TROUBLING QUESTIONS ABOUT RAMBOUILLET | |
|
Original!
16. April, 1999. Klintonova administracija neprekidno tvrdi kako je bombardovanje neophodno zato što Milošević odbija da pristane na pregovore, citirajući njegovo odbijanje teksta iz Rambujea. No, da li je Rambuje predstavljao prave pregovore ili ultimatum? Neki tvrde kako je Srpski parlament "izglasao bombardovanje" odbijanjem NATO trupa kako je bilo zacrtano u Rambujeu. "The New York Times" u svom broju od 8. Aprila izveštava da je "neposredno pre nego što je bombardovanje počelo, u momentu kada je srpski parlament odbio NATO trupe na Kosovu, istovremeno i podržao ideju da snage Ujedinjenih Nacija nadgledaju sprovođenje političkog rešenja." Da li je Administracija počela bombardovanje zato što je odbacila ideju o UN trupama insistirajući na angažmanu NATO trupa? Da li je iz tog razloga blokiran nedavni mirovni plan Nemačke? Tekst iz Rambujea od 23. februara, mesec dana pre početka bombardovanja, sadrži stavke koje bi NATO-u dozvolile da okupira celokupnu Saveznu Republiku Jugoslaviju, a ne samo Kosovo. Izvodi iz Dodatka (B): 7. Personal NATO-a će imati imunitet od bilo kakve forme privođenja, istrage, ili lišavanja slobode od strane vlasti SRJ. 8. Personal NATO-a će uživati... slobodan i neograničen prolaz kao i slobodan pristup svuda u SRJ uključujući odgovarajući vazdušni prostor i teritorijalne vode. 11. NATO-u se dozvoljava upotreba aerodroma, puteva, pruga i luka bez naknade... 15. [NATO će imati] pravo da koristi ceo elektomagnetni spektar... Kompetentni analitičari koji su na raspolaganju za diskusiju o ovom pitanju su: |
Original!
April 16, 1999. The Clinton administration has repeatedly claimed that bombing is necessary because Milosevic would not agree to negotiations, citing his refusal to accept the Rambouillet text. But did Rambouillet represent real negotiations or an ultimatum? Some have said that the Serbian parliament "voted to be bombed" because it refused NATO troops as outlined in Rambouillet. But The New York Times has reported (April 8) that "just before the bombing, when [the Serbian parliament] rejected NATO troops in Kosovo, it also supported the idea of a United Nations force to monitor a political settlement there." Did the administration start bombing because it rejected the idea of a UN force and insisted on a NATO one? Has that insistence blocked the recent German peace plan? The Rambouillet text of Feb. 23, a month before NATO began bombing, contains provisions that seem to have provided for NATO to occupy the entire Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, not just Kosovo. Excerpts from Appendix (B): 7. NATO personnel shall be immune from any form of arrest, investigation, or detention by the authorities in the FRY. 8. NATO personnel shall enjoy... free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. 11. NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rails and ports without payment... 15. [NATO shall have] the right to use all of the electromagnetic spectrum... Analysts available to discuss this key matter include: | ROBERT HAYDEN, SETH ACKERMAN, JAN OBERG, tff@transnational.org, www.transnational.org/ pressinf/index.html Director of the Transnational Foundation (TFF) in Sweden SAM HUSSEINI, JULIANNE SMITH, ALISTAIR MILLAR, For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy: Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; David Zupan, (541) 484-9167 |