This is a document in Serbian
and English
where you can find various
information concerning
the NATO military action
against Serbia.
Philip Hammond
In its war against Yugoslavia, Nato has tried to silence
all debate,
criticism and dissent. The most grotesque instance of
this was the
bombing of the Serbian television building, killing an
estimated 10
civilians and injuring dozens more. Prime Minister Tony
Blair described
this as 'entirely justified'. The attack was allegedly
carried out in
the name of Truth, since the station produces propaganda.
The
image-conscious Blair explained that television is part
of the
'apparatus' which keeps a political leader in power,
so camera
operators, make-up ladies and janitors are therefore
legitimate targets.
Perhaps Nato also hoped reports by Western journalists
in Belgrade -
filed from the TV building until it was hit - would become
collateral
damage. Certainly in Britain politicians have sought
to stifle opinions
and facts they do not like, most conspicuously by portraying
John
Simpson's reports as Serbian propaganda. What are they
scared of?
First, they are worried by suggestions that the Serbian
people are
united against Nato. Defence Secretary George Robertson
argued
unconvincingly that if an opinion poll were conducted
in Serbia it would
not show the united opposition Simpson had reported.
Second, they are
uncomfortable about interviewers questioning the success
of Nato
strategy. Development Secretary Claire Short, for example,
did a bad
impersonation of the 'clever dick' questions asked by
the likes of John
Humphries. Third, politicians have been rattled by reports
of civilian
damage and death caused by Nato, which began to come
out within the
first 24 hours of the bombing campaign and have continued
steadily
since.
'I only, as Nato spokesman, give out information when
it is totally
accurate and confirmed', Jamie Shea told Channel Four
News. In fact
Nato information has been about as accurate as its bombs
- several of
which have landed outside Yugoslavia's borders. In this
interview, Shea
was giving out the 'totally accurate and confirmed' information
that two
Yugoslav pilots had been captured after their planes
were shot down over
Bosnia while they were attempting to attack Nato peacekeepers
there.
Nato later admitted no pilots had been captured and the
MiG fighters did
not have ground attack capability. We have since been
fed a string of
stories - that 20 schoolteachers were killed in front
of their pupils,
that Pristina stadium was being used as a concentration
camp, that the
paramilitary leader Arkan was in Kosovo, that President
Slobodan
Milosevic's family had fled the country, that Kosovo
Albanian leaders
had been executed - all of which turned out to be false.
Nato even lied about its intention to bomb Serbian television.
We were
told people in Yugoslavia do not have access to the Western
side of the
story - though in fact they do - and that airstrikes
would follow unless
Serbian TV carried six hours a day of Western news programming.
When
Belgrade offered to accept the six hours in exchange
for six minutes of
Yugoslav news on Western networks, Nato backtracked,
saying it had only
meant it would bomb transmitters also used for military
communications.
Nato also explicitly assured the International Federation
of Journalists
it would not target media workers. What are we to make
of an
organisation which kills others because it says they
are lying, but
consistently lies itself?
Hitting civilian targets has been the most sensitive issue
for Nato.
The technique for stage-managing the release of such
information is to
begin with a bare-faced lie, in the hope that the first
headlines will
leave a lasting impression. This is followed by an admission
of limited
culpability, designed to indicate Nato's honesty and
openness whilst
continuing to imply the enemy is at least partly to blame.
This
procedure was established over the damage caused to civilian
areas of
Pristina, which Nato initially tried to pin on the Serbs.
They then
admitted 'one bomb' may have been 'seduced off the target'
- as if the
Serbs were willing reluctant Nato bombs to hit them.
The same strategy
was adopted to explain the attack on the refugee convoy:
the Serbs were
blamed, then Nato admitted to hitting one tractor.
British broadcasters have drawn some self-flattering comparisons,
suggesting that whilst Serbian TV is a propaganda machine,
our news is
impartial and balanced. It is true that some has been,
particularly
reporting by correspondents in Serbia able to see the
results of Nato
bombardment. But back in the studio there is a tendency
to stick
slavishly to the Nato line. When Simpson reported from
the site of the
downed US Stealth aircraft, his colleagues in London
insisted Nato had
not yet confirmed a plane had been shot down. Similarly,
Sky's
presenter tried to question the credibility of a report
by their
Belgrade correspondent Tim Marshall on the bombing of
the refugee
convoy, even though Marshall maintained his sources were
reliable.
Of course, even in London newsrooms there are honourable
exceptions.
