By Tom O’Donnell

The precise details of the imperialists’ victory in Libya are not yet clear. Their degree of direct involvement in any post-Gaddafi regime is similarly unclear, with some influential voices calling for a ‘peacekeeping’ role for Western armies. This would be an imperial invasion, having successfully suborned one side in the Libyan civil war.

First published: December 1999

When, on 24 March 1999, NATO launched its biggest bombing campaign in Europe since the Second World War, it expected a rapid and complete victory over Yugoslavia – a state of little more than 10 million people. Instead the people of Yugoslavia held out for 11 weeks of 24-hour bombing and the majority of the world’s population opposed NATO’s aggression. As a result, the United States had to retreat from some of its original objectives and hundreds of millions of people throughout the world were alerted to the threat they face from an imperialist alliance committed to offensive military action whenever it wishes over a vast area of the globe.

First published: December 1999

For anyone who thought NATO was serious about a ‘humanitarian’ war, the facts are now clear. NATO claims to have killed 5,000 Serb troops in Kosovo. In addition more than 1,000 civilians have been massacred by NATO, and thousands of others wounded and maimed. The combined total is nearly 20 times more than the 340 deaths of which Slobodan Milosevic has been accused by the war crimes tribunal. In addition, NATO will be responsible for the thousands of other deaths of the young, the sick and the old which will result from its destruction of the civilian infrastructure of an entire country.

NATO’s plan for Kosovo is a colonial dictatorship. Its model is Bosnia, where the United States and European Union have imposed a colonial administration in which their appointed ‘High Representative’ can and does depose elected leaders at will, has his own army and where the head of the central bank is appointed by the IMF. So much for the idea that NATO bombing had anything to do with self-determination for anyone.

If the people of Yugoslavia continue to refuse to submit to Washington, NATO has already made clear that the economic blockade will continue to amid plans to further break up the country.

First published: July 1997

The first East European states will be admitted to NATO in July at a summit in Madrid and become full members by 1999. Having delayed for fear of losing Boris Yeltsin last year’s presidential elections, NATO is now poised for rapid expansion towards Russia’s western borders.

The states most likely to be admitted in July are Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. All three occupy the strategically crucial central European corridor between Russia and Germany. Other candidates are Romania, which has the backing of France, and Slovenia, sponsored by Italy.

First published: December 1999

NATO’s goals towards Yugoslavia are well established. Through the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s, Yugoslavia had enjoyed rapid economic growth, industrialisation and relative political stability on the basis of three pillars. First, its planned economy gave it the possibility of a relatively independent path of economic development, not subordinated to more powerful outside imperialist powers. Second, its federal constitution, together with economic planning, united the great majority of its different peoples on the basis of almost unprecedented constitutional respect for the national rights and redistribution of economic resources from the richest to the poorest parts of the country. Third, its international position, as a non-capitalist state outside the Warsaw Pact at the height of the Cold War, allowed it to balance between east and west, being courted by both, and enjoying access to western financial credits.

First published: Dec 1999

The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia set a precedent for unilateral military action by the United States and its allies outside of any framework of international law – making clear that such wars would not be subject to vetoes by China or Russia within the United Nations Security Council. This was not an ‘accident’ necessitated by the urgency for humanitarian intervention, as NATO claimed. The bombing was meticulously planned many months in advance. The destruction of the post-World War Two international political order was rather a central goal of the bombing and the way in which it was launched.