Monday, June 16, 2014

From Notes 4 Yugoslavia--1 April 2001

[This reposting is meant as a CAUTIONARY to RT, once a bright and shining light on the informational Dark Ages through which the West, like Sisyphus, pushes its own willful and self-devouring ignorance.  

Recent on-air statements by RT presenters and guests alike, some from a Canadian doc about the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s that confuses irony with cuteness, have dulled what was once a strategically very important coverage of the degenerating situation in Ukraine.  

Some examples:  One of the several, seductive 'hottie' news readers that RT has become famous for (like they don't get the joke that is Fox News: Super-Babes, Babia-Majoras, Baberham Lincolns, esp. blondes with high-gloss lips and tons of eyes, are better at flogging boner meds than at giving credence to information) tossed off, "OJ got away with murder 20 years ago!"  Really?  Not only is that factually incorrect, but it also points up RT's cloying attempts to be POPular and HIPsterish by prioritizing ‘mass killings’ in the  Swish Alps of West LA over those in less chic, dingier elsewheres, and, thereby, to obfuscate Western Waste Capitalism's role in the eco-decimation of certain Central European and Central African peoples in 1994, while furthering the genetic fallacy that all these 'wanton killings', aka ‘genocides’, are brought about by 'terrorists', or 'white-supremacists with mental health issues', or just ‘crazy niggers' who won’t be negotiated with because their 'Extremism' makes them willing to die in pursuit of their pointless atrocities.  

Then in an interview segment, a US diplomat suggested to his blonde (but, really, quite smart interlocutor) that the effective benefits of the American foreign policy that brought about regime change through militaristic murder and mayhem (see the grotesque assassinations of Gaddafy, Habyarimana, Saddam, and even, iatrogenically, of Slobodan Milosevic) is born out by national examples like Serbia, which is 'much better off without Milosevic.' 

RT should be very careful about editorial details, because it is developing, in microcosm, a situation eerily similar to those of countries in the old Soviet bloc:  They are still bound to Moscow by dint of commercial and financial structures held over from the Soviet era (i.e., the State pays their salaries or pensions), as well as by an adherence to a more accurate and realistic Historical line (esp. as pertains to WWII and Imperialism) that predominates in the East; but, like Serbia or Prednistrovia or Ukraine, they look to Europe and the West to grow their commercial credibility and market share.  

By now they should be aware that Russia holds all the property cards in this bored game and that, as far as Historical relevance is concerned, the West (esp. the US), with all its Libertarian myths and Red boogiemen, is lost at the movies. --mc]


2Late4Slo--from Notes 4 Yugoslavia, by Mick Collins--1 April 2001

[Here's a little pre-9/11 analysis of how the Combine, after laying nuclear waste to Yugoslavia with DU-tipped Tomahawks (anyone who's seen the Army HQ or RTS in Belgrade knows exactly what hit the Pentagon on the day!), was working in Serbia to hang domestic corruption charges on President Milosevic (with some insinuated political assassinations back), essentially trying to make the defense of Serbia/Yugoslavia into a 'joint criminal enterprise'. In today's (1 Sept 2004) conclusion of his opening statement, the President made very clear that, two years and 295 witnesses later, the bogus Prosecution at this humbug Tribunal has produced no more evidence of his criminality than did the comprador Serbian government back after they'd deposed him in an NED/CIA-sponsored, riot-driven election/coup in Oct 2000--a kinda outta town try-out for the Florida follies later that year. About the only thing they can hang on him is being a 'premature anti-terrorist'. So maybe it's not 2 late at all. Maybe 4 the Milosevic defense, everything's running right on time.] 


from Notes 4 Yugoslavia 
Mick Collins 
1 April 2001 

Well, they've got Milosevic in a box in Belgrade now--making Yugoslavia just about ready to become the new Romania. So far he's just charged with crimes within Serbia, but if the extortion racket that the US's been running on this small country continues to play out as it looks like it's going to, Milosevic could answer for every crime from the non-existent mass graves in Kosovo to shooting JR and the US still wouldn't get up off Yugoslavia--not until every last piece of socially-owned property has a 'Sold by Goldman Sachs' sign out in front. 

But has anybody else noticed that none of these charges made against Serbia, Milosevic's Greater Serbia or Yugoslavia, seems to stand up much longer than a month or so? Racak, Srebrenica, Mostar, Sarajevo: After the KLA's recent invasions of Southern Serbia and Macedonia, can there be any doubt as to Milosevic's, Serbia's part in past wars? Serbia has been the sole source of resistance to the unnegotiated--no, the criminally motivated and sponsored--secessions of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia, and the hub of the centripedal force against the total dissolution of the Yugoslav Federation. The latest Serb atrocity makes page one; the discovery that in fact there was no such atrocity--no mass graves in Kosovo or cadavers stuffed down the Trepca mine; the bodies at Racak were not executed at close range and continue to go unidentified, most likely, because their identities would make them as KLA soldiers; Operation Horseshoe, wherein the murderous Milosevic plotted to drive all the Albanians out of Kosovo, was a concoction of German Intelligence, and, as in the Presevo Valley and Macedonia, the refugees didn't start hooking it up until the KLA landed and started blowing their shit away--these stories just don't seem to make the mainstream papers at all. And, after all, why should they? The lies have served their purpose: to arouse the kind of stupid (i.e., ignorant, uninformed) anger that currently drives Western policy. To apply reason and a critical sense of history to an analysis of the situation in the Balkans would be to see through what is perhaps the shoddiest and most shameless example of an intellectual compromise to commerce--and all for the sake of the new imperialism, aka, globalization.

