the millennium - - or even century -- which is just about to end.

Read more

How NATO blacks out Belgrade

9 May 1999
The Times of India

How NATO blacks out Belgrade

By Siddharth Varadarajan
The Times of India News Service

NEW DELHI: In The Mahabharata, Krishna used his shield to plunge the
battlefield into darkness. NATO --which is apparently the closest thing we
have to God these days -- prefers carbon. Using technology first tested on
Iraq, US F-117s have repeatedly dropped bombs containing carbon particles
over Yugoslav electricity plants, causing short-circuits and widespread
power disruptions. Belgrade and other cities have suffered massive
blackouts. Hospitals have been forced to run on generators, water supply is
disrupted and public transport brought to a standstill.

According to Indian scientists familiar with weapons technology, the bomb
explodes over the target and then showers electric transformers and lines
with millions of carbon particles. ``These particles disperse in the air. As
soon as they settle down, there is a charge and then `bang!', '' said one
senior scientist who preferred not to be identified. According to him, the
process of repair is incredibly complicated as with every passing wind,
fresh particles descend. ``During the Gulf War, the US used carbon fibres.
This time it seems the bombs contain minute particles which form a cloud.''
These particles get into impossible nooks and crannies in transformer boxes
and even porcelain switches. ``A full clean-up can take days,'' he said.

Though this carbon bomb is supposed to be a ``non-lethal weapon,'' the
scientist did not rule out the possibility of human beings inhaling the
deadly particulate matter. Asked what counter-measures were possible against
the weapon, he was blunt: ``None. The only way is to deny the enemy mastery
over the skies.''

Washington's growing fixation with ``non-lethal weapons'' is tied to its
desire to intervene in conflict zones around the world without much loss to
it of human life. Apart from carbon bombs and lasers, research is proceeding
on ``stickums'' and ``slickums'' which impede vehicle or foot traffic,
incapacitating biological substances and even acoustic weapons. The purpose:
to wear down the morale of civilian populations and limit the ability of the
enemy to strike back. The experience of Somalia --where lone snipers shot
down US helicopters -- has led Pentagon planners to focus on lasers. ``A
laser device strapped on a helicopter could be scanned to blind anyone
looking in the direction of the aircraft,'' argues Major Joseph Cook III. To
minimise indiscriminate blinding, the laser could even be calibrated to
target only those looking ``persistently,'' he says.

In a seminar at JNU in January this year, Dr K Santhanam, chief adviser
(technology) to the Defence Research and Development Organisation, expressed
fears that ``intervention by some powerful country or group of countries...
is likely to increase with the possession on non-lethal weapons.'' This was
because ``proper media management'' would allow the intervention to be
projected as ``humanitarian,'' he argued.

According to C Uday Bhaskar, deputy director of the Institute for Defence
Studies and Analyses, the use of new weapons by NATO also raises serious
ethical problems. ``Techno-strategic considerations combined with power not
only redefine the boundaries of law but also of ethics,'' he said.
``Somebody has to tell NATO that this is not on. You cannot just go and
disrupt Yugoslavia's power supply like this.''

Read more