Waco II -- Serbia
From: Gary Hunt at the Outpost of Freedom in Mesa, Arizona
Date: May 11, 1999The Road to Basra
NATO holds two conferences on most days. The first is held at about 10:00 AM and is a ‘backgrounder". It appears that it is held to determine what will be addressed, and to be prepared for, the subsequent 3:00 PM televised briefing. I have excerpted pertinent parts. I have avoided the Chinese Embassy issue, for the establishment press is doing quite well in explaining, or trying to, NATO’s position.
As you follow the questions and answers, understand that the press is trying to find out what is really gong on – if there is impartiality in NATO’s attitude and, if there is any room to allow the ‘war’ to wind down. OPF comments will be in [brackets]
NATO BACKGROUNDER, 10:00 AM, 11 MAY 1999
GIVEN BY JAMIE SHEA, IN BRUSSELS
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MICHAEL:
Jamie, will NATO take steps to facilitate the withdrawal of Serb forces if you do see that they are withdrawing, by which I mean if a column troops were to be leaving the area would NATO refrain from attacking it while continuing its campaign in other parts of Yugoslavia?
JAMIE SHEA:
Michael, for that we have to be convinced that those forces are withdrawing rather than simply relocating, that will be a decision for the operational commanders to take but obviously if those forces are genuinely withdrawing, clearly withdrawing, then we are not going to impede that withdrawal because we want those forces out so that is clear but the military commanders will have to be satisfied that what we are seeing is a sincere, real, significant withdrawal and not simply a feint or a maneuver.
[It seems that Shea was rather reluctant to answer, directly, the question. Remember, Milosevic and his commanders have access to this information.]
JONATHAN MARCUS, BBC:
...phone call from Mr. Milosevic to actually announce a full withdrawal...in the units gathering for whatever purpose, be it to move out of Kosovo or whatever, presumably NATO is still going to hit them. That is question number one.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JAMIE SHEA:
On the first question, Jonathan, it is clear that the NATO air operations will keep up with the same intensity that you see at the moment until the forces of Yugoslavia leave Kosovo, that is one of the essential five conditions of the Alliance that has been reiterated a number of times and the Washington Declaration of the NATO Heads of State just a couple of weeks back makes clear that we will stop the air operation only when we are satisfied that those forces, all of them, are really withdrawing and I think it is going to be clear. We will know it when we see it, it is obvious if this is really something which is total and really going ahead.
["Withdrawing" is an activity in progress. Is it possible that "all of them" could be withdrawn in minutes? I would find it difficult to attempt to withdraw, considering the risk to life that is not addressed in the answer.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
QUESTION:
Jamie, since the Yugoslav tanks head north this is going to kick up a lot of dust but so what, what is the required pattern for NATO to decide that there is a withdrawal? Suppose they just cross into Serbia proper and then they can turn around and come back?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
JAMIE SHEA:
Thank you for those questions. Kosovo is a very small place and you can get a tank out within a matter of an hour or two, or at least quickly, so it is clear when a withdrawal is a withdrawal but again, we are not going to be satisfied with a partial withdrawal. A partial withdrawal is insufficient, we want the full withdrawal. President Milosevic has an enormous number of forces in Kosovo, we know he has 40,000 which is massive for a place which is about the size of Wales in my country. Can you imagine 40,000 troops in Wales and 300-plus tanks? Therefore, a partial withdrawal which leaves the bulk of those security forces still there still carrying out all of their ethnic cleansing activities, still terrorizing the local population simply is not sufficient, they have to go and until such time as they all leave, we are going to keep up all - and I repeat all - of our operations.
[So, now some numbers are put to the magnitude of the task of withdrawal, yet the statement that ‘all of our operations" will continue until "they all leave." "Can you imagine 40,000 troops" trying to leave at once? Shortly, we will address what is a very legitimate concern, considering that the United States is a party to this action.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
SAME QUESTIONER:
A follow-up if I may on the tanks. I understood that the condition set by NATO was for a beginning of a withdrawal to happen.