But speaking of real crimes: Does anyone remember the 'shell' in the Markale marketplace in Sarajevo? Who shot the shell? Or for whom? Lord Owen speculated that it must have been Croats under contract to the Muslims to further demonize the Serbs (or some kind of Fassbinder-esque triangle of deception). But here's a little something-something from the latest Balkans Infos that kind of blows a lot of theories right out of the marketplace. Pardon my translation from the French: 

--Serb Civilians? Not Important. 

28 August 1995, an explosion in the Markale marketplace in Sarajevo left 29 dead and 90 wounded. Without waiting for any evidence to be analyzed, it was immediately attributed to the Serbs and used as a pretext for the Americans and NATO to launch an air assault, Operation Deliberate Force. This pretext was completely invented as the UN experts were unable to determine where the shell had come from. General Charles G. Boyd, commander and chief of the US European Command from 1992 to 1995, testified: 

From American intelligence reports of radar surveillance of Sarajevo, we have confirmed that there were no penetrations by any kind of projectiles. . . Once again, the government of Sarajevo planted an explosive charge in the marketplace of its own city. . . . Members of the US Congress as well as representatives of US and British Intelligence know well of the strong collusion between US officials and members of the Izetbegovic government in the creation of a casus belli. . . What the Americans want is to turn the war in favor of the Muslims. (cf, Defense and Foreign Affairs, 7/8/95) 

In the course of the next two weeks, the NATO bombers flew 3,400 sorties, targeting (among others) the Serb positions around Sarajevo, Gorazde, Doboj, Tuzla and Mount Ozren. The weapons utilized included Tomahawk missiles and bombs and shells of Depleted Uranium (DU). In all, 10,800 such munitions. 

In June 1996, 20 Dutch soldiers who had served in Lukavica (a quartier of Sarajevo) in a unit of the SFOR testified on TV in Holland that they had contracted a sort of 'Gulf War Syndrome'. The union for Dutch servicemen and women and the Green Party demanded that these reports be investigated, but the whole affair was quashed. 

Two and a half years later, in December 1998, the Belgrade newspaper Dnevni Telegraf published an alarming report. In the town of Doboj, there had been a sharp increase in the incidence of certain cancers, illnesses almost unknown there until then. During the previous spring, instead of sprouting as usual, the leaves on the trees immediately dried up. The same phenomenon was observed among different flora and fauna in the neighboring region of Mount Ozren, which was home to the TV transmission tower that had been destroyed by NATO bombs. In this location there were unusually strong reading of radioactivity and a large increase in cancers and other maladies: anemias, headaches, respiratory difficulties, exhaustion, etc. 

Since then, silence. It wasn't until 2000 and the death from leukemia of an Italian soldier who had served in Bosnia, Sergeant Andrea Antonacci, that the scandal over DU exploded and public opinion began to change. Some questions were asked of different parliamentary bodies, and various European Defense ministers found themselves in very uncomfortable positions. These officials who swore, with their hands over their hearts, during the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia, that not a single bomb of DU had been used (like the German Sharpling and the Brit Robertson), were forced to face some real hard evidence, especially when the death toll mounted: seven dead and eleven other soldiers stricken with leukemia in Italy; five cases in France, two dead in Germany, and two more in Portugal. But, (in the words of an old French song) 'qu'a cela ne tienne, tout va bien, madame la marquise' (loosely, 'Don't you worry 'bout a thing, sweet mama, 'cause e'rythang's gonna be aw'ight--oh, yeah, oh, yeah.) was NATO's chirpy refrain. Absolutely no connection between these deaths and DU was ever established. Go back to sleep, we're just gonna keep on using these weapons as long as they work so well. . . 

No connection, really? If the examples of Doboj and Mount Ozren are not enough, there's the story of Bratunac (in Eastern Bosnia) where  Serbs who fled the 1995 NATO bombing of Hadzici, a suburb of Sarajevo, still live: In one day, NATO aircraft dropped more than 500 bombs. Balkans Infos did a long story on this in its No 52. 

Obviously, these were only Serb civilians who died by the dozens. No reason to make a big deal out of a few Serbs, right? Messieurs les ministres? This 'Balkans Syndrome' is another myth--just like the Gulf War Syndrome from 1991. It's just propaganda by those who were against the NATO intervention, as the Albanian pacifist (sic) Ibrahim Rugova put it. As for the 12 tons of DU generously dumped on Bosnia and Kosovo, it looks like just more of that funky-cold fertilizer we've gotta thank the West for. --Bosko DUKANAC, Avrille--

 US diplomat on RT:  Isn't Serbia better off without Milosevic?

