Why were we lied to over the Rambouillet Treaty?
on
Virtual War
·
· Score: 1
The NATO media lead us to believe (at the time) that the Rambouillet Treaty had been rejected by the Serbs, and that this showed that all reasonable diplomatic avenues had been explored. Thus the only avenue left was military force. But if you read the treaty you find that the treaty terms call for the annexation of Serbia (not just Kosovo) by NATO. (Look at Appendix B, from about Appendix B (8) onwards). this annexation would be of land, air, with full access to electromagnetic spectrum.... Oh, read it for yourself, it only takes 5 mins. We're talking about a treaty that asked Serbia to accept a NATO occupation force in *Serbia* - not just Kosovo (as it is now). You could call it a peacekeeping force, but if I were a Serb, I would see it as an occupation force. What nation would accept a treaty like that? Wasn't it at least forseeable (inevitable?) that Serbia would reject a treaty such as this? If so, what was the motivation of NATO in presenting the treaty as the final possible offer that diplomacy could offer? I was keeping a close eye on the media at the time, mostly in Britain and the US, but found no mention of these treaty terms. BTW - I have confirmed this document against other sources. Doesn't this raise some rather disturbing questions?
Are you sure that this is what he's getting at? Perhaps he is pointing to an imbalance between the value placed on the lives of NATO soldiers and Serb civilians (or for that matter Iraqi civilians). To illustrate: if American bombers had flown lower, they might have hit fewer civilians, but they flew extremely high, so as to avoid missiles. It's an understandable judgement balance, but it makes it difficult to present the war as 'moral' - as it was presented.
Now, don't get me wrong. Craig Venter is a brilliant scientist (albeit a self-agrandising hype-master as well). He is a pioneer who has pulled off a number of leaps forward in sequencing technology and has given the world a number of fantastically quick sequencing methods. The trouble is (this has probably been mentioned on other threads before, but it needs re-emphasising) he is aiming to patent everything that Celera can sequence. If you thought that Microsoft have a monopoly that they abuse, just you wait. Something like this should not be in the hands of a company. Every time you make a kit that tests for a genetic disease, every product based in some way on around the sequenced human genome, every time a researcher works with the sequence data - that'll be money for Celera thank you. I'm not against for-profit medical research - it's how drugs are developed. This will stunt such research and put too much power into the hands of one company. Brilliant as Venter is, the aims of his company run against the interests of mankind, the academic community, the pharmaceutical industry - they are immoral. Some time back I remember Clinton and Blair giving a joint statement to the effect that the genome shouldn't be under private ownership. Fingers crossed
Why should we be worried? As has been rightly point out, it all depends on what MI5 or the police can get a warrant for. It could be broken into two categories that would worry me. Think about how the Internet empowers smaller political organisations, the kind that can't get huge corporate funding. Communication, cooperation, coordination of action becomes that much easier. Over here in Britain, various organisations that target, e.g. green issues, such as Greenpeace and Reclaim the Streets could be easy targets. The British police are aching to get on the inside track of what they do. The latest rendition of The Prevention of Terrorism Act makes green activists such as anti-roads protestors fall under the same remit as the IRA! That is, they have certain rights withdrawn - e.g. they can be detained without charge.
If that wasn't worrying enough, there is another possibility. Britain, like many Western nations, is host to refugee groups from nations such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China, Indonesia... that are trying to bring about democracy within the nations that they fled from. What if Britain has an 'economic interest' in the country in question? e.g. China, Indonesia... Doesn't matter if there are massive human rights abuses in that country, Britain could cooperate with their police/security services to thwart the actions of these protestors. The Internet has been a powerful tool in the hands of the protestors, yet it could be an extremely powerful tool in the hands of the police.
And people worry that Britain is becoming a police state?
Slashdot Mirror
The NATO media lead us to believe (at the time) that the Rambouillet Treaty had been rejected by the Serbs, and that this showed that all reasonable diplomatic avenues had been explored. Thus the only avenue left was military force. But if you read the treaty you find that the treaty terms call for the annexation of Serbia (not just Kosovo) by NATO. (Look at Appendix B, from about Appendix B (8) onwards). this annexation would be of land, air, with full access to electromagnetic spectrum.... Oh, read it for yourself, it only takes 5 mins. We're talking about a treaty that asked Serbia to accept a NATO occupation force in *Serbia* - not just Kosovo (as it is now). You could call it a peacekeeping force, but if I were a Serb, I would see it as an occupation force. What nation would accept a treaty like that? Wasn't it at least forseeable (inevitable?) that Serbia would reject a treaty such as this? If so, what was the motivation of NATO in presenting the treaty as the final possible offer that diplomacy could offer? I was keeping a close eye on the media at the time, mostly in Britain and the US, but found no mention of these treaty terms. BTW - I have confirmed this document against other sources. Doesn't this raise some rather disturbing questions?
Are you sure that this is what he's getting at? Perhaps he is pointing to an imbalance between the value placed on the lives of NATO soldiers and Serb civilians (or for that matter Iraqi civilians). To illustrate: if American bombers had flown lower, they might have hit fewer civilians, but they flew extremely high, so as to avoid missiles. It's an understandable judgement balance, but it makes it difficult to present the war as 'moral' - as it was presented.
Now, don't get me wrong. Craig Venter is a brilliant scientist (albeit a self-agrandising hype-master as well). He is a pioneer who has pulled off a number of leaps forward in sequencing technology and has given the world a number of fantastically quick sequencing methods. The trouble is (this has probably been mentioned on other threads before, but it needs re-emphasising) he is aiming to patent everything that Celera can sequence. If you thought that Microsoft have a monopoly that they abuse, just you wait. Something like this should not be in the hands of a company. Every time you make a kit that tests for a genetic disease, every product based in some way on around the sequenced human genome, every time a researcher works with the sequence data - that'll be money for Celera thank you. I'm not against for-profit medical research - it's how drugs are developed. This will stunt such research and put too much power into the hands of one company. Brilliant as Venter is, the aims of his company run against the interests of mankind, the academic community, the pharmaceutical industry - they are immoral. Some time back I remember Clinton and Blair giving a joint statement to the effect that the genome shouldn't be under private ownership. Fingers crossed
If that wasn't worrying enough, there is another possibility. Britain, like many Western nations, is host to refugee groups from nations such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China, Indonesia... that are trying to bring about democracy within the nations that they fled from. What if Britain has an 'economic interest' in the country in question? e.g. China, Indonesia... Doesn't matter if there are massive human rights abuses in that country, Britain could cooperate with their police/security services to thwart the actions of these protestors. The Internet has been a powerful tool in the hands of the protestors, yet it could be an extremely powerful tool in the hands of the police.
And people worry that Britain is becoming a police state?