{"article":{"id":8635,"heading":"War Criminals: Real and Imagined","author":"Gregory Elich","created":"2001-07-14 02:19:48","modified":"2005-08-15 00:36:26","last_modified":"Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:36:26","article":"

WAR CRIMINALS: REAL AND IMAGINED

By Gregory Elich

The blare of media fanfare exhorts us to celebrate the abduction and

imprisonment of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Though widely

touted as a victory in the American crusade for human rights, the arrest of

Milosevic fits a quite different pattern when seen in the context of the

history of post World War II history. Whether waving the banner of freedom

or waving the banner of human rights, Western leaders have consistently

sought to obscure both their motivations and the often-dreadful consequences

of their actions. Freedom was never a concern. Nor were human rights, but

such rhetorical justifications helped to engage domestic public support for

international adventures designed to serve corporate interests. The lure of

profit always takes precedence over the lives of millions. Every year, 40

million people die needlessly of hunger, victims of a global capitalist

system that cherishes wealth, but human lives not at all. In terms of

death, this silent holocaust is the equivalent of a Second World War - in

which 55 million died - taking place every year and a half. Yet a drop in

the Stock Market evokes more concern. Such a system is monstrous. One can

gauge Western commitment to human rights and justice by examining the record

of these self-appointed judges. History is replete with examples, so a few

cases will have to serve as a synecdoche.

Mass murder in Indonesia elicited a response from Western leaders. They

supported it. A bloody CIA-backed military coup toppled President Sukarno

and brought General Suharto to power in 1965. Following the coup, an

estimated 500,000 to one million members of the Indonesian Communist Party

(PKI), trade unionists, peasants and ethnic Chinese were killed in one of

the most barbaric mass slaughters in history. The U.S. government supplied

Suharto with a list of several thousand Indonesian communists it wanted to

see eliminated. Researcher Kathy Kadane discovered through interviews with

former U.S. embassy personnel that \"as many as 5,000 names were furnished to

the Army, and the Americans later checked off the names of those who had

been killed or captured.\"

As the Indonesian Army hunted down and butchered its victims, U.S.

Secretary of State Dean Rusk cabled the embassy in Jakarta that the

\"campaign against the PKI must continue,\" and urged embassy officials to

\"get across that Indonesia and Army have real friends who are ready to

help.\" The U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, Marshall Green, responded to Rusk

that \"we have made it clear that Embassy and USG [U.S. Government] generally

sympathetic with and admiring of what army doing.\"

Unable to keep up with the pace of killing demanded by Washington, the

Army organized Muslim extremists and right wing death squads and set them

loose in a frenzied killing spree. Indonesian generals asked the U.S.

Government for more weapons \"to arm Muslim and nationalist youths in central

Java for use against the PKI,\" and Washington responded quickly with covert

shipments of arms. One former State Department official told Kadane, \"No

one cared as long as they were communists that were being butchered.\" An

internal CIA report later noted that it was \"extremely proud\" of its role in

the coup.

As Ambassador Green remarked in a cable to Washington, \"Bluntest remark

was question of how much is it worth to U.S. that PKI be smashed and trend

here reversed, thereby swinging big part of SEA [Southeast Asia] from

communism.\" Once Suharto formally assumed the post of acting president on

March 11, 1966, economic aid was forthcoming and U.S. and Western European

advisors helped chart economic policy in New Order Indonesia. By 1967,

Indonesia had rejoined the IMF and World Bank, passed an investment law

favorable to foreign corporations, and was rewarded with a large increase in

U.S. aid, rising to $200 million by 1969. In the years to come, New Order

Indonesia would continue to imprison, torture and execute several hundred

thousand people. Only in Suharto's last months in office did Western

support for him wane, due to a people's revolution which threatened to

topple him. A shift in the West's support was imperative in order to ensure

a cosmetic change of leadership to protect their interests.