So why does Milosevic have to go down for war crimes? Because only by the constant and abusive (i.e., irrational, unjust) exercise of its unchallenged power can the US keep the Serbs, the Yugoslavs, the rest of the world on its knees. I'm talking about all of us, folks. We all have to believe that Yugoslavia is the one time the US got it right--well, yeah, maybe Iraq, too. All those people who were hip to Vietnam and Grenada and Panama and Somalia, all of a sudden are trying to get into a VFW marching band. 

So, you've gotta believe, right? You've gotta believe Milosevic is Hitler and the Serbs are the new Nazis,--or else, maybe, it's Bush and y'all who are the heinie scum. 

Do I expect the West--or any of the several friends I have lost to this horrible ideological dependency on duplicity--to wake up from the nightmare and admit their errors? Of course not. Because, in fact, the West, the US have not made any errors. Just as blowing unrestricted amounts of CO2 into the air and drilling up the Alaskan reserve and paving over the old growth forests are not errors, only ways of getting the lights back on in California. It's all part of a divine plan to make the whole world just like America--without a pot to piss in, a window to throw it out of, or a single original idea left in its head. 

1 April 2001 


Sunday, June 8, 2014

Slobodan Milosevic International Committe Reactivated--Dispatch

To blow away some of the anti-Slavic war propaganda coming out of D.C., Brussels, London and Paris, over the current NATO aggression in Ukraine, a window on antecedent events of the 1990s in the Balkans has been flung open by a reactivated SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE (of which we are honored to be among the founding members).  Here are links to its latest dispatch as well as to some other relevant articles.

It's excruciating to watch innocent men, women and children being sacrificed to the morbid militarist appetites of advanced Waste Capital AGAIN.  And though their memories have never been extinguished from our hearts (even as the craven compradors of the illegal Kostunica government pinched out the 'Eternal Flame to the Victims of the NATO Bombing of 1999'—so as not to embarrass potential Western investors!), as we watch the horrific suffering being revisited on the people of eastern Ukraine, our recollections of lost Slavic friends and family burn deeper and hurt much more than before.

Obviously, the abject unreality that drives US/EU policy toward Russia (and China) cannot go on much longer—Reality, like Russia, is not the sort of chump you can beat.  But each additional second brings another mass wasting of Human Life.  These losses can never be regained and will do nothing to serve the remediation of our poisoned Human Spirit.  But the courageous words of Slobodan Milosevic might cool our parched minds--and, just perhaps, remind us of the Hope we are so sadly missing.

Friday, May 2, 2014

Ukraine v Krajina: Black is the New Orange

Kiev, Feb. 2014

Eastern Ukraine, Mar-Apr. 2014

With recent military incursions by the anti-democratic Kiev putsch into eastern towns like Donetsk and Slovyansk now reaching and setting fire to the major Black Sea capital of Odessa, the events in (The) Ukraine, which, like the Yugoslav ‘Krajina’, was named as a Military Border region separating ancient warring states, have begun eerily to reaffirm the etymologies of these two regions, while managing to refocus the tiniest flickers of public attention onto NATO's previous, unprovoked aggressions, its expansionists' war crimes during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.  

There are two cases currently pending before two very different courts:  At the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague (i.e., the 'Civil' equivalent of the International Criminal Tribunals [ICC, ICTY & ICTR, as well as other UN ad hocs] also in The Hague), where Croatia and Serbia are pressing genocide charges against one another; and in the US [Federal] District Court for Northern Illinois, where the "genocide victims" of Croatia's 1995 ‘Operation Storm’, acknowledged by many to have been the largest "ethnic cleansing" campaign of the modern Balkan conflicts, have filed for compensatory damages against the various ‘Fortune 500 militias’ or Private Military Contractors (PMCs), like MPRI, Dyncorp, Sandstone, Blackwater, that prepped and propelled this bloody "Tempest" through the Yugoslav (Serb) Krajina.

Who ‘Genocided’ whom, indeed?  A question we can expect to be posed by both sides in the current Ukrainian conflict.  But, as was demonstrated by the 1994 'alleged' OJ murders (the Brentwood Genocide?), genocide has shown itself to be unprovable in the criminal courts[1], so, again as with the OJ case, the plaintiffs have taken their beefs down the halls of justice to the civil courts, where the burden of proof is shifted onto the defense and the rules of evidence are customarily relaxed—and the damages are repaired with large monetary awards.  

The Croats complaint before the ICJ is that the Yugoslav Army (JNA), which Croatian secessionist President Franjo Tudjman et alia attacked in an attempt to clear this last vestige of the Yugoslav Socialist Federation from their newly independent (and thoroughly deregulated) state, had committed genocide against the Croatian inhabitants of Vukovar when it shelled this ancient river city on the confluence of the Vuka and Danube; Serbs counter that Croatia's PMC-organized and led juggernaut through their own Krajina was an act of ‘ethnic cleansing’ unto genocide against the them.