[As I recall, this was what the Washington conference determined]
JAMIE SHEA:
Yes but the beginning of a full withdrawal, not a question of I"m going to pull out a few tanks as a goodwill gesture but all of the others are going to stay and carry on their offensive operations! We want all of them to turn round, in other words they should see Kosovo in their rear-view mirrors. But what do we know about a partial withdrawal, what does that mean, what is President Milosevic talking about? We have no details on this, number one, nor at the moment do we have an indication that it is taking place. It is facts that impress, words are easy, facts count and we have to await a total withdrawal yes. We want to see not just a couple of tanks turn round while the others press on, all of them have to do a 180-degree turn and start heading north or at least out of Kosovo.
[What would indicate to the bomb happy air jockeys, wielding 2,000-pound bombs from taking a "target of Opportunity" with that many tanks on the move? How do you discern the beginning of a total withdrawal – if not to act in faith?]
JAKE LYNCH, SKY NEWS:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Secondly, to come back to Rick"s question, I am sure it must have crossed Yugoslavian minds in Kosovo the "Road to Basra" incident. If I was one of them, I"d rather leave my tank behind and sneak out so without having somebody on the ground, maybe NATO telling Belgrade "Let some UN observers in to verify!" without having somebody on the ground, how will you know?
[Now, here is the concern. I’m sure that most people have seen some of the footage that demonstrated the United States’ concern for the Iraqi’s withdrawal, as the United States insisted, from Kuwait City. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers literally shot in the back as the fled Kuwait. The cowardly deeds of the American air jockeys will. Forever, represent the immorality and unethical behavior of the Americans when compliance is attempted – whatever cause of that compliance, whether defeat or acquiescence.]
JAMIE SHEA:
When you have 40,000 troops, Jake, and you have 300 tanks and a lot of equipment, you can"t - I don"t believe - carry out on the sly a withdrawal, it will be clear to us. We have sufficient intelligence means, sufficient resources, to clearly identify when we are dealing with a full withdrawal. What we know at the moment is we don"t see it yet and we are going to keep up our military pressure until such time as we do.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE
GIVEN BY MR. JAMIE SHEA AND MAJOR GENERAL WALTER JERTZ
IN BRUSSELS ON TUESDAY, 11 MAY 1999, 3:00 PM
JAMIE SHEA:
Ladies and Gentlemen, all of you have seen by now yesterday"s announcement by Belgrade of a partial troop withdrawal. Obviously, as you can imagine, every tank, every artillery piece, every unit that leaves Kosovo is a step in the right direction. But all Alliance leaders who have spoken on this subject in the last few hours have stressed that a partial withdrawal is insufficient. President Milosevic must comply with all of NATO"s five conditions for resolving the crisis. He cannot pick and choose. There has to be full compliance.
Let me make one thing clear. It is not NATO that is saying No, it is President Milosevic who is saying no to agreeing to the essential conditions for resolving the crisis. President Milosevic has based the rationale for the withdrawal of his forces on the claim that the Kosovo Liberation Army has been defeated. But again we see no evidence for this, just as we see no evidence yet of any withdrawal of Yugoslav forces. Yesterday we know that the Yugoslav Army and the special police forces carried out offensive and security operations throughout Kosovo. In northern Kosovo there was fighting along the Pristina/Podujevo route, and also along the road between Pristina and Kosovska Metrovica. There was also heavy fighting around the Kosare pocket which is currently in the hands of the Kosovo Liberation Army. And in central Kosovo special police, or MUP, units were in action against UCK elements around Suva Reka and Orosevac. We also know that in the north near Junik, the Yugoslav Armed Forces continue to try to close the UCK supply lines.