Channel Four's Alex Thompson introduced some Nato cockpit
video footage
by remarking pointedly that it was 'impossible to verify
independently'. Yet his self-consciously even-handed
use of this phrase
was striking precisely because it was a departure from
the norm. Most
of the time, official briefings are faithfully reproduced
complete with
pictures supplied by Nato and the Ministry of Defence,
and the prepared
soundbites of politicians and military spokesmen are
parroted by
journalists. For example, when it became clear that airstrikes
were
precipitating a humanitarian crisis rather than achieving
the stated
purpose of preventing one, Nato covered its embarrassment
by saying it
needed to 'catch up'. This euphemistic description of
intensified
bombing was dutifully repeated by Mark Laity, the BBC's
man in Brussels,
on both the evening's bulletins.
The problems with the coverage run deeper than an insufficiently
questioning attitude toward official sources, however.
Some journalists
have actively taken the part of Nato. When Robert Fisk's
article in the
Independent contradicted the outlandish claim that the
Serbs had bombed
Pristina themselves, one British television correspondent
stood up at
the briefing in Brussels and urged his fellow reporters
not to ask Nato
any awkward questions. Allegiances have been signalled
in more subtle
ways too. Reports which take us on board planes flying
missions over
Yugoslavia invite viewers to identify with Nato just
as much as the
'bomb's eye view' cockpit video. Coming under fire with
the Kosovo
Liberation Army inside Kosovo, Jonathan Charles spoke
romantically of
'the men who dream of liberating Kosovo' as 'a symbol
of hope for ethnic
Albanians', while Channel Five News offered a human-interest
story about
the family of a Kosovo Albanian who had left Britain
to join the KLA.
Many seem to have bought into the simplistic 'Good versus
Evil' morality
with which politicians have framed the conflict, and
have joined in with
Nato's demonisation of Milosevic and the Serbs. A Panorama
special
exhorted Nato leaders to prosecute Milosevic for war
crimes. Brian
Barron went to Montenegro in search of the 'grizzly details'
of the
'troubled history' of the Milosevic 'clan'. Jeremy Paxman
suggested a
programme of 'thoroughgoing imposed de-Nazification'
for post-war
Serbia, echoing the view voiced by everyone from government
ministers to
the Sun newspaper that the Serbs are the new Nazis.
The heavy-handed moralism has made it difficult to ask
questions,
especially about the plight of refugees. Yet questions
demand to be
asked: about the reasons for their flight, and the tales
of atrocities
they bring with them. Judging from British news reports,
these must be
the first airstrikes in history no-one has fled. Even
when told they
had been bombed by Nato, survivors of the attack on the
convoy blamed
the Serbs. This gives some indication of the reliability
of refugees'
statements. From the viewpoint of ethnic Albanians who
welcome Nato
action, such statements are understandable. But this
does not explain
why Western reporters should accept them, nor why the
hundreds of
thousands of Serbs displaced by Nato attacks are routinely
ignored.
Rather than admitting they don't know what is happening
inside Kosovo,
correspondents on the border repeat every horror story.
The fact such
accounts are uncorroborated is countered by the mantra
that refugees'
claims are 'consistent and credible', despite sometimes
flimsy
evidence. The experience of Bosnia is cited as support
for the tales of
'systematic mass rape', for example. Yet despite claims
that more than
50,000 Muslim women were raped by Serbs in Bosnia, a
1993 United Nations
commission scaled down to 2,400 victims - including Serbs
and Croats -
based on 119 documented cases.
No doubt civilians are being killed and terrorised from
their homes by
Yugoslav forces in Kosovo, just as Serbian civilians
are being killed
and terrorised by Nato bombing across Yugoslavia as a
whole. That's
war. But the focus on atrocity stories obscures what
little we do know
of what is happening: a military campaign against armed
separatists.
Occasionally, this hidden story leaks through. Panorama
repeatedly
mentioned attacks on 'KLA strongholds'. A Newsnight report
on 'video
evidence of the killings of civilians' let slip that
at least one of the
six 'civilians' was a KLA member and another a strong
KLA supporter.
But it generally appears no KLA members are ever killed,
and no-one is
killed by them.
Every war produces atrocity stories, and it is difficult
to chart a
course through propaganda and rumour. A useful start
would be to
discount the obviously ludicrous claims, such as the
story of the 'mass
graves'. Nato asked us not only to accept a grainy aerial
photograph as
evidence of atrocities, but also to believe that the
Serbs forced ethnic
Albanians to dress up in orange uniforms and bury the
dead in 'neat rows
of graves facing Mecca', in the words of Nato general
Guiseppe Marani.
Presumably this too was 'totally accurate and confirmed'?