Milosevic down in Den Haag, Mar. 2006

But the general public should be forgiven for having little or no familiarity with these events.  Much time, as well as vast sums and abundant cynical imagination, have gone into obscuring the Reality of what has come to be considered an early, post-mortem convulsion of the long-since quieted Cold War.  Common knowledge is that Reagan and Gorbachev, and then a limping, blind and staggering Boris Yeltsin, put an end to the USSR; that Communism, as a social, political and economic philosophy, was buried in the rubble of a collapsed Berlin Wall[2]; and that even History, itself, had come to an end.  Of course, the champagne corks popped—or, maybe, it was hot Sake they served in Fukuyama’s honor—to celebrate the Good Guys’ winning another one: the Final Score was Free World 2 - Soviet Slaves nil.

 Lenin down in Kiev, Feb. 2014
So, when asked the names of the belligerents in the break-up of the Yugoslav Socialist Federation, most folks normally resort to the media-induced post-hypnotic suggestion that Serbia, led by the ‘Stalinist Strongman’ Slobodan Milosevic, invaded, and then, through ruthless armed violence, 'ethnically cleansed' all non-Serbs from the other Republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and, to a lesser degree, Macedonia, and then its own southern province of Kosovo), in a fanatically Evil attempt to create a fantastical 'Greater Serbia.'  

The very idea of a nation called 'Yugoslavia', the home of Southern Slavs, was deleted from the Western data base long before the national entity was tagged with the expedient prefixes 'ex-' or 'former-’.  Many knew that the Croats were Catholics (fewer, that they were WWII Nazi-collabos); that the Bosniacs were Muslims (only we wonks knew they had had their own Waffen SS division, Handschar, and were tight with OBL and al Qaeda); and that the Serbs were (Eastern) Orthodox Christians (while just the anti-fascists among us recognized them, along with the French, as the fiercest of partisan fighters). 

But no one knew—or really cared—what happened to that category of citizen formerly known as the 'Yugoslav'.  Those residents of the Croatian or Bosnian Republics who, for whatever reasons, custom, habit, convenience or nostalgia, clung to the now-superceded institutions of the old Socialist Federation, were reflexively counted in with the 'Serbs'—the JNA became the unpitying Serb Army, and Yugoslavia, itself, appeared seamlessly to morph into that phantasmagorical (read Evil) 'Greater Serbia.'

This, with some minor rewrites, is the same scenario that has been playing out in (The) Ukraine since the early 1990s. At the beginning of that less-than gay decade, nearly all Ukrainian industry and agriculture were owned by the (then, still) Soviet State. Yet the 1991 referendum on independence from the USSR passed with an overwhelming (one might even say ‘Stalinien’, except it’s going away from Moscow[3]) majority of 93%—it was only 54% in Crimea (at the time and hence, a bustling Soviet, then CIS, military installation on the Black Sea), but an impressive 80% in Eastern, Russo-phone Ukraine, the region today developing into a major hot-zone in a cinch civil war and being considered by the Kremlin as a ‘New Little Russia’.  

Deadbeat Cowboy, Nevada, US, 2014       

A month after that vote for Ukrainian independence, the Soviet Union broke up.  Where before it had been an SSR of the Ukrainians, after 1991, for the first time in the 20th century, Ukraine became an independent nation of Ukrainians.  But, as the subsequent decade would so clearly and grotesquely demonstrate, with the burgeoning criminality of wars for control over newly privatized national assets, which, quite predictably, led to all manner of illegal trafficking, including a significant ‘Free Market Exchange’ in various Human organs: These Socialist Unions, the Soviet and the Yugoslav, were not broken by the democratically expressed will—or in the interests of the common weal—of their citizens. They were, rather, transmogrified into ‘geopolitical wishbones’ to be pulled apart, from the West by the unyielding avarice of Accumulated Private Capital (EU/NATO/UN), and from the East by the long-held hopes for the re-securitization or re-federation of a Democratic Social and Economic Order (Serbia/Russia/CIS).  

Dead Right Sector Fascist goon, Kiev, Ukraine, Feb. 2014

But from the beginning of an independent Ukraine, the Eastern leg of its ‘wishbone’ was consistently the larger. An instinct for self-preservation would bring any reasonable Ukrainian to favor the commercial and financial advantages of ‘favored nation’ trade relations with their Russian neighbor over a usurious and exploitive bondage to a Western Europe (i.e., the IMF, OECD, OSCE, EU Central Bank, etc.), that is, itself, going all ragged around the edges. 

This new order must have seemed more like an annexation or an occupation by Europe than a merger or an acquisition—as if their country was, once again, becoming part of the ‘lebensraum’ dreamed of by Hitler, with its dire dependence on the revenues generated by financial speculation, brokerage-commissions and licensing-fees on Russian energy deals—resources they used to get on privileged terms directly from the source. 

Yet the Multinational Corporate West, with its historical ties to the neo-feudal hierarchies of unrestrained Capital (i.e., Fascism), remained robust enough to challenge each ‘Russo-symp’ election victory in Ukraine.  In 2004 as in 2010, Viktor Yanukovych was elected president only to have the votes challenged by pro-Western, Soros-backed ‘Euro-philes’. 

