Richard Moore

                 •••@••.••• - 19 May 99

If you would believe what the US and NATO say about their operations, you
could only conclude that the whole campaign is a sequence of blunders, with
imprecise goals, inadequate planning, and resulting in more harm than help
to the people of Kosovo.  But the US and NATO are lying - to them the media
is a PR channel to keep the public mollified - their words are not a good
starting point from which to figure out what's going on.  Let's start
instead from the facts.

Rambouillet - a pretext for bombing Yugoslavia

    FAIR Media Advisory:
    May 14, 1999

    Since the beginning of the NATO attack on Yugoslavia, the
    war has been presented by the media as the consequence of
    Yugoslavia's stubborn refusal to settle for any reasonable
    peace plan--in particular its rejection of plans for an
    international security force to implement a peace plan in

    An article in the April 14 New York Times stated that
    Yugoslavian President Milosevic "has absolutely refused to
    entertain an outside force in Kosovo, arguing that the
    province is sovereign territory of Serbia and Yugoslavia."

    Agence France Presse reported the same day that the Serb
    delegation "showed signs that it might accept international
    peacekeepers on condition that they not be placed under NATO
    command" and added that the head of the Serb delegation
    "insisted that the peacekeepers answer to a non-military
    body such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation
    in Europe...or the United Nations." A U.S. official
    confirmed this to AGP: "The discussions are on whether it
    should be a UN or OSCE force," the official said.

    The next day, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
    declared: "We accept nothing less than a complete agreement,
    including a NATO-led force." Asked on CNN the same day:
    "Does it have to be [a] NATO-led force, or as some have
    suggested, perhaps a UN-led force or an OSCE...force? Does
    it specifically have to be NATO-run?" she replied, "The
    United States position is that it has to be a NATO-led
    force. That is the basis of our participation in it."

What happened with Rambouillet, as I see it, is that the US (as was its
frequent practice with Russia during the Cold War) intentionally created an
unacceptable pre-conditition - a NATO-led force in this case - which
guaranteed that an agreement could not be reached.

Any nation could be expected to refuse to offer up its territory for
occupation by a foreign army.  In other reports on Rambouillet, it turns
out that not just Kosovo was to be occupied, but Serbia as well - and all
Serbian policy was to be subject to NATO approval.  In addition, the
requirement of NATO occupation was unreasonable in the context of the
negotiations.  If the goal was to end Serbian oppression in Kosovo, then
occupation by any neutral force would do the job - insisting on NATO was an
entirely gratuitous demand.

This scenario suggests that the US goal in the negotiations was to create a
pretext for the bombing of Serbia, rather than to find a solution to the
problems in Kosovo.  Such a goal is not consistent with US rhetoric, but it
is consistent with everything the US has been doing, and with the
years-long media demonization campaign against the Serbs.

Demonization campaigns and Pariah Status
Serbia is one of several countries which, whenever they're mentioned in the
media, the story always leaves the reader with the impression "something
must be done about this".  Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran are
familiar names in this category - it would take very little pretext
(invented or otherwise) for an attack to be launched on any them - the
ongoing demonizing project does its job very well.

One of the hallmarks of such demonization programs is the personification
of the "enemy" - Castro, the Ayatollah, Saddam, Milosevic, Khadaffi -
providing a phychological focus for public scorn.  As we see Afghanistan
being added to the pariah list, we see also the characteristic
personification strategy, in this case using the Taliban as a collective
persona.  The folks who make up the Taliban haven't changed their stripes,
but their image went from `heroes' to `madmen' - and media coverage
switched from their prowess to their perfidy - as soon as their category
went from `ally against the Soviets' to `pariah' in US strategic planning.

If the US considers Iran, or North Korea, or whomever, to be a problem, the
US has any number of avenues by which it could try to do something about
the problem.  It could exert pressures of various kinds, offer inducements
to change, and enter into negotiations to resolve the problems.  Instead US
policy in such cases is generally to cut off productive communication,
isolate the nation from the international community, create an atmosphere
of polarization, periodically issue threats or condemnations, and
sporadically engage in acts of provocation (bombing of Libya, cruise
missiles in Afghanistan, ulitimatums to North Korea, etc, etc.)