In 1983, the CIA supplied a long list of members of the communist Tudeh

Party to the Khomeini government in Iran, branding those identified as

\"Soviet agents.\" The expectation was that these people would be arrested

and executed, a hope that was not disappointed. The Iranian government

sprang into action, arresting and executing 200 party members and outlawing

the Tudeh Party. More arrests would follow, including the entire party

leadership, who were tortured and forced to make false televised

confessions. The British government also supplied information on Tudeh to

Iranian authorities. Eventually over 10,000 members and supporters of Tudeh

would be imprisoned and tortured. In 1989 a specially appointed committee

swept through the prisons and sentenced to death thousands. At least 5,000

people from various political parties were executed, including hundreds of

Tudeh Party members. The U.S. concern was that a post-Khomeini Iran might

move to the left. The Western assisted decimation of Tudeh aimed to

forestall that prospect.

In 1975, Cambodia fell to the Khmer Rouge; virtually the entire country

was turned into a forced labor camp as they implemented a primitive agrarian

economy. Over the next four years as many as two million Cambodians

perished from starvation, disease and executions. Several hundred thousand

people were tortured and murdered in often-brutal ways. Here was crime

against humanity on a grand scale. Following a Khmer Rouge invasion of

Vietnam, counter-attacking Vietnamese forces, in conjunction with an

uprising of the Cambodian people, drove the Khmer Rouge from power in

January 1979. A socialist government led by Hun Sen was established as

Cambodia began its long road back to recovery. Khmer Rouge troops, in

alliance with right-wing forces, launched a fierce guerrilla war against the

new Cambodian government which lasted several years. Guerrilla leaders

Prince Norodom Sihanouk and Son Sann joined the Khmer Rouge in forming a

Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, which at Western insistence,

represented Cambodia at the United Nations in place of the government of

Cambodia. This provided a fig leaf of legitimacy for Western support of a

movement dominated by the Khmer Rouge. American and British advisors and

arms shipments aided Sihanouk's and Sann's forces, which carried out

coordinated military operations with Khmer Rouge troops and were often

commanded by Khmer Rouge officers. Western arms frequently found their way

into Khmer Rouge arsenals as many members of Sihanouk's and Sann's

organizations belonged to the Khmer Rouge. U.S. officials pressured

humanitarian groups to supply food and aid to help sustain the Khmer Rouge.

After the fall of the Khmer Rouge, Vietnam maintained a troop presence

in Cambodia in order to help defend the fledging Hun Sen government and

prevent the return to power of mass murders. American officials were

outraged, and spared no effort to reverse the situation. Western sponsored

peace negotiations in 1989-1990 succeeded in obtaining the withdrawal of

Vietnamese troops. The second goal of Western negotiators was to replace or

weaken socialist forces in Cambodia. Under pressure, Cambodia was obliged

to bring officials from Son Sann's and Norodom Sihanouk's organizations into

the government. Cambodia was also compelled to restore the monarchy and

place Sihanouk back on the throne. During the peace negotiations, American

officials insisted that the Khmer Rouge be given a prominent role in the new

governing coalition. As one U.S. negotiator explained, \"No Khmer Rouge, no

deal.\" The Khmer Rouge, fiercely anti-Vietnamese, still harbored dreams of

seizing territory from Vietnam. This harmonized with U.S. goals in the

region, also fiercely anti-Vietnamese. A Hun Sen government in Cambodia

friendly to Vietnam was impermissible. Vietnam had to be isolated, even

if it meant risking the return to power of executioners in Cambodia. Only

Khmer Rouge intransigence failed to bring about the realization of the

Western demand for the inclusion of Khmer Rouge officials in the government.

Preferring to continue the guerrilla struggle, the Khmer Rouge hoped to grab

sole control of governing reins through force of arms.

As Cambodian government troops closed in on the last remnants of Khmer

Rouge forces in March 1998, Khmer Rouge warlord Ta Mok communicated an offer

through Thai military channels to turn the Khmer Rouge leader, Pol Pot, over

to the United States. Taken by surprise, U.S. officials turned down the

offer. No desire for a tribunal here. They didn't want him. But Cambodia

wanted him, so the U.S. had to act to prevent that eventuality. The U.S.

needed time to structure proceedings, presumably in order to ensure that the

American role in support of Pol Pot would not surface during a trial. While

U.S. officials worked on arrangements for a trial on their terms, Pol Pot

committed suicide.