[So, now another aspect of the problem. If the Yugoslav army did attempt to leave Kosovo, they would not only have to fear NATO bombs, but the KLA/UCK would also be attacking them. They are not allowed to suppress the enemy, but must turn and run – and pray! Remember that this began as a civil war. NATO claims they are not taking sides, yet they don’t attempt to destroy the KLA/UCK supply lines, rather, they complain that Milosevic’s are trying to close them.]
In other words, the claim of President Milosevic that he has defeated the UCK reminds me of Dr Johnston"s dictum about second marriages - the triumph of hope over experience. Indeed rather than withdrawing their forces since Sunday evening at 10.00 pm, the Yugoslav Army and special police seem to be trying harder than ever to capture the remaining Kosovo Liberation Army strongholds and secure their lines of communication.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
The total Serb security forces in Kosovo, a country which has a population of about 800,000 at the moment, now exceeds 40,000, or around 40,000 personnel. Again, one of the highest ratios that you will find anywhere.
[But, wait a minute! NATO keeps telling us that they are diminishing, degrading and destroying the Yugoslavian forces in Kosovo. This is the highest number yet reported, and this is after 49 days of ‘aggressive bombing."]
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
JONATHAN:
Two points. First of all, I don"t mean to be frivolous, but you are talking about the possibilities of a Yugoslav withdrawal. If they are cut off, all the road bridges and highways have been taken down, what feasible means is there for them to depart from Kosovo? And secondly, Jamie, could you say a little more on the planning that is under way for potential air drops for the internally displaced people? Clearly this is going to have to be a completely separate operation from what NATO is doing, but who is going to do the planning for it, who is going to oversee how it might proceed?
[Another problem with no solution.]
GENERAL JERTZ:
Let me start with the first question. Milosevic has to meet our objectives and once he has done that then, I don"t want to by cynical, we help him to get his troops out of the way again.
QUESTION:
How?
GENERAL JERTZ:
We will go into details when it happens. So there are no options at the present time really to discuss this matter because first of all he has to, what we always say, meet the five objectives and then we can discuss with him, or whoever it may be, on how we will be able to help him with the forces.
[Probably as ill conceived as this entire operation.]
QUESTION:
The point I am getting at is that he says he wants to have a partial withdrawal. You don"t accept that clearly, but is it feasible that he could carry out a partial withdrawal given the state of the bridges and so on?
GENERAL JERTZ:
Once again, first of all he has to tell us that he really is doing that and then we can continue the discussion.
[You gotta be kidding!]
JAMIE SHEA:
If I may add a word, Jonathan, he may be announcing a partial withdrawal but he is doing total ethnic cleansing, ergo we keep up the operations in the way we are doing at the moment. When he accepts the five conditions, he accepts them, and he makes that clear to we, the leaders of the Alliance, and when he gives us clear indications that he is really pulling out those forces then that will be the time to address the situation. But this is a hypothetical question because clearly the circumstances are not there yet.
[If this is hypothetical, then Shea has no reason to believe that it will be a reality. What was also hypothetical was that the bombing would force a sovereign nation to bow down and kiss the feet of NATO/US.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
FREDDIE:
You said that the aim was to stop the fighting. But I notice from a plan of the NATO attack last night that the concentration of NATO attacks was in fact on the Serb military forces along the Albanian border. And General Jertz also mentioned that there was considerable UCK activity. From their point of view of course what they are doing is dealing with armed rebels, terrorists, so when there is fighting presumably they have every right to go and fight. The point I am trying to make, it is not a polemical question, I really want to know, NATO is in fact becoming very rapidly the Air Force of the UCK which are now able to develop their attacks because they have got the support of the Air Force?
JAMIE SHEA:
No, we are not, we are the Air Force of the Kosovar Albanian people, Freddie, and there is a very big distinction there. And the fighting is not simply fighting against the UCK. Ask the 9,800 refugees who were pushed into Albania yesterday if the only violence is against the UCK. Clearly it is not, those refugees showed clearly that the violence is still being directed against the civilian population at large.
