Propaganda, ‘Preventive War‘ and The Weathervane of Foreign Policy

Nordic News Network ^ | February 2004 | Bo Pellnäs

[Jane_N]

Propaganda, ‘Preventive War‘ and The Weathervane of Foreign Policy

Bo Pellnäs

In connection with the most recent war against Iraq, there has been much controversy surrounding the policy of “preventive war“ by which the U.S. government of George W. Bush claims the unilateral right to attack other nations which are said to pose a threat to national security. The U.S. has also claimed the right to bypass the United Nations in the name of human rights, as in the case of the war against Serbia in 1999 which was led by the government of William J. Clinton. That war was approved by the Swedish government of Göran Persson which, however, has criticized (albeit in very cautious terms) the war against Iraq.

There is a disturbing inconsistency in all this, according to Brigadier Bo Pellnäs of the Swedish army, who has served in the Balkans as an observer and peace negotiator for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Among other things, Brigadier Pellnäs underlines the role of propaganda and its uncritical acceptance by mainstream media in justifying flagrant violations of international law, with the war against Serbia as a prime example. He also points out that there is little difference in the behaviour of the Bush and Clinton administrations, both of which have started wars in the pursuit of national interest. The implications for international law and the foreign policy of small nations like Sweden are fairly obvious.

* * * * *

IN THE SHADOW of the most recent war against Iraq, it is appropriate to consider the question of how international law is interpreted when political winds change direction. The positions taken by our own government on NATO‘s bombing of Serbia and the U.S. war against Iraq have been completely different. The war against Serbia in 1999 was regarded by the Swedish government as acceptable, despite the fact that it was not authorized by a U.N. resolution. The onslaught against Iraq, on the other hand, was opposed by our government on the grounds that it was launched without a U.N. mandate.

In order to assess the validity of NATO‘s reasons for starting the war against Serbia, it is necessary to consider the events which preceded it. To begin with, it can be clearly stated that the offences committed by Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic were no greater than those of Saddam Hussein. In fact, despite Milosevic's war crimes and other serious offences, his burden of guilt is comparatively slight.

The prelude to the war probably took place in 1995, when Serb forces killed several thousand Muslims in the Bosnian city of Srebenica. It is possible that the United States had already then decided that Milosevic must be got rid of. The European Union‘s patience with the Serbs had also been exhausted. But, first, it was necessary to make use of Milosevic so that the Dayton Agreement on peace in Bosnia could be formalized. After that, he would be fair game.

Promoting war

The hunt began in the autumn of 1998, when the United States forced him to accept the presence of an observer force from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in the province of Kosovo. It was led by William Walker, a U.S. ambassador who appears to have a past in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The mission command also included representatives of France, Norway, Russia, Great Britain and Germany.

Thus, outwardly it was a typical peace mission. But it included a large intelligence unit with some 50-70 individuals attached to the OSCE headquarters. It is only possible to speculate on the nature of their activities in the field. But I am personally convinced that, in the autumn of 1998, the United States was already co-operating with and supporting the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which was regarded as a potential future ally in the area. Obviously, it is difficult for an observer force to maintain peace in such an area when its leaders are actively supporting a military force.

In the next stage, the Serbs were compelled in February of 1999 to participate in negotiations at Rambouillet, near Paris. There, to general astonishment, the Kosovo Albanians refused to accept the proposed agreement on the future of Kosovo. Two weeks later, fresh negotiations took place. This time, the Kosovo Albanians signed immediately, having clearly learned their lesson. Both rounds of negotiations were led by the U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright. The Serbs were confronted with the choice of either accepting the text of the agreement unconditionally, or of being dragged into a war against NATO. The manner in which the negotiations were set up made it almost impossible to avoid the latter alternative.

The Clinton administration‘s determined effort to force a decision in the case of Kosovo is similar to the Bush administration‘s conduct in the case of Iraq. Milosevic‘s almost arrogant refusal to approve the agreement suggests that he had so long surrounded himself with yes-men that he had lost contact with reality. Perhaps he trusted the Russians to prevent an assault on Serbia with a veto in the U.N. Security Council.