Following the final defeat of the Khmer Rouge, the Cambodian government

announced that Khmer Rouge leaders would be tried for crimes against

humanity. Without delay, the U.S. responded by demanding that any trial be

conducted solely under United Nations auspices, in other words, under terms

dictated by the U.S. After lengthy wrangling, Western threats and pressure

forced Cambodia to relent and seek a compromise in which the trials would be

conducted in Cambodia, but with a mix of Cambodian and Western prosecutors

and judges. A major sticking point is whether the controlling majority will

be Cambodian or Western. In response to a hostile letter sent from UN

Secretary General Kofi Annan in April 2000, Hun Sen announced that the Khmer

Rouge trials would not be limited to the years in which it held power, but

would cover the entire period of 1970 to 1999. This touched directly on th

e worst fears of U.S. officials, spanning events from the CIA-backed

military coup in Cambodia in 1970 through the final years of Western support

for the Khmer Rouge. Only a hastily drawn American plan for evenly divided

prosecution and judicial teams brought an agreement on the trial, ensuring

that only the events of Khmer Rouge power would be considered. The

Cambodians also had reason to worry. Their justifiable fear was that a

prosecution team with a Western majority would seize the opportunity to seek

the arrest of Hun Sun and other Cambodian People's Party (CPP) leaders on

trumped-up charges. The elimination of the CPP from the scene and the

installation of a government more amenable to Western dictate has long been

a Western goal. Clearly the U.S. motivation is to steer any trials in a

direction favorable to its interests.

Despite apparent agreement, Western insistence on majority control

continues. When Hun Sen announced that a draft law on the conduct of the

trial would be passed by August 2001, Kofi Annan fired off a threatening

letter, demanding full adherence to all Western demands. Unbowed, Hun Sen

responded, \"It seems to me that the UN does not want Cambodia to proceed

with the trial, so I want Kofi Annan to be careful with the sovereignty and

the independence of a nation, and let's talk straight and be clear with each

other. I am afraid of nobody. This is a Cambodian issue. To join us or

not is up to you.\"

In August 1995, Croatian troops invaded Serbian Krajina. Within days,

virtually the entire Serbian population, over 200,000 people, was driven

from their homes. U.S. NATO warplanes spearheaded the assault, bombing

Serbian radar and anti-aircraft sites. American EA-6B Electronic Warfare

aircraft jammed Serb military communications. Croatian troops, trained and

supplied with weapons and satellite reconnaissance by the U.S., rampaged

through the Krajina, burning down homes and slaughtering thousands who

couldn't escape in time. It was the single greatest refugee crisis of the

1991-95 Balkan civil war, and it was U.S. officials who gave the go-ahead to

the Croatian government. Serbian Krajina was closely associated with

Yugoslavia, the last remaining socialist-led government in Europe, and

decidedly outside the orbit of Western control.

In March 1998, the secessionist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was a

small force with about 300 members. Turing a blind eye to the KLA's policy

of murder and intimidation, the U.S., Germany and Great Britain sent arms

shipments and provided training to the KLA, building it up into a major

guerrilla army with as many as 30,000 members. Western intervention turned

a small conflict into a major crisis. As a pretext, NATO relied on the

crisis it had created in order to justify waging a war of aggression against

Yugoslavia. Foremost among crimes against humanity is the crime against

peace, and for this crime NATO and Western leaders clearly bear guilt.

Every town and city in Yugoslavia was the target of their bombs. My travels

throughout Yugoslavia shortly after the war confirmed that NATO deliberately

targeted civilians. Entire residential areas were wiped out. Factories,

schools, hospitals, bridges, apartment buildings, houses, offices and a

passenger train were destroyed. Cluster bombs, anti-personnel in nature,

were dropped on residential areas, tearing human beings to pieces. Over

2,000 civilians were killed and over 10,000 wounded by NATO.

Western leaders could not sell the war to their publics by revealing

that it was intended to create a market friendly to Western corporate

interests, so they concocted the lie of concern for Albanian human rights.

When NATO bombs started falling, Serbian extremists became enraged, blaming

Albanians for the bombs. Right-wing paramilitary squads formed, venting

their rage on Albanian civilians in mainly border areas of Kosovo. Rogue

police and criminal gangs, both Serbian and Albanian, took advantage of the

chaos to loot homes and drive away occupants. Yugoslav security forces, the

target of NATO bombs, struggled to stabilize the situation. By the third

week of the war, they were escorting Albanian refugees back to their homes,

and within two months order had been restored to most of Kosovo. Yugoslav

security forces fought against the terrorism of both the KLA and Serbian

paramilitaries, and by the end of the war had arrested over 800 Serbian

extremists for crimes against Albanian civilians.