For one reason or another, these pariah nations are unacceptable to the US,
and only a complete change of regime is acceptable - if US emnity is to be
lifted.  In US rhetoric, nations achieve pariah status because of their
human-rights behavior, or because of some perceived threat to "stability".

The hypocrisy of such rhetoric becomes clear when we see China being given
most-favored-nation status, arms and military assistance being given to
Indonesia during their years-long genocide against East Timor, and Turkey
being treated as a most-favored ally while it persecutes its minorities,
makes raids across its borders against politial enemies, and behaves
billigerently toward Greece and others.

Obviously, the US assigns pariah status on grounds other than those
proclaimed publicly.  Similarly, media selection of abuses-to-publicize is
highly arbitrary, and always subtly supportive of US policy objectives,
even though those objectives remain unstated publicly.

Making sense of the Pariah Strategy
There seem to be two _actual reasons for pariah status.  The first reason,
(eg-Iran, Afghanistan) is to enhance regional instability and to provide
"someone to hate" - providing convenient excuses for military expenditures,
CIA operations, and the undermining of civil liberties at home.  It is
notable that the current fundamentalist regimes in Afghanistan and Iran
were installed with the enthusiastic help of the US government, and that
the US has been caught more than once providing technology and weapons to
Iran at the very same time Iran was being publicly condemned as a terrorist
nation with whom no negotiations could be possible.

The second reason for pariah status (eg-Cuba, Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia) is
that the target nation is pursuing an economic path contrary to the aims of
global capitalism - pariah status in this case isolates the "virus" and
prepares public opinion for eventual "surgery", as with "Desert Storm" and
now "Operation Human Rights" against Yugoslavia.

In this case, it is not necessary that the nation be anti-capitalist, in
the sense one might consider Cuba to be - it is only necessary that the
economic activity of the nation not be favovable to the interests of
Western-based global capitalism.  Serbia's crime, apart from controlling
the mineral wealth in Kosovo, was that it was refining its own oil,
producing its own chemicals, manufacturing automobiles, and generally
competing competently on international markets - all of this cutting into
the current and future profits of Western-based TNC's.  Iraq's crime was
that it was introducing modernization into the oil-producing states,
contrary to the favored US pattern of medievalism for the region.

It's all part of globalization, and it's imperialism under another name
The promoters of globalization (and this includes most Western political
leaders) say very explicitly that one of their central objectives is the
creation of an integrated global economy.  This part of their rhetoric is
very much in line with their actual policies and actions.  Their rhetoric
departs from reality, however, when it comes to the nature of that global
economy, and the rules by which it is going to operate.

In rhetoric, there is to be open competition, the natural success of the
most productive players, and wider choice for consumers.  In fact, the
process of globalization is being used to destroy non-Western competition,
setting the stage for monopolization of global commerce by Western TNC's.

Chossudovsky, in his well-documented book "The Globalization of Poverty",
explains, with the perspective of an insider, the role of the IMF and World
Bank (and private international finance) in performing this "hatchet man"
job for Western TNC's.  He even goes so far as to characterize this
behavior as imperialist, and relates its tactics and its consequences to
those of earlier forms of imperialism.

An integrated economy, yes, but one controlled by Western TNC's and Western
finance - this is the actual, if not publicly acknowledged, globalization

US Policy: loyal support of globalist imperialism
US policy, if you give any credence to the public justifications, is full
of inconsistencies, half-hearted measures, failures, and counter-productive
actions.  Columnists like  Eric "Inside Track On World News" Margolis revel
in pointing out these failures and inconsistencies...