First the bombing, then the refugees

When the negotiations at Rambouillet collapsed, the OSCE observer force was compelled to leave Kosovo. Its departure can be seen as both a tightening of the screws on the Serbs, and as a signal that the U.S. and NATO were clearing the way for battle. The OSCE observers began their withdrawal on 20 March 1999, and all of them were out of Kosovo by March 21st. NATO commenced its bombing war on March 24th, without a mandate from the Security Council. The first, relatively few, refugees entered Macedonia on 26 March, and were followed by large waves on April 1st and 2nd.

The motive that is usually cited to justify the war against Serbia is that it was intended to prevent a humanitarian disaster, i.e. the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians. It is stated as beyond any doubt that the mass expulsion which did take place, but which began one whole week after the first bombs were dropped, was the factor that justified the attack and made it politically possible to continue bombing for 79 consecutive days.

But the claim that the bombing was a consequence of ethnic cleansing is propaganda which the media should have seen through and refuted. The war began on March 24th-- after the Serbs refused to sign the Rambouillet agreement-- quite independently of the situation on the ground in Kosovo. Then, Milosevic‘s own wickedness, political blindness and inconceivable stupidity helped to confuse the situation and provide NATO with an ex post facto justification for the war.

No genocide or ethnic cleansing

But let us be completely clear on one point: Even granting the massacre at Racak*, it cannot be stated that any ethnic cleansing or genocide was taking place in Kosovo before the war started. Such activities would hardly have gone unnoticed, given that there were 1200 OSCE observers on the scene at the time.

The Clinton administration had persevered, and manoeuvred itself into a decision for war, while maintaining nearly full agreement within NATO and the European Union. It was generally believed that a Security Council resolution to approve military action would be vetoed by Russia and, at this stage, the Western powers were not willing to allow Russia any influence over future developments in the Balkans.

In the course of the bombing, however, a split developed within NATO when France objected to the selection of certain bombing targets. That problem was circumvented by the United States with a solution based on two separate air wars -- one in which air-traffic control was conducted under NATO‘s command, and another conducted independently by the United States.

From the foregoing, two important conclusions can be drawn. One is that the Clinton administration was as determined as the Bush administration to force events toward the desired outcome, i.e. capitulation or war.

The other is that Sweden‘s position was not based on international law, but rather on the position taken by the major EU powers. The level of agreement within the EU regarding the attack on Serbia in 1999 was as great as the level of disagreement on the U.S. assault against Iraq in 2003.

Compliant media

It would also appear that Swedish media have raised surprisingly few questions about all this. Their great willingness to accept and pass on U.S. (and, later, Swedish) government claims that the war against the Serbs was a response to the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians ought to be rather embarrassing for a number of Swedish editors.

The sequence of events, from the start of bombing to the expulsion of Kosovo Albanians, should have been very clear and unmistakable. Swedish criticism of the Bush and Clinton administrations has portrayed the latter in a more favourable light. But it seems appropriate to conclude that Superpower U.S.A. acts to satisfy its own interests, regardless of whether Democrats or Republicans occupy the White House. The tendency to manipulate reality with propaganda and influence the stances of other countries by applying pressure is something that the Clinton and Bush administrations appear to share in common.

In this context, it is worth a reminder that Wesley Clark, chief commander of the war against Serbia and until recently a Democratic presidential candidate, repeatedly conveyed flagrantly misleading information about the conduct of the war during his NATO press conferences in Brussels.

Slobodan Milosevic will probably be declared guilty of several war crimes. Apart from that, he has also been a sort of Mafia leader who has committed serious crimes against his own people. But the situation in Kosovo in March 1999 did not justify starting a war against Serbia-- not even with the support of a U.N. resolution, and much less without one.

Dismaying outcome

For a small nation like Sweden, there is every reason to hold fast to a strict interpretation of international law. The position of former prime minister Ingvar Carlsson, that war against Serbia required a U.N. mandate, was therefore well-founded.

It may be argued that the bombing created a heavy psychological pressure on the people of Serbia, who themselves had not previously suffered directly from the Balkan wars, and therefore hastened the Serbian regime change. But there is equal, and perhaps greater, reason to argue that Milosevic would have been deposed even earlier if war had not come and strengthened his position for a lengthy period.

Although hypothetical historical arguments are of little significance, it is nevertheless tempting to contemplate what might have happened if Milosevic had been deposed without war, thus making it possible to replace the OSCE observer force in Kosovo with a military force led by NATO or the United Nations.