President Milosevic's position was consistent. He advocated ethnic

equality. His delegation at Rambouillet peace talks consisted of members of

every ethnic group in Kosovo, including Albanian. Serbs were a minority in

the Yugoslav delegation. At the talks, the Yugoslav delegation offered

wide-ranging autonomy for Kosovo. Repeatedly, Milosevic stated his

commitment to a multi-ethnic society. His words from a 1992 speech are

typical: \"We know that there are many Albanians in Kosovo who do not

approve of the separatist policy of their nationalist leaders. They are

under pressure, intimidated, and blackmailed, but we shall not respond with

the like. We must respond by offering our hand, living with them in

equality, and not permitting that a single Albanian child, woman, or man be

discriminated against in Kosovo in any way. We must, for the sake of all

Serbian citizens, insist on the policy of brotherhood, unity, and ethnic

equality in Kosovo. We shall persevere on this policy.\" A monumental

propaganda campaign has succeeded in achieving one of the most astounding

smear campaigns in history, painting a democrat devoted to socialist ideals

as a racist hate-monger.

Milosevic's offense was his opposition to privatization and foreign

control of the Yugoslav economy. The U.S.-organized Balkan Stability Pact

called for a region under the sway of the free market model. Yugoslavia,

strategically positioned along the Danube and astride a major highway

transportation route, stood in the way of the effort to place the Balkans

under complete and total Western economic domination.

The common thread running through these examples is not a zeal for

justice and human rights by the West, but a vindictive urge to seek the

imprisonment or murder of its opponents. Nothing can stand in the way of

corporate profits. As one man in Yugoslavia told me, \" I think our

President Milosevic is more of a problem for imperialism than for us.\"

Who can believe that Milosevic could possibly receive a fair trial at

the hands of the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia

(ICTY)? He wasn't even allowed to speak at his arraignment without having

his microphone twice switched off. During NATO's war against Yugoslavia,

the Tribunal hastily composed its indictment of Milosevic and four other

Yugoslav leaders in order to bolster sagging public support for the war.

Created and funded by the same Western powers that carried out NATO's war,

the ICTY serves its master. The trial is widely, and rightly, seen as

setting an important precedent. No longer would international law be an

impediment to action. Already the war established that Western powers could

wage war without authorization by the United Nations. The trial will

establish their right to seize anyone without regard to borders or legal

niceties. Anyone resisting Western demands would be threatened with

abduction and imprisonment. It will be yet another tool for imposing

Western domination over other nations, and make no mistake, it will be used.

The trial of Slobodan Milosevic will be a show trial with a preordained

verdict.

The real war criminals are not on trial. They act as judge and jury.

We are witnessing the outrageous spectacle of criminals judging their

victims. President Milosevic's only crime was that he had the courage to

stand up to NATO despite overwhelming odds, to patriotically defend his

country against aggression. Shortly after the war, I was a member of a

delegation that interviewed Albanian refugees who fled to Belgrade. Among

those we interviewed was Fatmir Seholi, Chief Editor at Radio Television

Pristina until NATO troops entered Kosovo and expelled him from the

province. Unlike those in the West deluded by propaganda, he knew a real

war criminal when he saw one. \"Every NATO bombing was a big problem,\" he

told us. \"There was no purpose relating to the Serbian nation or the

Albanian nation. Whether that was their purpose or not, people were killed.

The man who could command NATO to bomb people is not human. He is an

animal. After the bombing at Djakovica, I saw decapitated bodies. I have

pictures of that. It is horrible, terrible. I saw people without arms,

without feet.\" Seholi demanded, \"Who is Clinton to accuse another? I

would like to say to Hillary Clinton that her husband is an immoral person.

That man ruined our state for no reason. What would he say if someone

bombed the United States, bombed the White House, or killed or raped his

daughter? Who is the evil man here? Milosevic, who is protecting the

territory of Yugoslavia and protecting the people of Kosovo, or Clinton, who

bombs us?\"



\n","contact":"gelich@worldnet.att.net","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"Arrest of Slobodan Milosevic raises questions","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2001\/07\/war_crimin.txt","filesize":"19.3 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2001\/07\/8635.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}