KK-Forum,
nytt fra FAIR:
'Washington Post a "Useful Tool" for NATO?
Paper's coverage distorts facts about Kosovo war crimes'
se artikkel på
http://www.fair.org/reports/post-war-crimes.html
WP feilinformerer og bagatelliserer anklagene mot NATO for
krigsforbrytelser, men likevel:
"Ironically, some of the clearest evidence that some NATO strikes seriously
breached the Geneva Conventions can be found in the Washington Post's own
reporting. For example, a front-page article last year by military reporter
Dana Priest ("Bombing by Committee: France Balked at NATO Targets," 9/20/99)
recounted the decision-making processes behind several NATO targeting
decisions. According to Priest, at one point, British "Foreign Secretary
Robin Cook questioned strikes on power lines affecting a large hospital in
Belgrade. But the group brought him around."
In another episode, shortly before a planned missile strike on the
headquarters of Milosevic's ruling Socialist Party--which was located in a
residential neighborhood of Belgrade--an internal memo assessing the likely
civilian destruction was distributed among NATO leaders:
"Next to a photograph of the party headquarters, the document said:
'Collateral damage: Tier 3 -- High. Casualty Estimate: 50-100
Government/Party employees. Unintended Civ Casualty Est: 250 -- Apts in
expected blast radius.'
"In short, NATO anticipated that the attack could, in the worst case, kill
up to 350 people, including 250 civilians living in nearby apartment
buildings.
"Washington and London approved the target, but the French were reluctant,
noting that the party headquarters also housed Yugoslav television and radio
studios. 'In some societies, the idea of killing journalists--well, we were
very nervous about that,' said a French diplomat."
Ultimately, Paris went along. But in going ahead with the attack, NATO
appears to have directly breached Article 51 of the Geneva Convention
(Protocol I), which prohibits any
"attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life,
injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof,
which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military
advantage anticipated."
Knut Rognes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 12:52:12 MET