[The Kosovar Albanian people are the reason for which the UCK exists. This is apparent from the words of the refugees that have been interviewed in Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro. The Albanian civil war for separation from Yugoslavia is being fought be NATO/US forces.]
FREDDIE:
It is a question of who is first, is it the UCK attacking the Serbs or is it the Serbs going at the village because of the UCK and are the UCK then trying to defend the village? I am trying to point this out because there was a very interesting story in the Herald Tribune a few days ago about the village which was left completely alone, the majority ethnic Albanians but no UCK in it and they have been left alone?
JAMIE SHEA:
Freddie, I don"t believe there is any evidence that certain sectors of the Kosovar Albanian population have been spared and as you know Milosevic has shown every sign of concentrating on particular areas. We have had in the last couple of weeks, beginning with Djakovica, moving on to Prizren, now he is up at Pec, having begun at Podujevo in the north. So I don"t believe that any Kosovar Albanian can feel safe quite frankly and I don"t think any of them do, certainly not by the fact that they flee their homes and hide in the woods, whatever, and are constantly on the move and are trying in large numbers to leave. So that doesn"t suggest that there are any sanctuaries. And the fact remains that the Serb forces are operating against the population as a whole. I think the idea that this is a UCK village is frankly a pitiable excuse for ethnic cleansing, quite frankly. There is no evidence of that. And secondly, what has happened, and I have pointed this out in previous briefings, is that over the last month the Serb forces have begun to ethnically cleanse in eastern Kosovo, far from the Albanian border, which was an area which traditionally was not controlled or particularly in the hands of the UCK. So I don"t see that there is any correlation there at all, I think it is just an excuse to say this is a UCK village and therefore we have a rationale for forcing all of the inhabitants out. I don"t buy that personally.
[Double-talk and denial, it appears. What other nation in civil war doesn’t kill innocents when an area is concentrated within local enemies? Vietnam was proof of this tactic being used by the Americans.]
QUESTION:
We have seen up to now two convoys, one of the Greek NGOs, and the last one I saw two or three days ago a truck with the initials YUGTRANS which means Yugoslavia Transport. Do you have information on who owned those trucks and where they are going and who is taking the benefits of those trucks?
JAMIE SHEA:
No I don"t have any information on that. The only information I have, as you know, is of a Greek convoy last week which successfully managed to get to Pristina, and as I say, we welcome any humanitarian efforts that get food through to the needy.
[This brings up an interesting point. Although interviews with this subject matter air only once, I have seen a number where the refugees complain that there is no food, no water, no electricity, no telephone and no transportation, which is why they have chosen to leave Kosovo. Now, can this be directed as the fault of Milosevic, or NATO? The need for these supplies makes quite clear the effect of the bombing and destruction of transportation routes. There are nearly no bridges remaining from the North. This leaves the only access being from the South.]
GENERAL JERTZ:
The main point for us is of course that those trucks, before they do go in the convoys, do meet some specific points which we already pointed out to all the organizations bringing in convoys: number one is, we need to have detailed information on their planned route; we need to have detailed information on timings, particularly entry and exit from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; we need to have numbers and descriptions of vehicles, including the markings; and of course we need to have details of overnight locations to make sure that these convoys will not be attacked by our Air Forces.
{I suppose that this is one way of saying "Buy (eat) only American food." "All other sources are subject to being destroyed enroute, but, hey, it’s not our fault!"
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
DAVID SHUKMAN:
Two questions if I may. First,... And secondly, the other day, in an effort to show that the air strikes were working in Kosovo, I think you talked about Serb activities on the decline. Today to show the Serbs are not withdrawing, you say that they are still quite active. Which is it?
JAMIE SHEA:
I can explain that, David. What is happening is, to answer your second question first, that the Serb forces are using more of their special police and more of their special units against the UCK because the conventional army, the VJ, has proven ineffective and has also suffered heavy damage. Three brigades in particular have suffered heavy damage at the hands of NATO and we know now that they have supply problems, morale problems, that could be a reason for this partial withdrawal. I am speculating, but it could be a reason that Milosevic simply needs to pull them out so that they can try to rest or reconstitute, so that is why it is happening.
