As the #NATO summit begins today, never forget it was that military alliance which illegally attacked a sovereign state in 1999 (Yugoslavia) and set the precedent for aggression vs Iraq, Afghanistan, and the violence now in Gaza and Ukraine. 🧵
After the cold war, NATO had to make itself relevant and it did so by illegally bombing Yugoslavia. At its summit in 1999, NATO approved a new strategic concept for the alliance with a remit to intervene militarily across Europe and Asia WITHOUT UN approval.
Alarmingly, for supporters on international law, Walter Slocombe, US under-secretary of defence said that "NATO doesn't need a UN mandate. Its always desirable to have one but we believe that Article 51 of the UN Charter provides for individual and collective self-defence...
...that provides very broad authority for countries to act even where there's not a specific Security Council resolution authorising that action." In other words, NATO's authority is greater than that of the international community!
The implications have been enormous - the entire postwar international security system has been undermined since NATO's illegal aggression against Yugoslavia.
In the UK, on 1 Feb 1999, the minister of state at the Ministry of Defence, Lord Gilbert was asked in parliament about NATO's new strategic concept but replied, "There are no plans at present to consult the House before the negotiations are completed."
Neither was there a consultation paper or any kind of public discussion in the UK. So much for open government!
Throughout the Cold War, NATO stood for the collective defence of the western "democracies" - though at times Greece, Portugal and especially Turkey failed to qualify for that tag.
NATO's illegal aggression against Yugoslavia was never going to be the last of NATO's military interventions. It was just the curtain raiser on the alliance's new role and the beginning of the end of the UN's role. END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today is the anniversary of the #Račak "massacre" - the pretext for bombing FRY. One of the best sources for debunking the official version of events is in Michael Mandel's book: "How America Gets Away with Murder - Illegal Wars, Collateral Damage and Crimes Against Humanity."🧵
Mandel expertly outlines how the #Račak incident and international criminal law were manipulated to legitimate an illegal war.
Mandel describes how the Serb version of events at #Račak received considerable corroboration from independent sources. Essentially, all of the dead were either KLA fighters or civilians caught in the crossfire.
On this day in 1999, NATO-led KFOR began its occupation of the Serbian province of Kosovo i Metohija. Lets look at how well KFOR fulfilled its mandate to maintain law and order and protect human rights in its first year of operations.🧵
The summer of 1999 was a season of vengeance and predatory violence against Serbs and Roma. The OSCE collected dozens of horror stories. A deaf and mute Roma man was abducted from his home because his family had allegedly cooperated with the former authorities.
A 44-year-old Serb man was 'beaten to death with metal sticks by an Albanian mob and his throat was reportedly slit with a piece of glass'.
Yesterday, on the 24th anniversary of NATOs illegal aggression vs FRY the usual NATO fans and Albanian extremists came out to defend it because NATO acted to "prevent genocide." Is this true? What did NATO actually say when they launched their missiles?🧵
After the failure of the Rambouillet conference, Richard Holbroooke met Milosevic in Belgrade in a last effort to persuade him to accept NATO's ultimatum. Once this also failed, NATO Sec Gen Solana announced air strikes would begin because👇
While NATO and US goals for the illegal bombing were the same - "stop violence against Kosovo Albanians" there was no mention of the action being taken to "prevent genocide."
On the 24th anniversary of NATO's illegal aggression vs FRY, lets look at how the war was reported and how western governments have become much more adept at managing the media.
The lies, manipulation, news management, propaganda, spin, distortion, omission, slant and gullibility involved in trying to report the conflict brought war correspondents to a crisis point in their short history. Their role has never been more insecure.
War demands absolutes. If NATO's cause was righteous, just and honourable - if God was on NATO's side, as Gen Wesley Clark suggested - then the Serb cause must be evil, cowardly and dishonourable. There could be no glimmer of good on the Serb side, no innocent Serbs.
Who is Daniel Smith the self-proclaimed international relations expert? After Smith gave a recent interview to Danas I decided to dig deeper into who he really is.🧵#serbia#kosovo
International Relations expert w/out credentials. The Danas article describes Mr S as a 'British expert on international relations with a focus on the Western Balkans.' Is this true? A Google search reveals nothing to indicate Mr S is such an expert...
and he doesn't appear to hold any academic credentials to justify such a description.