HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
Preemptive
Attacks and Humanitarian Wars
by
Mark Hand
October
9, 2003
First Published in Press
Action
Diana
Johnstone's Fools'
Crusade, a well-researched and lucidly written account of the role
played by Europe and the United States in the break-up of Yugoslavia in the
1990s, serves as a perfect bridge to understanding the relationship between the
U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq and the NATO war against Serbia in 1999.
Johnstone
shows how NATO's reasons for interfering in Yugoslavia should not be viewed in
isolation. "Whatever the declared motives, the war against Yugoslavia
served as an exercise in the destruction of a country," Johnstone writes.
"The pretext is flexible: harboring terrorists, building weapons of mass
destruction, or 'humanitarian catastrophe' — all can be used to justify bombing
as part of an unfolding strategy of global control."
Harboring
terrorists was the pretext used by the United States and its allies to bomb,
invade and occupy Afghanistan in 2001. Building weapons of mass destruction was
the pretext to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And ending a humanitarian catastrophe
was why President Clinton and his friends in Europe bombed Yugoslavia.
Johnstone
argues that should the tough unilateralist approach of George W. Bush's
administration cause serious disaffection among U.S. allies, policymakers in
Washington have the option of "returning to the soft approach of
'humanitarian war' that proved so successful in silencing critics and rallying
support" for the attacks on Yugoslavia.
Even
before the official launch of its invasion of Iraq in late March, U.S.
officials framed the planned aggression not only as a preemptive measure to
protect Americans from Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction but
as a humanitarian gesture to the Iraqi people. We will invade your country,
drop bombs on your cities and kill your children. And after your leaders have
been ousted, we will force you to obey our rules, buy goods from our companies
and grow dependent on our presence. We do all of this because we are
humanitarians.
A
huge chunk of the world's population recognizes Washington's invasion and
occupation of Iraq as an ugly case of neo-imperialism -- or whatever term is
preferred to describe the domineering policy -- that it really is. The war
against Yugoslavia, on the other hand, produced very little negative reaction
around the world because the political center-left in Europe and the United
States that waged the military campaign succeeded in co-opting traditional
antiwar constituencies, including groups that had opposed the Vietnam War and U.S.
policy in Central America. "In most Western countries, only a few
drastically weakened fragments of left-wing movements and isolated individuals
still remembered that humanitarian intervention, far from being the harbinger
of a brave new century, was the standard pretext for all the Western
imperialist conquests of the past," Johnstone writes.
In
Washington, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets this past
January to tell the Bush administration not to invade Iraq. Hundreds of
thousands of people turned out in late 1990 against the planned military action
in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. But during NATO's bombing campaign of
Serbia in 1999, protests in Washington against that military aggression managed
to attract only a few thousand people, many of whom were Americans of Serbian
or Russian descent or were affiliated with the Eastern Orthodox Church. There
was little solidarity in the United States and Europe with the people in Serbia
who had become targets of the NATO bombing campaign.
Johnstone
takes a deeper look at the forces at play in Yugoslavia in the 1990s by
highlighting the role that so-called non-governmental organizations played in
getting the Europeans and the United States to side with groups that favored a
splintered Yugoslavia. Like Michael
Parenti does in his To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia,
Johnstone zeroes in on the group Human Rights Watch. She argues that opinion in
Europe and the United States was heavily influenced by the bias of human rights
organizations with government connections. Amnesty International was genuinely
"non-governmental" during the wars of secession in Yugoslavia.
"However, Amnesty has been increasingly upstaged by Human Rights Watch, which
can scarcely be described as 'non-governmental' given its close ties to the
U.S. administration," Johnstone writes.
Johnstone
takes a look at the influence of lobbyists in Washington pushing the agenda of
the various ethnic groups in Yugoslavia. "In the past, ethnic lobbies were
concerned with advancing the domestic condition of their constituents,"
she says. "As the United States has become more of an empire, the focus
has shifted toward committing the American superpower to intervene on the side
of exile groups with a political agenda to change things back home — possibly
gaining a share of influence and power for themselves."
Iraqi
exiles also played a role in the U.S. decision to invade and occupy Iraq. Ahmed
Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress certainly were hoping to gain a toehold
in Baghdad once the United States ousted Saddam. But while U.S. policymakers
said their goals were aligned with these Iraqi exiles, Washington had its own
agenda. These exile groups could be used both to provide legitimacy to the
invasion and to shroud the Bush administration's desire to conquer Iraq in
order to make the country friendlier to U.S. corporate interests.
In
his book, Parenti makes sure the reader understands his aim is not to validate
the rule of Slobodan Milosevic. "Again, it cannot be said too many times:
to reject the demonized image of Milosevic and of the Serbian people is not to
idealize either nor claim that Yugoslav forces have not committed crimes,"
Parenti writes. "It is merely to challenge the one-sided propaganda that
laid the grounds for the imperialist dismemberment of Yugoslavia and NATO's far
greater criminal onslaught."
Johnstone
says the objective of Fools' Crusade is not to recount the whole story
of the NATO wars against Yugoslavia but to put the story in perspective.
"The inevitable selectivity may be reproached as evidence of a 'pro-Serb'
bias," she says. "Inasmuch as the dominant mainstream bias has been
blatantly anti-Serb, this is unavoidable in an effort to recover a fair balance."
The
NATO war against Serbia in the 1990s was no more a humanitarian intervention
than former NATO Supreme Commander Wesley
Clark is an antiwar candidate for the 2004 presidency. Both claims are
fabrications used to win the support of the political center-left.
As
Johnstone shows, NATO actions in 1999 included the deliberate bombing of
civilian targets, such as bridges far from Kosovo and petrochemical plants
releasing huge amounts of dangerous chemicals into the environment, as well as
the use of cluster bombs against a civilian population. While the war against
Serbia and invasion of Iraq catered to different constituencies, the actions
were similar in that they involved military aggression against sovereign
nations that had not violated or even threatened the territories of the
invading forces.
Mark Hand is editor of Press Action,
where this article first appeared (www.pressaction.com).
He can be reached at: mark@pressaction.com
* The
Cascading Power of a Myth
* The Struggle
Against Going Mainstream
* Cockburn
and the Workers World Party