First he ceded power to the chemically-addled and mendacious Viktor (blame-it-on-the-Russian-dioxin) Yushchenko in an anti-democratic judicial abortion of the electoral process that came to be known as the Orange Revolution; then, after his second election and two years of corruption charges from US/EU-contracted (CIA-, NED-, USAID-backed) oligarchs, he was driven from office and run out of his country by a well-armed, racist (anti-Semitic, anti-Slavic) mob under the Black (al Qaeda-color-coordinated) banner of the neo-Nazi Right Sector.  Seems anti-democratic revolutions are not nearly so well served by the Ackerman/Zunes/Sharp-strain of ‘non-violent’ agit-prop as they are by the genuine, old-school, bring-your-gun-from-home-and-just-start-shooting strategy of a multi-national PMC-run regime change—like the 1991 battle for Vukovar or 1995’s Operation Storm or the Belgrade elections of Oct. 2000. 

Each time, the country was split between a US/NATO-friendly, pro-EU western region, and an eastern ‘New Russia’.  Once again, the conflict broke down into the revived WWII Fascist Free States (e.g., Croatian Ustase, Ukrainian ‘Banderite’ nationalists, various Islamic separatist movements in Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya, etc.), the ‘New Axis Powers’, all playing, in varying degrees, on the D-L, and all being backed to the tig-ol-bitties by the US, waging terrorist-wars against Russia and its post-Soviet allies.  Communism may have been pronounced dead by the Harvard Business School twenty years before, but its gigantic red ghost was raising unholy hell among the would-be victims of this pale, by-now near-totally wasted cadaver of a neo-Liberal, Globalized Capitalism.

So, to those among the comfortable Public scribbling & twittering class who, out of indolence or just a want of critical imagination, pretend to read Geopolitics and History as if they are romance novels or Hollywood screenplays, in which Great Personalities are pitted against one another, like Churchill v Stalin, or Obama v Putin (or Danny Trejo v Mel Gibson in “Machete Kills" and "Machete Kills Again . . . In Space”), in sentimentally charged, usually psycho-sexually action-driven narratives of anti-realistic unto meaningless surface complexity—to these information wonks, cyber-rebels and bought-off-hackers, a very important task has fallen: the foisting of this unimaginative unReality onto a terrified, prayerfully obedient General Public. 

The news-readers and 'expert'-contributors and hidebound professorial-daddy-types who inhabit the mass media have been charged with creating a re-contorted lexicon, a new vehicular language (not a vernacular or jargon or patois or argot, because these new terms are quite common, mundane, even banal, and meant for universal understanding) of coercive, obscurant expressions, which insists on an absolute, unwavering comitment to their falsified histories, and any doubts about or questioning of them brings abject expulsion from the conversation. 

Prominent among these intellectual mind-twisters are 'The wetfe Genocide', or the 'Holocaust of wetfe', and ‘Denialists’ and ‘Revisionists’, or ‘The Soviet/Russian/Serbian Invasion of wetfe’, or 'Capitalism is Freedom' and 'Collectivism is Slavery', or 'Our Allies are Democrats and resist Aggression' while 'Our Enemies are Terrorists (irrational and impervious to negotiation) and commit Aggression—usually against their own People', so ‘Hitler=Stalin=Evil’ and 'Our Enemies Provoke, but Our Allies are Provoked'.  Ed Herman and David Peterson break down this rhetorical language much more succinctly than I ever could in their "The Politics of Genocide"[4].  

But suffice to say that only in a totally mystified information culture could someone like former-Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski have an on-air father/daughter face-à-fesse about how daddy single-handedly brought down the ‘Evil Soviet Empire’ by drawing the Communist Imperialists into a war with his own CIA assests, OBL and the mujahadin, and then have daughter Mika sheepishly nod and turn to the sodden MSNBC ‘panel of experts’ (admitted war criminals with Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome are truly stomach-wrenching) to discuss another ‘Soviet-style Invasion’, this time of Eastern Ukraine.[5]

This linguistic manipulation of Reality, out-Orwelling Orwell, has allowed blissful black-outs to Western Private War-lovers like the Vietnam-era genocidaire John McCain and current-CIA chief John Brennan, so they can go to Kiev, promise support for the putsch regime, with a special wink-wink to the neo-Nazis Right Sector in Maidan, and when the military violence they have tacitly encouraged begins to further divide the country and lay waste to its greater Eastern half, they can merely blame Putin, or Moscow, or the Russians—the congenital aggressors. 

Flashback to the Balkans: Richard Holbrooke ran the same hustle against President Milosevic and the Serbs over Kosovo in Oct. 1998, when he assured Belgrade that if their territorial defense forces stood down, the US would guarantee similar restraint from the ruthless narco&organ-trafficking KLA.  The results, as we all should know by now, were a recapturing by the Albanian ‘terrorists’[6] of territory they had ceded to the Yugoslav military.  This then led to the staging of Jan. 1999's Raçak ‘massacre’ by Wm. Walker, the US’s expert in running Central American death-squads, which, by itself, invalidated the Holbrooke/Milosevic agreement of the previous year and renewed the very real threat of NATO bombing.   In a feigned attempt by the Atlantist Allies to avoid turning Serbia into a flaming tribute to 50 years of NATO’s pro crypto fascist war-mongering, a cynically rigged Rambouillet Peace Conference was held at Versailles in Feb. 1999 (where a virginal US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is said to have experienced her own, personal KLA invasion, under the tender offices of the young, super-cute Albano-gangsta, Hashim Thaçi—and loved every minute so much as to make her value it above the lives of millions of Iraqi [and Yugoslav?] children.[7])

But today, with an all-out military assault by the flimsy Kiev government underway against the anti-fascist resistance in the eastern Russo-prone part of the country, it seems Brzezinski’s Grand Game has gone on one move too long.  In a clash between Reality and unReality, between idealism and materialism, between Fact and Fantasy disguised as Opinion: the rules of the physical universe will always hold, and the meta-physicists, the spiritualists, the con artists and close-hand magicians will die and return to the nothingness they never really left.  

