Rambouillet Agreement

Quote from http://home1.gte.net/res0k62m/iraq.htm

The number-ten Project Censored story of 1999 was that the entire Kosovo intervention was a set up from the beginning. The negotiations with Milosevic's Serbia were a sham. The U.S.-produced Rambouillet "agreement" and Milosevic's refusal to sign it was the official reason that NATO bombed Yugoslavia. The US did not negotiate in good faith. The Rambouillet proposal was one that no sovereign nation would agree to. The agreement gave NATO personnel unlimited power in the region and complete immunity from any crimes they might commit. Appendix B of the proposal gave NATO personnel "free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia), including associated airspace and territorial waters." Clauses 11 and 15 granted NATO "the use of airports, roads, rails and ports without payment (and) the right to use all the electromagnetic spectrum." The proposal granted NATO arbitrary arrest and detention powers. In short, the Rambouillet proposal turned all of Yugoslavia (not just Kosovo) into occupied territory, a new colonial holding of the US and friends.

Sorry, but we have no interest whatsoever in a new colony in Yugoslavia or anywhere else, and this story was hardly censored in any meaningful sense.

Perhaps this quote from the same page above will provide some motivation for the new colony: Kosovo has large deposits of lead, zinc, silver, gold and other lucrative ores. The Yugoslavian government's mining company owned the mines. The capitalists did not have their hands on it yet. Ripping Kosovo from Serbia has nearly guaranteed that the capitalists will own it. That part of the "freedom" deal the Kosovo Albanians are getting has received little notice in the American press. Those mines, though, are tiny compared to another goal of the capitalists. There is about five trillion dollars of oil sitting underneath the Caspian Sea region, and the United States has been busy negotiating rights to that oil, while cutting out local powers like Russia and Iran. Yugoslavia sits on a favored route for the projected pipeline from the region, and is one more reason the capitalists want to control the Balkans. Breaking Yugoslavia into pieces is a good way to do it. There used to be large mineral deposits in Kosovo, but those mines are pretty much played out today. I don't know about the pipeline theory, but one issue were the bridges over the Danube. Built years ago, they were too low to the water to permit modern shipping up the river. The conflict provided a great excuse to destroy them (and they were destroyed). The bridges had no military value since they were located on the other side of Serbia from Kosovo. I think the point is there are more economic motivations for breaking up Yugoslavia.

Agree that this story was only very lightly censored. This is even more disturbing -- that Americans are fully aware that their government is negotiating in bad faith and don't have a problem with that. --AndyPierce

Name me a government that negotiates in good faith. For that matter, explain to me why one should have negotiated with Milosevic in the first place. Either quarantine Yugoslavia or put him out. So, why bother with the pretense of a "negotiation" then?

Why you should not negotiate in bad faith

If:

You are the most powerful nation on earth, so other countries cannot attack in a military way.
You attempt to impose conditions on others that you would not accept yourself.
You don't even seem to be bothered about justice for anyone outside your nation.

Then how can anyone possibly try and gain justice for their country?

Answer: They are forced to use unjust methods, like terrorist attacks.

This is the standard anti-American screed, but it does not answer the question. Who doesn't negotiate in bad faith. The world simply doesn't play nice-nice. Which is no excuse. Especially when you are the one nation who could change this and make it stick.

This is a very good point. If you have the power to force unfair agreements you could also force others to play fair in negotiations. This would result in good will rather than bad will.

Consider the question the other way: If the US is not going to negotiate on good faith, why should anyone else (be they Russia, China, Germany, Mexico, Taliban, or any other country) bother negotiate with the US at all? Is "give in or war" the only option for a country when faced with US demands? Is "Might makes right, obey us and prosper" the New World Order offer to the world by the US?

Yes, it seems so. They are quick to enforce treaties on others, but simply drop out of those that are "no longer in the American Interest".

explain to me why one should have negotiated with Milosevic in the first place.

Explain to me why one should give a fair trial to rapist, serial killers and war criminals in the first place. Or why any lawyer should defend them in the trial. Suggested answer: it is what the principle calls for.

...but it does not answer the question. Who doesn't negotiate in bad faith

New Zealand and Tonga spring to mind, and I'm sure there are many others.

Countries that do not negotiate in bad faith do not tend to be troubled by international terrorism.

Consider this scenario. If France invented a "Nuclear Weapon Disabler and Annihilation device" and became the most powerful country in the world, decided to force the US to pay royalties on all US produced Champagnes, give the Palestinians weapons so they could invade Israeli territory at will, support an independent Quebec, with the rights to set up enclaves in Cajun areas of the Southern states - would the US say "well, that?s OK, get on with it - nobody else plays fair". If many French people responded to the unfairness being pointed out with "so what, we are more powerful" would you feel any annoyance?

If some displaced anglophone Canadians destroyed a building in Paris in protest, I am sure that you would feel sorry for the people killed, who had nothing to do with the policy, but wouldn?t the thought cross your mind that perhaps the French policies were "asking for it". And would it be right for the French to bomb Canada for it, while threatening the US to "help or be bombed"?

Since things are sometimes taken literally that aren't supposed to be I would like to point out that I do not believe that France would have any intention of following these policies, even if it had a "Nuclear Weapon Disabler and Annihilation device".

On the other had, FrancesBehaviorInAlgeria? pretty much runs along the lines of what the anointed righteous accuse the US (and only the US) of. Only the US???? You must have been hanging around in some strange circles. I know a *lot* of people who have trouble with US foreign policy, and not a single one of them think (that I know of) that the US is unique in this regard. In some cases it has 'worst offender' status, but that is not the same thing.

CategoryOffTopic