[With 40,000 troops, Shea maintains that they are ‘heavily damaged’. NATO appears desperate to explain away what is going by the plan.]
One of the reasons why the VJ units have proven to be ineffective is that they can only operate with extensive artillery fire and NATO airstrikes have succeeded significantly in reducing that artillery fire. So I think there is the explanation there. And in any case with 40,000 he still has a large numerical advantage over the UCK but it is a nut that he doesn"t seem to be able to crack, despite his best efforts.
[A new theory. Milosevic’s army can’t fight of rebels without artillery, so they leave it to the police (shades of Littleton). Sounds pretty feeble to me.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
CBS NEWS:
How does NATO now assess the military capability of the KLA? And given the insistence of some leaders that Kosovo be given full independence rather than autonomy, do you think that could be a potential threat to an eventual peace settlement?
JAMIE SHEA:
I don"t have the exact figures of the KLA, they claim themselves to have anywhere between 10 - 15,000 fighters available and they don"t seem to have a recruitment problem. Every time President Milosevic massacres a village, the UCK can swell their ranks with another 1,000 or 2,000 volunteers.... But they are taking heavy losses, clearly it is a very difficult struggle with the light arms that they have against a much better armed adversary and they are taking heavy losses. But on the other hand they show no sign of losing morale or wanting to give up and we know that in Kosare in particular they have been able to form a pocket which once again the Serb forces don"t seem to be able to break down; and secondly, as I often mention, up in Junik they keep open their resupply corridor into Albania, but I understand that the losses are fairly heavy on their side.
[So, let’s do some simple math. At 1,000 (conservative) per village, the UCK has, perhaps, 15,000 troops. That, at best, is only fifteen villages destroyed. It appears that we have, once again, been mislead by Shea and Co. He then goes on to tell us that it is difficult to fight the heavier arms with the UCK’s lighter arms – but, didn’t he just tell us that the Yugoslav army is out of artillery and can’t fight anymore? And, what of the machine guns the UCK has been televised training with, and the random gunfire into the air? Are the really short of equipment? Or, do they have an unlimited supply?]
On your second question, the delegation at Rambouillet signed up for autonomy with an international conference to review the situation in three years time. Dr Rugova said the other day that he was prepared to settle for autonomy even if independence may remain his goal, and therefore I think that that is what we have to continue to work on. You have got to remember that the Rambouillet agreement , and that is still the basis of how we would try to conceive the future, does give the Kosovar people a very, very, very far ranging degree of autonomy, it gives them many things which are equivalent to self-government in many respects, even if this is within the sovereignty of Yugoslavia. And that is our position and we believe that that is a deal which satisfied all of the legitimate aspirations of the Kosovar people for self-government, for their own culture to be protected, for their human rights to be protected, and that remains our position. Rambouillet was an excellent deal and that is why at the end of the day, whatever reservations they may have had, that is why they signed it, and not just Dr Rugova and his LDK party, but the other delegations which represented all of the trends in Kosovar Albanian political leadership.
[Did you ever wonder why they call it an ‘agreement’? It all seems to arbitrary (not agreeing) and forceful.]
QUESTION:
To stop the raids over Yugoslavia, does NATO accept a substantial or total withdrawal of Serbian forces?
JAMIE SHEA:
We have made it clear repeatedly that we expect all of the Serb forces to withdraw.
QUESTION:
The Chinese have said that they will not discuss any peace proposals in the UN Security Council until or unless NATO stops bombing, and I just wonder how concerned NATO is about this and the fact that the Russians seem to be taking a more hardline stance as well?