To the extent that the current situation in Kosovo and the rest of Serbia has been influenced by NATO’s war, the results of that war are dismaying. In the most recent Serbian election, one of three voted for an ultra-nationalist party. Kosovo‘s gradual transformation into the Colombia of Europe, despite all the efforts being made to prevent such a development, appears to be irreversible.

-- Bo Pellnäs 26 February 2004

*About 40 Kosovo Albanians were killed at the village of Racak in January of 1999. Some were killed in battle; but 23 were executed and later found in a ravine outside the village.

[Jane_N]

Interesting reading

[Old Sarge]

In centuries gone, Scandinavia brought us the Vikings and the explorers.

Now, they bring us Quisling - and this guy.

[LS]

I won't discuss Serbia because, contrary to Iraq, it posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S. or really served as a haven for Muslim terrorists.

But on principle, if anyone is going to "dis" preemptive war, then you better start with Thomas Jefferson, who dispatched the U.S. Navy from 1804-1808 to MAKE WAR on the Barbary Pirates---even those who had not declared war on us---under the justification that we needed to nip this threat in the bud. He did so ALONE, after a concert of Euro powers (sound familiar) refused to do anything about it.

He did so WITHOUT a declaration of war, but only with a resolution from Congress; yet he ordered his commanders to declare war on ALL the Tripolitan states, including a couple we could not prove had directly attacked the U.S.

The war lasted more than four years, but we were successful on every count, and by 1810, the Barbary Pirates were on the ash heap of history, mostly thanks to William Eaton and EIGHT MARINES.

[Jane_N]

Thanks for your post LS. I have to admit that I wasn't aware that the idea of "pre-emptive" warfare was so old. I guess if we look even further back in history we would find that this was probably a common pratice of many of the great empires throughout history.

[LS]

Well, one of the best examples in history of an Iraq-type situation was Rome v. Carthage. It took the Romans three wars and more than 30 years to eliminate Carthage as a threat.

The first Punic War ended with Carthage being chastized and giving up Sicily and Sardinia (sort of like pushing Iraq out of Kuwait and having the "no-fly" zones).

The second Punic War ended with the utter defeat of the Carthaginian army under Hannibal (and his death), and Carthage lost more territory, but did NOT quit competing with Rome or being a pain in the butt. The final war totally destroyed Carthage and salted the earth.

Now, the comparison isn't exact. For one thing, the Carthaginian people---unlike the Iraqis---didn't want their dictator gone. But Carthage WAS hit pre-emptively because it was GETTING to be a threat. After the first war, Carthage was actually more dangerous (sound familiar?) because it was more hostile and agitated---the anticipated threat became real.

I do NOT support flattening Iraq, but I suspect this will take a while and will require us, in spots, to use "Carthaginian"-type responses.

[Jane_N]

You wouldn't happen to have any good links to the Roman-Carthagian wars would you? It's sounds like a very interesting period in history and I would like to read a little about it. I really don't remember having read anything about this at school when younger.

[LS]

Doh! Not offhand. It's been 20 years since I did these lectures. I'd try any general history of Rome.

[Jane_N]

Ok Thanks again LS, I'll see what I find at the local library and nline. In the mean time if you happen to find any links, feel free to freepmail me. :)

[MarMema]

Bump to read later...

[Hoplite]

Bo don't know history.

There were an estimated 400,000 internally displaced refugees in Kosovo before the war started. (30,000 Serbs included)

At one Kosovo border town, Ivaja, Serb forces burned most of the houses. Reuters news agency found the only remaining civilian in the town, Ramadan Muljoki, an 84-year-old man. Still in shock and caked with blood, Muljoki told the Reuters reporter, "They beat me with rifles and asked me if I knew anyone from the KLA. They asked me if my son was in the KLA and I said no and they beat me again."

About nine miles from the Macedonian border, Serb forces rounded up about 400 of the displaced people who had fled their homes in Ivaja. They separated the military-age men from the women, children, and elderly men, and loaded them onto trucks and took them to a nearby school in Kacanik. The police took about 100 of the younger men in armored cars to a police station, telling international monitors on the scene that they would "root out terrorists."

What happened at Ivaja is just a sample of what Serb forces were doing throughout Kosovo prior to NATO airstrikes, and was a direct cause of those NATO airstrikes.