Philip Hammond is senior lecturer in media at South Bank
University, and
worked as a consultant on BBC2's Counterblast: Against
the War (4 May).
Email: hammonpb@sbu.ac.uk
Dobro smo, zivi i zdravi, malo
zaplaseni, ali uglavnom nema
zrtava, nema stete (velike)
na civilnim objektima, tako da se
polako navikavamo na treci dan
uzbuna. Povremeno cujemo da grune
nesto. Povremeno i u daljini
vidimo da bljesne i grune nesto.
Pogadjaju precizno ono sto hoce
da pogode. Culi smo da nece
civile.
Maks i Anica vas pozdravljaju.
Dobro smo. Nije prijatno, ali
poznavaoci ratnih prilika kazu
da je ovo samo mala sala u odnosu
na pravi rat. Znaci nema potrebe
da se mnogo brinete za nas, za
sada smo dobro i zajedno.
Aca
Beograd, 28.03.1999.
kod nas je sve OK, svi smo na
okupu, mama i tata imaju radnu
obavezu, pa rade (daju otkaze
ako jedan dan ne dodjes na posao),
baka je sa nama, igramo karte,
ja pisem maturski i ucim za
prijemni koliko mogu, sa nama
su i neke moje drugarice...
Maks i Anica vas pozdravljaju,
dobro su, u prodavnicama ima
svega, tako da ne brinete.
Inace, sirene se zacuju obicno
tek posle buma, tako da je
najbezbednije dok traje vazdusna
opasnost. Ljudi se setaju, vise
im je svega dosta.
Mozda vam prikazuju protest protiv
NATO u Beogradu - svi pevaju i
nose mete na sebi. Stvarno smo
lud narod. Sada su se svi nalozili
da Sloba ne treba da potpisuje,
vecina je za njega, a jedini
nacin da se ovo zavrsi je bas
potpisivanje. Nadamo se da ce ovo
brzo da se zavrsi i pozdravljamo
vas mnogo.
Irena
Beograd, 28.03.1999.
Saljite poruke bar na ove adrese:
president@whitehouse.gov
vice.president@whitehouse.gov
secretary@state.gov
first.lady@whitehouse.gov
mrs.gore@whitehouse.gov
http://www.suc.org pod "no bombs".
Azurni spisak senatorskih adresa
cemo kompilirati uskoro (mada
vidi pod senate.gov). Poruka
kratka i jasna, "No NATO in Kosovo"
(i u zaglavlju) ili bilo sta
slicno, jer sad traze "puls nacije",
ostalo je jasno... i sirite
dalje vest sto vise...
E-mail-ovi svih US senatora (drugi izvor):
The Senate is reconvening at
10 a.m. for the debate on Kosovo. By
2 p.m. they will need 60 votes
(out of 100).
1. Below are emails (as available)
for the 105th Congress (last
year). I do not have a list
for current Congress, but there
aren't that many changes; I've
updated as much as possible.
You can always reach your own
senators through www.senate.gov/
2. If you haven't already sent
a message, the 'E-Z Action' is
repeated after the Senate E-mail
list. It already contains emails
of Senators leading effort to
stop U.S. military involvement.
BUT IT IS CRITICAL THAT YOUR OWN SENATORS HEAR FROM YOU TOO.
3. If you sent a message yesterday,
send another one today. It
can be a one liner if that is
all you have time for, for example:
"A war against Serbia will be
wrong and costly. Don't do it!"