The moral strain of carrying this load of bullshit dumped on them by their superiors in the US Defense and State Departments is now obvious in the appearance and comportment of both John Kerry and President Obama. 

As obvious is what their next move must be: Before the death toll in Ukraine mounts to a level that requires Madison Ave. mind-bending to, once more, absolve the US of responsibility for yet another Genocide by projecting culpability onto the usual suspects—their victims; the US must deal rationally, openly and justly with their ancient ally, and acknowledge that all good hope for the future lies in cooperation with Russia—and China.

--CirqueMinime/Paris, May 1, 2014

[1] In June 2006, The Appeals Chamber, located in The Hague, for the Rwandan Tribunal in Aruza, Tanzania, after the Prosecution in the Military I trial of the ‘brains of the Rwandan (Tutsi) Genocide” was unable to prove that any ‘Genocide’ had actually taken place, instructed the Trial Chamber in the case to ‘Take Judicial Notice’ of the Genocide.  That is, to accept the Genocide as beyond proof, a ‘Natural Fact of Jesus’—like the address of the Court or the hour of the sunrise on any given morning.
[2] A barrier isolating the Western sector of Berlin from the rest of that Capital that was situated in East German, and not to be confused, as it so often is even by the most learned scholars, with Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’, that mostly ideological barrier in Europe between the Western or ‘Free’ World and the Eastern or Soviet bloc.
[3] And Stalin was a Georgian.  It was Khrushchev, the Soviet leader of Ukrainian origins, whose ‘Secret Speech’ in 1956 wove a tapestry of lies that would forever demonize his Georgian predecessor and criminalize his revolutionary leadership, while trivializing the enormous, heroic sacrifices of the Soviet Peoples in their victory over Fascism in the Great Patriotic War.
[4] Herman and Peterson, “The Politics of Genocide”, (NYU Press—NY, 2010).  But in this vein see also:  Finkelstein, N., “The Holocaust Industry”, (Verso—London, NY, 2000); and ed. Cockburn, St. Clair, “The Politics of Anti-Semitism”, (CounterPunch, Petrolia, 2003). –Brevity is also the soul of good scholarship.
[5] The term ‘Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan’ is popular with leftists like Noam Chomsky and other proponents of the anti-Stalin paradigm.
[6] As they were known back then by the US State Dept. and the DoD.
[7] The Rambouillet Conference of Feb. 1999 were, according to an official of the Quai d’Orsay (the French Foreign Ministry), ‘punctuated by personal encounters between Madeleine Albright and the (young and) handsome [Hashim] Thaçi, who had full access at any time, to the Secretary of State’s suite. “Their tete-a-tetes were all the buzz”, smiled the diplomat.”  Cf. Péan, Pierre, “Kosovo: Une guerre ‘juste’ pour un état mafieux” [A ‘Just’ War for a Mafia State’], (Fayard, Paris—2013) —still only in French. 

Monday, April 7, 2014

The Witches of Democratic Foreign Policy

Hecate and Her Weird Sisters
Mad Albright
Rice, Susan
Unca Sam

["Double, double toil and trouble, fire burn and caldron bubble."

Since Reagan/Bush—and then Clinton, and then Bush, again—emancipated Private Capital from all effective State controls and any and all Social responsibilities, and all the duties formerly belonging to the Crown were contracted out in a ‘Free Market’ where nothing has intrinsic value but all is valorized only in its exchange, where alleviating Human want ceased to be the impetus for economic reproduction and Need, itself—expressed as debt, disease and misery—was commodified and mass-produced, perpetuated and traded on into futures that would test Azimov's imagination: now the essential outcome of human activity seems to have become the ever-greater re-production of Waste. 

Post-Capitalist Imperialism, without ever overcoming its malignant instinct for self-preservation and self-valorization, has introduced an even more lethal strain of colonialism than that propagated by Lord Kitchener and King Leopold:  the unregenerate extraction of the colonies' resources exchanges the native wealth for a sere hellscape over which the deeply mutilated victims of this spoilage are encouraged to wage Malthusian war.

And it is this plague-version of colonialism, this left-anti-imperialist-resistant genre of Imperialism—and if Dinesh  d'Souza is right in his Fuckumentary "2016", this is a geostrategy that Barack Obama's very DNA should oppose—that is being spread throughout Eastern Europe, the Middle East and North and Central Africa by the same agencies that pretend to be defending Human Rights and promoting Democracy.  Outfits like USAID, NED, Save the Children, Freedom House, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, any of the Soros-backed Open Society groups like the IWPR, ICG, CANVAS, OTPOR, or francophonia's Survie & Ibuka—right, Western Military Intelligence in dirty dreads and a Sears poncho—are the vanguard.

