|
[It's taken Amnesty International over a year to
investigate and determine that the intentional bombing
of a strictly civilian broadcasting facility, with the
inevitable deaths of technical support staff, is a war
crime. And that targeting passenger trains and buses
for attack, and then circling back on them to finish
the job, is one too. Of course massive bombing raids
on so-called 'dual use' industrial facilities like the
former Yugo plant, with the workforce present, is also
a war crime, as is bombing a religious procession in
broad daylight and then returning to target the relief
workers treating the initial victims - a common
practice during last year's NATO war against
Yugoslavia. Dropping lethal cluster bombs in
residential areas, where subsequent civilian deaths
were a certainty, would doubtlessly qualify as a war
crime. Indeed, as spelled out in the Nuremberg
indictments, the most egregious of all war crimes is
launching a destructive and unprovoked war against
another nation and people....Something Amnesty fails
to mention. The next time you receive a fundraising
appeal from William Schulz and Amnesty International,
please contact me and I can put you in touch with
agencies that deserve your contributions: Those
treating the medical and economic victims of NATO's
war crimes in Yugoslavia.]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Europe/2000-06/serbsattacked070600.shtml
Only five days after Nato was "exonerated" by the International War
Crimes Tribunal for its killing of civilians in Yugoslavia last year, Amnesty
International today publishes a blistering attack on the Alliance, accusing it
of committing serious violations of the rules of war, unlawful killings and v in
the case of the bombing of Serbia's television headquarters v a war crime.
The 65-page Amnesty report details a number of mass
killings of civilians in Nato raids and states that
"civilian deaths could have been significantly reduced
if Nato forces had fully adhered to the rules of war".
Legalistic in nature but damning in content v the
document reminds readers that Amnesty repeatedly
condemned Serb atrocities against Kosovo Albanians v
the report highlights inconsistencies and obfuscation
by Nato's official spokesmen. Although Nato told
Amnesty that pilots operated under "strict Rules of
Engagement", it refused to disclose details of the
"rules" or the principles underlying them. The report
says: "They did not answer specific questions Amnesty
International raised about specific incidents ..."
Amnesty records that Nato aircraft flew 10,484 strike
missions over Serbia and that Serbian statistics of
civilian deaths in Nato raids range from 400-600 up to
1,500. It specifically condemns Nato for an attack on
a bridge at Varvarin on 30 May last year, which killed
at least 11 civilians. "Nato forces failed to suspend
their attack after it was evident that they had struck
civilians," Amnesty says.
When it attacked convoys of Albanian refugees near
Djakovica on 14 April and in Korisa on 13 May, "Nato
failed to take necessary precautions to minimise
civilian casualties".
The report says Nato repeatedly gave priority to
pilots' safety at the cost of civilian lives. In
several investigations of civilian deaths, Amnesty
quotes from reports in The Independent, including an
investigation into the bombing of a hospital at
Surdulica on 31 May. The Independent disclosed in
November that Serb soldiers were sheltering on the
ground floor of the hospital when it was bombed but
that all the casualties were civilian refugees living
on the upper floors.
Amnesty says: "If Nato intentionally bombed the
hospital complex because it believed it was housing
soldiers, it may well have violated the laws of war.
According to Article 50(3) of Protocol 1, [of the
Geneva Conventions] 'the presence within the civilian
population of individuals who do not come within the
definition of civilians does not deprive the
population of its civilian character'.
"The hospital complex was clearly a civilian object
with a large civilian population, the presence of
soldiers would not have deprived the civilians or the
hospital compound of their protected status." Some of
Amnesty's harshest criticism is directed at the 23
April bombing of Serb television headquarters.
"General Wesley Clark has stated, 'We knew when we
struck that there would be alternate means of getting
the Serb Television. There's no single switch to turn
off everything but we thought it was a good move to
strike it, and the political leadership agreed with
us.'
"In other words, Nato deliberately attacked a civilian
object, killing 16 civilians, for the purpose of
disrupting Serb television broadcasts in the middle of
the night for approximately three hours. It is hard to
see how this can be consistent with the rule of
proportionality."
On 17 May last year, Nato's secretary general, Javier
Solana, wrote to Amnesty in response to its "grave
concern" over the TV bombing, stating that RTS (Serb
Radio and Television) facilities "are being used as
radio relay stations and transmitters to support the
activities of the ... military and special police
forces, and therefore they represent legitimate
military targets".
But at a meeting with Nato officials in Brussels early
this year Amnesty was informed that Mr Solana's
reference "was to other attacks on RTS infrastructure
and not this particular attack on RTS headquarters."
The US Defense Department, Amnesty recalls, justified
the television station bombing because it was "a
facility used for propaganda purposes" and Amnesty
itself says that Tony Blair "appeared to be hinting
[in a subsequent BBC documentary] that one of the
reasons that the station was targeted was because its
video footage of the human toll of Nato mistakes ...
was being re-broadcast by Western media outlets and
was thereby undermining support for the war within the
alliance".
Of the Nato destruction of the train at Gurdulica
bridge on 12 April, Amnesty says: "Nato's explanation
of the bombing v particularly General Clark's account
of the pilot's rationale for continuing the attack
after he had hit the train v suggests that the
[American] pilot had understood that the mission was
to destroy the bridge regardless of the cost in terms
of civilian casualties ..."
Nato had not, Amnesty adds, "taken sufficient
precautionary measures to ensure there was no civilian
traffic in the vicinity of the bridge before launching
the first attack". Amnesty quotes the Nato spokesman
James Shea as admitting that the video of the train
shown to the press at the time was speeded up (to
three times its original speed) because Nato analysts
routinely reviewed tapes at speed.
Mr Shea, Amnesty says, "said that the [Nato] press
office was at fault for clearing the tape for public
screening without slowing it down to the original
speed".
|
page>