Counterpose this with Bo's statement:

But the claim that the bombing was a consequence of ethnic cleansing is propaganda which the media should have seen through and refuted.

Either the news accounts of what was happening in Kosovo at the time are fabrications, or Bo is simply just another uninformed or willfully deceptive commentator - something which the Balkans have far too many of. That the internally displaced refugees were hiding in Kosovo's forests until the Serbs forced them onto the roads and across the borders into Macedonia or Albania isn't really much of a justification for Bo's musings.

[mark502inf]

Re. pre-emptive war, a long-standing strategem--think of the Israelis vs the Arabs in the 67 War (that worked); Bulgaria vs the Serbs in the 2d Balkan War (that didn't), Epimandos's attack of the Spartans (worked), and my personal favorite--upon learning of Spanish intent to attack England, Queen Elizabeth dispatched Sir Francis Drake to Spain where he conducted a surprise attack to destroy the Spanish fleet at anchor in its home-port. Drake's report of the fight was that he had "singed the Spanish King's beard". This bought England the time to build up its fleet and successfully repel the Spanish Armada a year later--a classic line by Drake and a classic use of preemptive war.

Clausewitz, btw, categorizes a preemptive attack against an enemy army in its own country as one of his four forms of the strategic defense.

[CWOJackson]

Very interesting reading.

[mark502inf]

You beat me to it--I got side-tracked on preemptive war!

[Jane_N]

I'm sorry Hoplite but I see no reason for a Swedish commander to fabricate what he saw and experienced in Kosovo in his role as a member of OSCE. Swedes have almost always been neutral when it comes to conflicts throughout the world and pride themselves in the fact that they have not been a part of a warring side for over 400 years. The swedish forces in kosovo are highly respected for their neutrality as they were in Bosnia. I'm not claiming that what was said in the media is lies, but as I have said in the past, the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle of all these accounts.

[Jane_N]

lol, thanks for the little history lesson mark :)
Seriously though history at school was not my favorite subject (not sure if it was the subject or the teacher that was boring) and thus it's easy to forget these things. It's only now as an adult that I have a better appreciation and understanding of things that happened in the past and their relation to the modern world.

[Jane_N]

I thought so too. It's always good to read reports/articles that come from other sources than mainstream media, if you want to gain a better insight into a situation, no matter whether you agree or disagree with the actual report/article.

[Squantos]

I think this was already posted by a swedish chef on a different thread.....snip snip........:o)

Zee oozeer is thet Svedee‘s puseeshun ves nut besed oon interneshunel lev, boot rezeer oon zee puseeshun tekee by zee mejur IOo pooers. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Zee lefel ooff egreement veethin zee IOo regerdeeng zee etteck oon Serbeea in 1999 ves es greet es zee lefel ooff deesegreement oon zee U.S. essoolt egeeenst Ireq in 2003. Cumpleeunt medeea It vuoold elsu eppeer thet Svedeesh medeea hefe-a reeesed soorpreesingly foo qooesshuns ebuoot ell thees. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Zeeur greet veellingness tu eccept und pess oon U.S. (und, leter, Svedeesh) gufernment cleeems thet zee ver egeeenst zee Serbs ves a respunse-a tu zee ithneec cleunseeng ooff Kusufu Elbuneeuns ooooght tu be-a rezeer imberresseeng fur a noomber ooff Svedeesh ideeturs. Um gesh dee bork, bork!

Zee seqooence-a ooff ifents, frum zee stert ooff bumbeeng tu zee ixpoolseeun ooff Kusufu Elbuneeuns, shuoold hefe-a beee fery cleer und unmeestekeble-a. Svedeesh creeticism ooff zee Boosh und Cleentun edmeenistreshuns hes purtreyed zee letter in a mure-a fefuooreble-a leeght. Um de hur de hur de hur. Boot it seems epprupreeete-a tu cuncloode-a thet Sooperpooer U.S.A. ects tu seteesffy its oovn interests, regerdless ooff vhezeer Demucrets oor Repoobleecuns ooccoopy zee Vheete-a Huoose-a. Zee tendency tu muneepoolete-a reeleety veet prupegunda und infflooence-a zee stunces ooff oozeer cuoontreees by epplyeeng pressoore-a is sumetheeng thet zee Cleentun und Boosh edmeenistreshuns eppeer tu shere-a in cummun. Bork bork bork! In thees cuntext, it is vurt a remeender thet Vesley Clerk, cheeeff cummunder ooff zee ver egeeenst Serbeea und unteel recently a Demucreteec preseedentiel cundeedete-a, repeetedly cunfeyed flegruntly meesleeding inffurmeshun ebuoot zee cundooct ooff zee ver dooreeng hees NETO press cunfferences in Broossels. Um gesh dee bork, bork! Slubudun Meelusefic veell prubebly be-a declered gooeelty ooff seferel ver creemes. Um gesh dee bork, bork!