Email Directory
Alabama
Sessions, Jeff (R), senator@sessions.senate.gov
Shelby, Richard C. (R), senator@shelby.senate.gov
Alaska
Murkowski, Frank H. (R), email@murkowski.senate.gov
Stevens, Ted (R), senator_stevens@stevens.senate.gov
Arizona
Kyl, Jon (R), info@kyl.senate.gov
McCain, John (R), senator_mccain@mccain.senate.gov
Arkansas
Bumpers, Dale (D), senator@bumpers.senate.gov
Hutchinson, Tim (R), senator.hutchinson@hutchinson.senate.gov
California
Boxer, Barbara (D), senator@boxer.senate.gov
Feinstein, Dianne (D),senator@feinstein.senate.gov
Colorado
Allard, Wayne (R), http://www.senate.gov/~allard/webform.html
Connecticut
Dodd, Christopher J. (D), sen_dodd@dodd.senate.gov
Lieberman, Joseph I. (D), senator_lieberman@lieberman.senate.gov
Delaware
Biden, Joseph R., Jr. (D), senator@biden.senate.gov
Roth William V., Jr. (R), comments@roth.senate.gov
Florida
Graham, Bob (D), bob_graham@graham.senate.gov
Mack, Connie (R), connie@mack.senate.gov
Georgia
Cleland, Max (D), senator_max_cleland@cleland.senate.gov
Coverdell, Paul (R),senator_coverdell@coverdell.senate.gov
Hawaii
Inouye, Daniel K. (D), senator@inouye.senate.gov
Idaho
Craig, Larry E. (R), larry_craig@craig.senate.gov
Illinois
Durbin, Richard (D), dick@durbin.senate.gov
Moseley-Braun, Carol (D),senator@moseley-braun.senate.gov
Indiana
Lugar, Richard (R), senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
Iowa
Grassley, Chuck (R), chuck_grassley@grassley.senate.gov
Harkin, Tom (D), tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov
Kansas
Brownback, Sam (R), sam_brownback@brownback.senate.gov
Roberts, Pat (R), pat_roberts@roberts.senate.gov
Kentucky
Ford, Wendell H. (D),wendell_ford@ford.senate.gov
McConnell, Mitch (R),senator@mcconnell.senate.gov
Louisiana
Breaux, John B. (D), senator@breaux.senate.gov
Landrieu, Mary (D), senator@landrieu.senate.gov
Maine
Collins, Susan (R), senator@collins.senate.gov
Snowe, Olympia J. (R), olympia@snowe.senate.gov
Maryland
Mikulski, Barbara A. (D), senator@mikulski.senate.gov
Sarbanes, Paul S. (D), senator@sarbanes.senate.gov
Massachusetts
Kennedy, Edward M. (D), senator@kennedy.senate.gov
Kerry, John F. (D), john_kerry@kerry.senate.gov
Michigan
Abraham, Spencer (R), michigan@abraham.senate.gov
Levin, Carl (D), senator@levin.senate.gov
Minnesota
Grams, Rod (R), mail_grams@grams.senate.gov
Wellstone, Paul D. (D), senator@wellstone.senate.gov
Mississippi
Cochran, Thad (R), senator@cochran.senate.gov
Lott, Trent (R), senatorlott@lott.senate.gov
Missouri
Ashcroft, John (R), john_ashcroft@ashcroft.senate.gov
Bond, Christopher S. (R), kit_bond@bond.senate.gov
Montana
Baucus, Max (D), max@baucus.senate.gov
Burns, Conrad R. (R), conrad_burns@burns.senate.gov
Nebraska
Hagel, Charles (R), chuck_hagel@hagel.senate.gov
Kerrey, J. Robert (D), bob@kerrey.senate.gov
Nevada
Bryan, Richard H. (D), senator@bryan.senate.gov
Reid, Harry (D), senator_reid@reid.senate.gov
New Hampshire
Gregg, Judd (R), mailbox@gregg.senate.gov
Smith, Bob (R), opinion@smith.senate.gov
New Jersey
Lautenberg, Frank R. (D), frank_lautenberg@lautenberg.senate.gov
Torricelli, Robert (D), senator_torricelli@torricelli.senate.gov
New Mexico
Bingaman, Jeff (D), senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov
Domenici, Pete V. (R), senator_domenici@domenici.senate.gov
New York
D'Amato, Alfonse M. (R), senator_al@damato.senate.gov
Moynihan, Daniel Patrick (D),
senator@dpm.senate.gov
North Carolina
Faircloth, Lauch (R), senator@faircloth.senate.gov
Helms, Jesse (R), jesse_helms@helms.senate.gov
North Dakota
Dorgan, Byron L. (D), senator@dorgan.senate.gov
Ohio
DeWine, Mike (R), senator_dewine@dewine.senate.gov
Glenn, John (D), senator_glenn@glenn.senate.gov
Oklahoma
Inhofe, James M. (R), jim_inhofe@inhofe.senate.gov
Nickles, Don (R), senator@nickles.senate.gov
Oregon
Smith, Gordon (R), http://www.senate.gov/~gsmith/webform.html
Wyden, Ron (D), senator@wyden.senate.gov
Pennsylvania
Santorum, Rick (R), senator@santorum.senate.gov
Specter, Arlen (R), senator_specter@specter.senate.gov
Rhode Island
Chafee, John H. (R), senator_chafee@chafee.senate.gov
Reed, Jack (D), http://www.senate.gov/~reed/mailform.htm
South Carolina
Hollings, Ernest F.