    Foreign Correspondent, 17 May 1999
    "NATO has been risking air crews bombing empty buildings and
    bridges. Unbelievably, after eight weeks of attacks and
    4,000 bombing sorties, half Serbiaís 238-plane air force is
    still operational. The Serb Navy remains untouched.
    According to NATO, a mere 20% of Serb armored vehicles in
    Kosovo, and only 23% of the Serb national air defense system
    have been destroyed and these figures may be exaggerated.
    Oil and spare parts continue to flow into Serbia."

    [To subscribe, send message "subscribe foreignc" to

Perceptive and knowledgeable as Margolis is, he bases all of his analysis
on the naive assumption that every goal announced by the US is a genuine
one, and that no hidden objectives could possibly exist.  I don't believe
Margolis could be that stupid, and that's one of the reasons I classify him
as a deceitful propagandist... but that's another story, and it doesn't
detract from the value of tracking Margolis' well-informed factual

It would never occur to Margolis, at least not in his public persona, that
the objective of the US is in fact to destroy Serbia's economic
infrastructure, that the US is succeeding very well in its objective, and
that his surviving-weapons inventory is of no strategic importance in the
offensive, until perhaps the endgame.

It is not possible to understand US military objectives without taking into
account US economic goals.  Isn't this patently obvious?   What nation has
there ever been which didn't give a central role to their economic
objectives when formulating their foreign policy?  And yet, when it comes
to the US, the two topics are never discussed together, neither by US
officials nor in media coverage.

On the one hand there is economic policy, which involves free-trade
treaties and bilateral trade arrangements, and on the other hand there is
foreign policy, which involves terrorism, human-rights abuses, strategic
interests, etc.  US military policy, we are to believe, is always motivated
by some high moral purpose.  It generally fails in that purpose; and that
is always written up to incompetence.  Motivations other than those
announced in public rhetoric are never considered.

This schizophrenic split in public discourse keeps most people - the
informed and the uninformed alike - confused about US behavior, and enables
Western propaganda to justify US military actions without defending against
charges of economic self-interest.

This intentionally schizoid propaganda regime is further assisted by the
fact that the economic interests which motivate US policy are _not the
economic interests of the US as a nation, but are rather the economic
interests of Western TNC's - which have managed to subvert the American
political system in support of their operations and their globalization

Once you accept the fact that all US policy - domestic, military, and
economic - is motivated by only one primary objective - the promotion of
globalization and of government-by-TNC's - then US policy all makes perfect
sense.  It is characterized by success rather than failure, and by
consistency rather than inconsistency.

Copernicus' perspective on astronomy did not supplant Ptolemy's because
Ptolemy was _wrong; it supplanted it because it provided a much simpler
explanation - and a better predictive model - of how the planets move.  To
get his model to work, Ptolemy had to introduce epicycle within cycle,
correction upon correction, to make it come out right.

Similarly, the official party line, faithfully followed by the corporate
media, involves all kinds of clarifications, reversals, inconsistencies,
and outright lies in order to in any way track the major contours of
reality.  Ptolemey was, at least, confined to the facts.

Example incident: US destroys a village in Kosovo

    Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 00:10:26 -0700 (PDT)
    From: Charles <•••@••.•••>
    To: cyberjournal <•••@••.•••>
    Subject: Re: cj#935> Query re/media coverage

    I have not watched TV since the incident but I have heard
    reports on NPR. The reports followed a pattern similar to
    that of a similar incident a few weeks ago:

    1. We don't know what happened or whether anything did.

    2. The Serbs were shelling that area and may have caused the
    damage so they can blame it on us.

    3. We did it in the course of an attack on a legitimate
    target.  We regret the collateral damage.  Such damage is
    unavoidable in a just war.

    4. The Serbs may have put the civilians there deliberately
    and even if they didn't they are the bad guys in this war.

    5.  So blame Slobodan Milosovich for this as for everything

See what I mean about epicycles within epicycles?... mid-course corrections
on the spin of stories, to cover over unfortunate facts which come to
light, or to adjust for unfavorable reactions among the audience, excuse me
- the public.