JAMIE SHEA:
I think it shows the need to continue the diplomacy, Neil, quite frankly, which is exactly what we are going to be doing. I prefer to see the glass as half full rather than half empty, particularly after the G8 meeting last week and the agreements on the seven core principles that has been, as you know, the basis now of moving towards a UN Security Council Resolution, and as you know in our view the military campaign is what is putting the impetus into the diplomacy at the moment. That diplomacy of course has not got simply to be the unity of the international community, it has also got to be something that is going to work with Milosevic. And I believe that if we give up prematurely the air campaign that any diplomatic solution, no matter how brilliant, is unlikely to really go down very well in Belgrade because the pressure on Milosevic to accept that would be gone. So no I think we have to work in two tracks, it is not a question of have one and then give it up and try the other, give that up, go back. No, diplomacy and the air operations have to be conducted in parallel and mutually reinforcing each other.
[So, at least Shea has made clear that force will be used until there is absolute compliance.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
DAG:
If NATO is afraid that this withdrawal may be a bluff, and if NATO has air supremacy, couldn"t it test this out by telling Belgrade you designate the units that are leaving and we will designate a no-bomb corridor for them to leave on and we will watch what happens?
JAMIE SHEA:
No, Dag, I told you we are not going to get into any of this until all forces withdraw, I am afraid it is an all or nothing type of situation. The forces have to go. First of all you are talking about a partial withdrawal that isn"t happening yet, and may not happen, at least we don"t see it today. And secondly, as I said, a partial withdrawal against a background of total ethnic cleansing isn"t something that we consider to be a particularly attractive offer. President Milosevic has to meet the five conditions and not just the condition on the troops withdrawal, he has to meet the other conditions as well. We want an agreement on all five elements, that is extremely important. And as I say, something which allows say 10,000 troops to go home while the other 30,000 get on with business as usual in Kosovo is not something that we are prepared to aid and abet in any way. President Milosevic has to take all of his forces out, he has to first of all, and I reiterate this, make it clear to us openly and without any ambivalence that he accepts in full compliance with the five essential conditions of the international community, and then he has to demonstrate through his action that he is pulling out those forces.
Now let me make a fundamental point. It is not our job to guess what President Milosevic is doing. It is up to Milosevic to demonstrate, through deeds and not just words, that he is ready to meet the demands of the international community. We will know it when we see it. You can always distinguish between the genuine article from the fake and we will be able to do that, our military Commanders, the North Atlantic Council will be perfectly able to do that when we see the real thing. But we don"t see the real thing for the present time.
[So, Milosevic called for a cease-fire, and NATO ignored it as not complete (in accordance with the five arbitrary demands). Then, Milosevic releases the prisoners, as an act of good faith, and NATO responds with increased bombing – the most intensive, yet. Now, a movement in the desired direction will not be an indication that this direction is being pursued. It kind of makes you wonder, given the nearly untenable demands, whether NATO wants to just bomb Yugoslavia into oblivion.]
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
JAKE LYNCH, SKY NEWS:
... And I think the continuing questions about the withdrawal are because a verifiable withdrawal as a condition for halting the bombing begins to look like a contradiction in terms. If there are very, very few routes out of Kosovo, if you are a Yugoslavian tank commander and you say right I am going to get out of Kosovo, once you put yourself on the road then there could be a time, before it qualifies as a verifiable withdrawal, when you are still a legitimate target. So what will the modality be, will it be a phone call from President Milosevic saying no it is for real this time and then that would trigger a halt, or what?
JAMIE SHEA:
Jake, I have said already, until such time that President Milosevic picks up the phone, accepts all five conditions clearly, and until such time as he clearly demonstrates that he is withdrawing all of his forces, I don"t believe that we need to bother about these details because we are not there yet. We will worry about that when Milosevic has put his signature or at least has indicated he accepts the five conditions. We are not there yet - for the time being, as I"ve said, we see a promise of a partial withdrawal and on a day when we see the reality of ethnic cleansing. And quite frankly, it is the second that interests us at the moment, not the first. So let"s hear from President Milosevic first and then we will worry about those details, but not today, that is the first thing.
Return to Waco II -- Serbia Index