(D),
http://www.senate.gov/~hollings/webform.html
Thurmond, Strom (R), senator@thurmond.senate.gov
South Dakota
Daschle, Thomas A. (D), tom_daschle@daschle.senate.gov
Johnson, Tim. (D), tim@johnson.senate.gov
Tennessee
Frist, William H. (R), senator_frist@frist.senate.gov
Thompson, Fred (R), senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov
Texas
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R), senator@hutchison.senate.gov
Utah
Bennett, Robert F. (R), senator@bennett.senate.gov
Hatch, Orrin G. (R), senator_hatch@hatch.senate.gov
Vermont
Jeffords, James M. (R), vermont@jeffords.senate.gov
Leahy, Patrick J. (D), senator_leahy@leahy.senate.gov
Virginia
Robb, Charles S. (D), http://www.senate.gov/~robb/webform.html
Warner, John W. (R), senator@warner.senate.gov
Washington
Gorton, Slade (R), senator_gorton@gorton.senate.gov
Murray, Patty (D), senator_murray@murray.senate.gov
West Virginia
Byrd, Robert C. (D), senator_byrd@byrd.senate.gov
Rockefeller, John D., IV (D),
senator@rockefeller.senate.gov
Wisconsin
Feingold, Russell D. (D), senator@feingold.senate.gov
Kohl, Herb (D), senator_kohl@kohl.senate.gov
Wyoming
Enzi, Mike (R), senator@enzi.senate.gov
Thomas, Craig (R), craig@thomas.senate.gov
primer pisma (za americke Srbe):
TO: Senator Robert Smith <opinion@smith.senate.gov,
Senator Larry Craig <larry_craig@craig.senate.gov,
Senator Don Nickles <senator@nickles.senate.gov,
Senator James Inhofe <Jim_Inhofe@inhofe.senate.gov,
Senator Trent Lott <senatorlott@lott.senate.gov,
Senator Kay Hutchison <senator@hutchison.senate.gov,
Senator Robert Kerrey <bob@kerrey.senate.gov
CC: YOUR SENATOR 1
YOUR SENATOR 2
SUBJECT: NO US WAR IN SERBIA
Honorable Senators, I support,
and urge you to continue, your
immediate action to stop the
Clinton Administration's plan to
bomb Serbia, Yugoslavia.
This plan:
1. Promotes the goals of groups
engaged in terrorism and heroin
trafficking.
2. Destabilizes the entire region,
risking a wide and long-term
war in Europe.
3. Is an Act of War against a
sovereign nation which has not
threatened our country or any
other country. And all this at
great expense to U.S. taxpayers.
For these reasons and more, the
Clinton Administration's entire
policy on the Balkans is
completely against the interests
of the American people. It is
scandalous. Please bring a stop
to it.
Respectfully, YOUR NAME YOUR ADDRESS
Jos neke adrese:
Glasajte na svim bitnijim lokacijama vezanim za nasu situaciju.
Prosli put smo ih pobedili - i sada cemo!
Na adresama http://www.dejanews.com/
i http://www.liszt.com/
pronadjite sto veci broj news
grupa i mailing lista koje se bave
politikom generalno i tematikom
Jugoslavije i Kosova i ucestvujte
u diskusijama. Vodite racuna
o pravilima na ovim diskusionim
grupama i saljite poruke sa
cinjenicama kojih ima dovoljno u nasu
korist. Svaka argumentovana
diskusija na ozbiljnim news grupama i
mailing listama puno znaci.
Cim nadjete ovakve diskusione grupe,
razmenite ih sa svima onima
koji dobro znaju engleski jezik.
Pisite reakcije na clanke u svim
vecim novinama i casopisima na
Internetu koji se bave nasom
Zemljom. Vaze ista pravila pisanja
kao i za news grupe i mailing
liste. Liste vaznijih medija mozete
pronaci na adresi http://www.mediacentar.opennet.org/
i
http://www.totalnews.com/. Na
http://www.pretraga.co.yu/yuguide/
mozete pronaci direktorijum
nasih pretrazivaca, ako zelite da
pronadjete nase adrese sa aktuelnim
informacijama, sa vise
razlicitih mesta.
Ne znam sta je ovo, i ovo sam nasao:
http://www.suc.org/events/No_Bombs.html
Koristite mIRC i ostala chat
mesta na Webu gde se moze polemisati
na ovu temu. Preporuka je pronaci
ozbiljne diskusije kojih
sigurno ima. Na zvanicnim prezentacijama
drzava pronadjite email
adrese bitnih politicara i pisite
im. Ovo verovatno nece uroditi
necim pozitivnim po nas, ali
mozda moze da im skrene paznju broj
pisama. U jednoj recenici: Sve
sto pronadjete, a eventualno moze
da pomogne da bombardovanje
prestane - iskoristite.