In Ireland, where public sensitivies to civilian bombing have been much
more critical than in the US, the sequence of lies was paced more slowly.
For the first few days, seen from Ireland, NATO had no idea how the village
got destroyed... the cover-story about human shields came later, and took
more preparation, than it did in the US - reflecting the different target

When you view the Yugolslavia invasion (and the village bombing) from the
perspective of the globalization agenda, the contradictions, `mistakes',
and other epicycles disappear from the picture...

        Serbia - just like Rwanda, Russia, and South Korea - had not yet
been pigen-holed into its assigned role in the global economy.  In order to
force Yugoslavia into its assigned role, its economy and infrastructure had
to be destroyed.  There followed a three-pronged assault: the IMF
destabilized the economy; Germany and the US (overtly and covertly) took
steps to accelerate political destabilization; global public outrage was
systematically cultivated against the Serbs.

        Kosovo, with its minerals and, if I recall correctly, its strategic
position vis a vis a planned oil pipeline, is to be made into a Western
protectorate - the first outright colony of the globalization regime.
Clearing out Kosovo's population facilitates this plan, and has been one of
the objectives of the bombing campaign.  Knocking out a village here and
there, and bombing refugees seen going in the "wrong" direction (toward
their homes), sends a clear message to the Kosovar civilians (even if the
global public can't see it) that they better get their asses out of there.

Isn't it about time to give up the flat-earth mythology?
Trying to keep up with media mythology makes ones head spin, and too much
of what could be useful opposition journalism is expended in exposing the
countless hypocrisies and inconsistencies in the official party line.
Instead of debunking Ptolemy, it's time to move on to a workable model;
instead of proving the world's not flat, it's time to talk about its real

The agenda of the US government, and of top European leaders, is the
establishement of an all-powerful global empire, subservient to TNC
interests, and beyond the control of national governments.  Whether or not
they personally find such a future attractive, or even acknowledge to
themselves where all this is heading, allegiance to the globalization cause
is a prerequisite for them to remain in their jobs (eg-Thatcher).

Free trade treaties and IMF diktats are central in achieving imperial
globalization, and equally central is an unrestricted and unaccountable
US-NATO gobal police force.  When placed in the proper historical context -
the centuries-old saga of Western imperialism - the role of IMF and NATO
become perfectly obvious, and there is no need to explain-away continual
"mistakes" and "misjudgements" as nation after nation lies in ruin as a
direct consequence of their actions.

The primary mission of the global media, itself a TNC operation, is to
distract public attention from these unfolding events by presenting
(instead of news) a sequence of mini-dramas - based loosely on selected
current events - in which the West is always the bold crusader, and the
"other" is always some kind of heinous demon.  Very little effort is made
to make these mini-dramas consistent with one another - the public
attention span is too short to make that necessary.  Saddam (or Noriega or
Marcos or Sukharno or the Taliban) can be presented in the role of loyal
ally one day, and pariah enemy the next... few seem to notice the orwellian

I don't expect the imperialist leopard to change its spots, nor do I expect
the media to stop telling us the leapord is a guardian angel - but I do
hope more people can begin to see with open eyes.  We don't need mystical
conspiracy theories and we don't need yet-another leak of some secret memo
- the games of the imperialists are writ large in their global behavior.
We only need to toss aside the distorting lenses the media would have us

Only when we see clearly what _is can we talk sensibly about what _could be
- and how it might be achieved.

Wexford, Ireland


    an activist discussion forum - •••@••.•••
    To subscribe, send any message to
    A public service of Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance
        (mailto:•••@••.•••     http://cyberjournal.org)

    Help create the Movement for a Democratic Rensaissance

    To review renaissance-network archives, send any message to:

    To subscribe to the the cj list, which is a larger list
    and a more general political discussion, send any message to:

                A community will evolve only when
                the people control their means of communication.
                        -- Frantz Fanon

                Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful
                committed citizens can change the world,
                indeed it's the only thing that ever has.
                        - Margaret Mead