So—and not merely to kill someone's psycho-historical glue-buzz over the Big Black Bare-Chested Villain Theory of Foreign Evil—on this the 20th anniversary of what continues—even as forests of evidence and legions of witnesses testify against its ever happening like that in Kigali--to be described as "The Rwandan Genocide:  In Which 800,000 Tutsis and Moderate Hutus Were Exterminated in 100 Days by Extremist Hutu Under the Direction of the Habyarimana/MRND Government After First Assassinating their Leader, etc., etc.":  It seems way past high-time that certain names were named and certain games were shamed.  

The Clintons and their neo-liberal, evangelical storm troopers for Humanity can no longer be allowed to front that they knew nothing about the horrors that were taking place at their behest in Central Africa after, say, 1 October 1990, the date of the Ugandan invasion of Rwanda; or after 6 April 1994 when a double presidential assassination brought less international attention than the JFK, Jr., assassination. 

That the four women pictured above are all deeply involved in bringing about the Wasting of decent societies in the Balkans of Central Europe and Les Milles Collines d'Afrique centrale—that they are WOMEN is nothing more than coincidence.  There is no implication of any sort of 'feminist conspiracy' here, beyond the usual geostrategic joint criminal enterprise that is claiming Rape as a war crime.  But that these four—and their neo-colonialist coven within the Democratic Party—continue to wield influence in the formation of Defense and State Dept. policy—and, in so doing, continue to neutralize and even corrupt the progressive tendencies that President Obama has demonstrated, especially domestically, throughout his presidency—is or should be the source of grave concern.

My friend Charles Onana, whose French works make up the definitive history of Central and North Africa, gave this interview to the weekly Marianne as a signal that his latest book on Rwanda will drop soon.  His writing seems to be purposefully withheld from Anglo-Saxon readers.  I've tried in little ways (like translating this interview) to fill this important lacuna.  But, as the interview will make obvious, the resistance in the US to knowing the real History of Africa is much stronger than this old man can break.—mc]

Saturday 29 March 2014

Interview with Charles Onana on Rwanda 20 yrs After

Marianne:  Is it still your view that France never stopped seeking a peaceful, political solution to the conflict between the RPF and the Habyarimana regime, while the US was constantly playing both sides off against each other?

Charles Onana:  From the time the RPF attacked Rwanda from its guerilla bases in Uganda, in 1990, President Mitterrand believed that, whatever the cost, it was necessary to stop the destabilization of Rwanda and, more broadly, that of the entire Great Lakes region.  In a direct continuation of policies created by his predecessor Valery Giscard d’Estaing, he (Mitterrand) decided to support Habyarimana and to adopt the military cooperation agreements that bound the two countries.  The Americans followed a completely separate logic.  Habyarimana was allied with Mobutu, the president of Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC]), a privileged partner with the US for thirty years because he was considered an effective bulwark against communism, but had become less useful, and even a burden, in their eyes.  In 1990, the Americans feigned surprise at the RPF offensive that resulted in thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of displaced persons.  But in reality, they knew all about it. 

And for good reason:  Kagame had been trained at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, just like many other RPF officers.  The Pentagon and the CIA knew perfectly well that he would take the route of insurgency, knew all about and, in fact, supported his project to topple Habyarimana by force of arms and invade eastern Congo/Zaire.  At the time of the RPF attack, Habyarimana was in the US, where officials had offered him asylum, intending, certainly, to leave an open field for the RPF.  He refused this offer. . . .  When he got back to Kigali, Mitterrand pressured him constantly to negotiate with the RPF, demanded he democratize the country and put in place a government open to the unarmed opposition.  Habyarimana accepted without batting an eye because of his need for French aid.

From 1990 to 1993, François Mitterrand, despite his great efforts, was unable to bring about an agreement between the two parties.  On several occasions he rushed emissaries to urge Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni to put pressure in this direction on Kagame and his RPF, who were, purely and simply, active members of his military and government services.  Bruno Delaye, a Mitterrand advisor at the Élysée, and the Minister of Cooperation Marcel Debarge made the trip to Kampala.  Officially, the US and Great Britain supported these efforts, but, on the down low, they had been supporting the insurgents since 1988.

Marianne:  Does this include militarily?

CO:  Actually, Washington’s solid support of the Tutsi rebellion was worked out in the second half of the George H.W. Bush (Poppy) administration.  In 1992, in Orlando, Florida, investigators from the US Customs Service uncovered significant arms trafficking, including missiles and helicopters, destined for Uganda and whose kingpin was none other than the Director of Yoweri Museveni’s Cabinet.  But at this time Uganda was not at war, and the president had eliminated all opposition from inside his country.  Some of these arms must have been meant for the South Sudanese rebels of John Garang, at war against the Khartoum government of General Omar al-Bashir whom the Americans wanted to get rid of, and the rest . . . for Kagame’s RPF.

Marianne:  Did they make it to their destination?

