Library:To kill a nation/Introduction: whom do we believe?

This book deals with the lies our leaders have been telling us for more than a decade about events in the former Yugoslavia, and how these events fit into the broader context of US global policy. In the pages ahead I investigate the conflicts leading to the dismemberment of that country, and the interests motivating US leaders and their NATO allies.

I am not one of those critics who think that Western policy vis-à-vis Yugoslavia has been misdirected or confused. Top policy makers are intelligent, resourceful, and generally more aware of what they are doing than those who see them as foolish and bungling. US policy is not filled with contradictions and inconsistencies. It has performed brilliantly and steadily in the service of those who own most of the world and who want to own all of it. That some critics may not know what policy makers are doing does not mean the policy makers themselves do not know what they are doing. That Western leaders make misleading statements about their goals and intentions does not denote confusion on their part but a desire to confuse their publics as to what interests they are really serving. That they are misleading others does not mean that they are themselves misled, although of course there are times when they make mistakes and suffer bafflement in regard to tactics and timing.

But seldom are they confused about their opposition to socialism, and their dedication to free-market globalization and what they euphemistically call democratic reforms. In the last decade or so, they have become more open about the powerful economic interests behind their pursuit of "democracy." And whenever democracy actually begins to work too well, whenever it begins to thwart or limit the neoliberal free-market agenda rather than act as its legitimating cloak, their dedication readily shifts from free-market democracy to free-market autocracy.

I will argue that Western intervention in Yugoslavia has not been benign but ruthlessly selfish, not confused but well directed, given the interests that the interventionists serve. The motive behind the intervention was not NATO's newfound humanitarianism but a desire to put Yugoslavia — along with every other country — under the suzerainty of free-market globalization. I am not the only one who sees the conflict this way; the decision-makers themselves do too. As I will show, they have been far more concerned about privatization and neoliberal "reforms" (rollbacks) than about the well-being of the various Yugoslav peoples.

Western leaders talk of peace, and perpetrate merciless wars. They call for democracy while supporting ex-Nazis and fostering despotic intercessions. They hail self-determination while exercising coercive colonial rule over other peoples. They denounce ethnic cleansing while practicing it themselves. This is what I shall attempt to demonstrate in the pages ahead.

Much of the debate about the Yugoslav conflict revolves around questions like: Whom do we believe? What sources do we rely on? Is it the free and independent Western media or Belgrade's government-controlled press? I would answer as follows: The US media, as with most of the news media in other Western nations, are not free and independent. They are owned and controlled by largely conservative corporate cartels that adhere to the self-serving neoliberal ideology of inter- national finance capital. The goal of these politico-economic elites is to transform the world into a global economy under the tutelage of the transnational corporations, backed by the unanswerable imperial might of the United States and its allies. A key component of that global strategy, of course, entails capitalist restoration within the former Communist countries. The corporate-owned media seldom stray too far from that dominant ideological paradigm, not only in the news that is reported but also in its editorials, commentaries, and opinion pieces. To the extent that journalists raise critical questions about policy, it is almost always at the operational level: "Are the bombings proving effective?" "Is the refugee problem under control?" Never do they question the underlying presumptions that brought about the bombings and created the refugees.

The publicly owned media, such as PBS and NPR in the United States or the BBC in Britain are not much better. They cannot be considered free and independent either. They function in an enduring political culture, subject to pressures from those who fund them (including, in the case of PBS and NPR, the federal government and large corporations). And they are no more immune to the hegemonic ideology than other mainstream institutions. Indeed, the public media have shown themselves to be eager cheerleaders for the official line on Yugoslavia.

So corporate-dominated media rather faithfully reflect the line put out by corporate-dominated political leaders, those decision makers who build their careers in service to the economic powers that be. In regard to Yugoslavia, the Western press dropped all pretense at critical independence and — with some notable exceptions — went into overdrive to demonize the Serbs and create the sensationalist justification for NATO's destabilizing and violent interventions.