Epert frum thet, he-a hes elsu beee a surt ooff Meffeea leeder vhu hes cummeetted sereeuoos creemes egeeenst hees oovn peuple-a. Boot zee seetooeshun in Kusufu in Merch 1999 deed nut joosteeffy sterteeng a ver egeeenst Serbeea-- nut ifee veet zee sooppurt ooff a U.N. resulooshun, und mooch less veethuoot oone-a. Deesmeying ooootcume-a Fur a smell neshun leeke-a Svedee, zeere-a is ifery reesun tu huld fest tu a streect interpreteshun ooff interneshunel lev. Zee puseeshun ooff furmer preeme-a meenister Ingfer Cerlssun, thet ver egeeenst Serbeea reqooured a U.N. mundete-a, ves zeereffure-a vell-fuoonded. Bork bork bork! It mey be-a ergooed thet zee bumbeeng creeted a heefy psychulugeecel pressoore-a oon zee peuple-a ooff Serbeea, vhu zeemselfes hed nut prefeeuoosly sooffffered durectly frum zee Belkun vers, und zeereffure-a hestened zee Serbeeun regeeme-a chunge-a. Boot zeere-a is iqooel, und perheps greeter, reesun tu ergooe-a thet Meelusefic vuoold hefe-a beee depused ifee ierleeer iff ver hed nut cume-a und strengzeened hees puseeshun fur a lengthy pereeud. Bork bork bork! Elthuoogh hypuzeeteecel heesturicel ergooments ere-a ooff leettle-a seegnifficunce-a, it is neferzeeless tempteeng tu cuntemplete-a vhet meeght hefe-a heppened iff Meelusefic hed beee depused veethuoot ver, thoos mekeeng it pusseeble-a tu replece-a zee OoSCE oobserfer furce-a in Kusufu veet a meelitery furce-a led by NETO oor zee Uneeted Neshuns. Um gesh dee bork, bork!

Tu zee ixtent thet zee coorrent seetooeshun in Kusufu und zee rest ooff Serbeea hes beee infflooenced by NETO’s ver, zee resoolts ooff thet ver ere-a deesmeying. In zee must recent Serbeeun ilecshun, oone-a ooff three-a futed fur un ultra-neshuneleest perty. Bork bork bork! Kusufu‘s gredooel trunsffurmeshun intu zee Culumbeea ooff Ioorupe-a, despeete-a ell zee iffffurts beeeng mede-a tu prefent sooch a defelupment, eppeers tu be-a irreferseeble-a. -- Bu Pellnäs 26 Febrooery 2004 *Ebuoot 40 Kusufu Elbuneeuns vere-a keelled et zee feellege-a ooff Recek in Junooery ooff 1999. Sume-a vere-a keelled in bettle-a; boot 23 vere-a ixecooted und leter fuoond in a refeene-a ooootseede-a zee feellege-a.

Stay Safe .........I could be mistaken.

[Jane_N]

You have obviously not spoken to many Swedes. Sorry but majority Swedes speak much better English than that as they learn the language from second grade. The accent you use in your post is more German than Swedish. German is a rather "rough" language, definitely not a romantic sounding one while Swedish is a melodical langauge using varying tones and although it may sound weird to someone who doesn't understand it, it's not as "rough" as you make it sound. I can bet you that their English is much better than your Swedish.

[Squantos]

Don't get yer nickers in a bunch Jane.......it was a laugh . I was just having a bit of fun. Sorry that ya didn't pick up on that........;o)

Stay Safe !

[Jane_N]

he he..yeah, I'm sorry too, guess it's a sign that I've lived in this country too long. I'm starting to defend Sweden now. Hate to think how I will react when it's a situation between Australia and Sweden :S

I need more coffee I think...no good to freep when you just get up and haven't had enough of the java.

take care :))