|
Accusation of Rambouillet Lie: Twice as Justified! On April 12, 1999 the German Foreign Ministry felt forced to say something about the embarrassing revelations concerning the Rambouillet draft version. As it was brought to the public in the meantime by different sides this document not only contains the suggestion, being out of question, to subordinate the province of Kosovo to a NATO military protectorate and by that virtually cut it off from Yugoslavia, but it even contains the demand for an absolutely unlimited right of entry and residence in the whole of Yugoslavia for NATO armed forces with their complete military equipment. It is said in the already repeatedly mentioned point 8) of the Rambouillet treaty's Annex B: "8. NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, manoeuvre, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations."Obviously, the Foreign Office since is disturbed about the accusations at its own address that it has withheld the extremist demands which are comprising nothing else but the occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia by NATO. So in a counter-publication on the Internet they are claiming that the accusation of the Rambouillet lie was groundless. Sorry? Of course this accusation is absolutely right. When ever the German Foreign Office or any other part of the government even has indicated this extreme extortion in the public, or when the TV-stations and the newspapers in the FRG have done so? As shown by the German members of Parliament's complaints the Foreign Office even has prevented the information of the representatives with all its strength. Foreign Office on April 12, 1999: "Accusation of 'Rambouillet Lie' groundless! The Foreign Office decidedly refuses the accusation that information was withheld, which is decisive for the assessment of the Rambouillet treaty. The Bundestag was informed in time. The Annex B does not contain any condition unacceptable for the FRY. It correlates with similar other treaties and was not negotiated in Rambouillet because of the refusing behavior by the Serbian side." Etc.,etc.This allegation that the Annex B does not contain any condition unacceptable for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) only can be regarded as a clumsy rubbish talk. It seems like the Foreign Office is regarding the following allegation in its statement from April, 12 as more important for further covering things in the public with a smoke screen: "The transit rules towards Kosovo under the regulations of the Rambouillet treaty are by far similar to the arrangement to which NATO and FRY came in 1995 concerning the transit to Bosnia and Hercegovina."By this they try to give the impression that the FRY already once signed something which was "to a large extent" identical. First, if we would take it as such, this would by no means justify the Rambouillet way of behaving. But even more: this is a profane false allegation. In reality the FRY just did not sign such things, because in the "Agreement Between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Concerning Transit Arrangements for Peace Plan Operations" from 1995 exactly the freedom of movement in the whole of FRY decidedly is excluded. There are only transit routes which anyway have to be laid down jointly. In verbatim there is said: "The routes to be followed will be commonly agreed upon." The whole quote (Point 4) is: "4. NATO shall be exempt from providing inventories or other routine customs documentation on personnel, equipment, supplies, and provisions entering, exiting, or transiting the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia territory in support of the Operation. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia authorities shall facilitate with all appropriate means all movements of personnel, vehicles and/or supplies, through ports, airports or roads used. Vehicles, vessels and aircraft in transit shall not be subject to licensing or registration requirements, nor commercial insurance. NATO shall be permitted to use airports, roads and ports without payment of duties, dues, tolls or charges. NATO shall not claim exemption for reasonable charges for services requested and received, but transit shall not be allowed to be impeded pending negotiations on payment for such services. The modes of transport will be communicated by NATO to the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in advance. The routes to be followed will be commonly agreed upon."There is nothing said about: "the right of bivouac, manoeuvre, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations." as it is worded in Point 8 of the Annex B of the Rambouillet treaty, and these are the decisive points which are leading to talk about a de-facto occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia by the Rambouillet treaty. It has to be stressed that the German Foreign Ministry has lost its credibility not only because of Fischer's absurd rabble-rousing propaganda but also because of deliberately misleading the public and bold false allegations out of its apparatus. Concerning the Foreign Office' sentence that the Annex B was not negotiated this is a dull attempt to let the extremism appear softer afterwards. The Rambouillet treaty, including this Annex B, even was signed by the so-called Albanian delegation, though it was not negotiated with Yugoslavia. Of course it could by no means be negotiated with Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia's refusal to sign the treaty had to provide the NATO-States with a pretext to launch a terrorizing bombing which by now has lasted for six weeks and which is explained by high-ranking NATO-functionaries as a means to reduce Yugoslavia to rubble. Up to now the public is massively deceived about the contents of this paper and the sharpness of provocation. It remains interesting that here on the Internet these questions are already discussed intensively with counter-statements for example by the Foreign Office while on the TV these essential questions either are not discussed or only are handled with a decisive delay. [The complete text of the Transit Arrangement of 1995 can be downloaded at http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/bosnia/bosagree.html ,the statements of the German Foreign Office at http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/6_archiv/inf-kos/index.htm] W.Grobe
|