CO:  When the US Justice Dept. found out that this arms business was old and that Museveni was behind it, the CIA and the Pentagon did all they could to cover it up.  And they must have, to a certain extent, succeeded because the Bush administration wound up releasing, very officially, a specific aid budget for Uganda, meaning, in reality, for the Tutsi rebellion.  Later, at the time of the signing of the Arusha Peace Agreement, UN observers would find large quantities of weapons from “Ugandan stocks” in the hands of the RPF.

Marianne:  You write that, for the Americans, Habyarimana’s chief fault was his close relationship with Mobutu.

CO:  The two men were really very close, but, I repeat, the US wanted to be rid of Mobutu.  The Rwandan ambassador to Washington told me how, at that time, Herman Cohen, US Under-Secretary of State for African Affairs, had revealed the destabilization plan they intended to carry out.  For that they needed Habyarimana to grant them passage through Rwandan territory.  He never accepted this nor ever really understood that the offensive against the French “Pré-Carré” or French-speaking Africa was written into American policy and had already been to a large extent implemented.

Since Clinton’s arrival in the White House, this policy had intensified, especially under the influence of then-US Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright and Susan Rice, then on the staff of the National Security Council (later, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, and now US National Security Advisor—cm/p)

Marianne:  But didn’t the US support the Arusha Peace Accords between the RPF and the Habyarimana regime?

CO:  Absolutely.  But in a very twisted kind of way.  I found a document from the State Dept. addressed to Herman Cohen explicitly describing the pressures he was supposed to put on Habyarimana, by France’s Paul Dijoud (director of African Affairs for the Foreign Ministry in 1992) and Belgium’s Willy Claes (then Foreign Affairs Minister for that country), to accept the entirety of the Arusha Accords.  Knowing full well that the terms were unacceptable to the Hutus.

Marianne:  What was the attitude of the US after the 6th of April 1994?

CO:  For the three months the killings lasted, the Americans didn’t once make a move toward creating any real peacekeeping operation that might have put an end to them.  They had to make sure the French didn’t introduce a military force into Kigali because the RPF had demanded they get out of Rwanda. . . .  As long as the French troops remained in Kigali, the RPF would not be able to take power.  In June, when the UN asked France to put together what would become Operation Turquoise, the Americans supported them formally but not logistically, even though they had promised to furnish them with air support.  Then they put together their own humanitarian operation, Support Hope, out of Kampala (the Ugandan capital—ndlr), but by then there was no one left to save in Rwanda. . . .

The British went right along with the US creating their own Operation Gabrielle.  In reality all these military officials, among whom were Israelis, took it upon themselves to train a new Rwandan Armed Forces that would be under the control of the RPF.

Even before the mass killings had stopped, the US State Dept. insisted that the new authorities be recognized.  And sometime later, French, which had been the official language of the Rwandan government from before colonial times was removed from administrative life. . . .

Marianne:  Was Mitterrand aware of the Anglo-Americans’ double-dealing?

CO:  Yes, especially because his Chief of Staff, General Christian Quesnot, perfectly understood the strategy of the RPF and its supporters in Washington and London.  But Mitterrand was already sick and, in the face of the violent anti-French campaign in the national media, he could not or did not know how to oppose it.

Marianne:  François Mitterrand, friend and accomplice of the génocidaires. . . . This charge appeared once again in a recent cartoon promoted by journalist Patrick de Saint-Exupéry.  What do you think of that?

CO:  It’s ridiculous!  On a personal, political, or media level, what interest could this man, whose great intelligence even his enemies acknowledge, have had in encouraging a genocide?  Among his detractors who compare the Rwandan genocide with The Holocaust—and that makes no sense on a historical level—some are merely evening scores with him.

Marianne:  But isn’t it a premeditated genocide all the same?

CO:  If this were the case, don’t you think the RPF, the international organizations, those countries present in one way or another in the region would have sounded the alarm well before the 6th of April 1994?  But there isn’t any documented evidence of such a phenomenon.  And that is why the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has had such difficulty establishing it.

Marianne:  The only expert-report to date, that of judges Marc Trévidic and Nathalie Poux, assigns responsibility, without naming any of them, to Extremist Hutus for being the most likely perpetrators of the 6 April attack, coming out of Camp Kanombé under the control of the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR), who were faithful to Habyarimana. . . .  

CO:  First, the investigation by these judges is far from being finished.  And, in my opinion, it still has numerous weaknesses.  How is it that, for example, the commander of Camp Kanombé has never given testimony?  He did, however, write to Judge Trévidic in this regard, just as a Captain in the FAR who had gathered a great deal of pertinent testimony from among the soldiers of the camp.  Likewise for the UN observers present on the scene or with General Roméo Dallaire, the Commander of the UNAMIR.  All of these people could have brought important information to enrich the investigation.

Marianne:  After four books and years of inquiry, what do you believe?

CO:  I remain persuaded that Kagame and his men are the ones who carried out the attack.  I have already written that, and he sued me in French court before later withdrawing his complaint.  Strange, huh?  The ICTR has done everything it could to exclude the attack from its investigations.  If they had documents and testimony supporting their conviction that the Hutus were responsible for the attack, don’t you think the Tribunal would have acted on them?

Interview by Alain Léauthier