If Western sources are not reliable, can we rely on Yugoslav sources? While no doubt intent upon giving only their side of the story, Belgrade's official releases might contain useful and reliable information. Thus if Belgrade reported that the mass graves which supposedly littered Kosovo were nowhere to be found once the NATO forces occupied that province, or that Albanian separatists destroyed eighty Serbian Orthodox churches, monasteries, and other religious edifices in Kosovo since the NATO occupation, there is no reason to assume ipso facto that these stories are fabrications. In fact, both reports proved true, and were even given some passing attention in the Western press, though with a rather different spin. Furthermore, Belgrade's side of the story is one we never get in the West (where, supposedly, we get all sides of the story). For that reason alone, Belgrade sources might deserve some attention.

In any case, I want to point out that almost all the information used in this book emanates from well-established Western sources: the European Union, the European Commission (executive arm of the EU), the European Community's Committee on Women's Rights, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and its Kosovo Verification Mission, the UN War Crimes Commission and various other UN commissions and reports, the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), various State Department reports, the US Drug Enforcement Agency, and Western European drug enforcement units, the German Foreign Office and German Defense Ministry reports, the International Crisis Group, Amnesty International, and the International Red Cross.

In addition, I rely on members of the US Congress, including a former US Senate majority leader, along with a former US State Department official under the Bush administration, a former deputy commander of the US European command, and several UN and NATO generals and international negotiators. I also note the critical and neglected comments of Spanish air force pilots, forensic teams, and UN monitors.

For general information, I draw not only upon progressive sources like CovertAction Quarterly and the International Action Center, but also the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Le Monde Diplomatique, London Times, Toronto Star, Foreign Affairs, Christian Century, Economist, US News and World Report, and various other US, British, Canadian, and French mainstream publications.

This raises another question: If we judge the mainstream press and Western official sources to be neither free nor independent and certainly not objective, why should we believe any of what they say? And what would be the criterion whereby we reject or select what is presented? The answer is the same as the one I gave in regard to Yugoslav sources. That a source is neither independent nor objective does not mean it cannot contain revealing information, often buried in relatively obscure places. Generally, mainstream information that goes against the mainstream's own dominant paradigm is likely to be reliable; it certainly cannot be dismissed as self-serving. Thus if the New York Times or the EU or the CIA or whatever publication, organization, or agency prints a particular item or account of events that contradicts what it usually maintains, then that would seem to be of special note: after all, they said it themselves. If the CIA were to admit, after years of denial, that it had a hand in the Central American drug trade, as some of its operatives have indeed testified under oath, then we can believe the CIA in that instance. If the Serbs were to admit that atrocities were committed by their paramilitaries, as indeed they have admitted, then the hostile reader could accept this as a reliable datum even though it came from Serbian sources — or especially since it came from Serbian sources.

Furthermore, there happens to be a public record that reveals a great deal of information normally ignored by Western propagandists. Thus, my argument against the hypocrisies of the Rambouillet agreement is not drawn from Belgrade sources but from my reading of the Rambouillet agreement itself. And my argument that Western leaders are intent upon foisting the inequities and hardships of the free-market upon Yugoslavia and other nations is supported by what Western leaders repeatedly and explicitly have said and done on behalf of free-market rollbacks in Yugoslavia and elsewhere. I do not have to go to Belgrade sources to support that point.

Finally, even when they are lying, the powers that be often reveal more than they intend. They sometimes can be hoisted on their own petards, given the disparities between their words and actions, given the contradictions and improbabilities of certain of their postures. There are some people who grow indignant at the suggestion that their political leaders lie to them, especially in regard to foreign policy. To suggest as much is to indulge in "conspiracy theories," they maintain. In fact, US presidents never lie so much as when they talk about US foreign policy. In the public stances he took in regard to Yugoslavia, Bill Clinton proved himself a professional liar. When dealing with what he and his associates have said, we can, without turning to alternative sources, point to the lack of evidence to support their claims, and to the contrary evidence suggested by their actions. And we can note their persistent manipulation of images and labels by which they have tried to short-circuit our critical thinking and make evidence itself irrelevant. As is frequently the case, liars can be the best witnesses against themselves.

So I invite the reader to consider an alternative approach, one that is in short supply in the Western corporate communication universe. I believe the public has not been told the whole story, the true story about the relentless attack on Yugoslavia. To arrive at a closer approximation of the truth is the first duty of a democratic citizenry. Only then can people exercise some control over their leaders rather than being led around by them. We owe this much to ourselves and to the people of the various nations still targeted by the Western militarists and free-marketeers.