The Clinton Doctrine-2
The NATO war against Yugoslavia marks a great leap forward toward the
depoliticization and criminalization of international relations. In the case of the
similar war against Iraq, the regime of Saddam Hussein was in fact a military
dictatorship, which did in fact violate international law by invading Kuwait (leaving
aside eventual extenuating circumstances), and the United States did obtain a mandate from
the United Nations Security Council for at least some (but not all) of its military
operations. In the case of Yugoslavia, the military operations were
carried out without U.N. mandate against a state with an elected civilian government,
which had not violated international law.
NATO's war, directed from Washington, was intended as a pure demonstration that
the United States could make or break the law. For it was
Yugoslavia, which had not violated international law, that was branded a criminal State.
Already on November 5, 1998, the American presiding judge at the International Criminal
Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, described Yugoslavia as "a
rogue state, one that holds the international rule of law in contempt". During the
bombing, U.S. and British leaders regularly compared Milosevic to Hitler. And afterwards,
the U.S. Senate on June 30 adopted a bill describing Yugoslavia as "a terrorist
State", in the total absence of any of the usual criteria for such a designation. The
United States is free both to commit crimes, and to criminalize its adversaries. Might is
sure of being right.
"A Clinton Doctrine of humanitarian warfare is taking place", rejoiced
columnist Jim Hoagland, a leading voice in the chorus of
syndicated columnists who have nagged away at the President to get up the gumption to lead
NATO through the Balkans into a brave new millennium. This "doctrine" is not
quite as spontaneous as it is made to seem by the media chorus which portrays Uncle Sam as
a reluctant Hamlet generously stumbling into greatness.
Since the end of the Cold War, United States leaders have been searching for a
grand new design to replace the containment doctrine developed after World War II. To this
end, the oligarchy that formulates American foreign policy has been hard at work in its
various exclusive venues such as the Council on Foreign Relations, private clubs, larger
assemblages such as the Trilateral Commission (which specializes in the great American
ruling class art of selective co-optation and conversion of potential critics), and a
myriad of institutes, foundations and "think tanks", overlapping with a half
dozen of the most prestigious universities and, of course, the boards of directors of
major corporations and financial institutions. All are united by an
unshakable conviction that what is good for the United States (and the business of the
United States is business) is good for the world. American policy-makers may be
more or less generous or cynical, crafty or forthright, but all necessarily share the
conviction that the system which has made America great and powerful should be bestowed on
the rest of an often undeserving and recalcitrant world. There is no
conflict between this conviction and ruthless pursuit of economic self-interest; they are
part of the same mindset.
None better epitomizes the combined power and good
conscience of American capitalism than the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
founded in 1910 by the Scottish-American steel king Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) who
recycled part of his vast rags-to-riches fortune into philanthropic enterprises. It is fitting that in formulating the Doctrine of Humanitarian Warfare now
attributed to Clinton, a major ideological role appears to have been played by the
Carnegie Endowment under the presidency of Morton I.
Abramowitz.
[ Clinton Doctrine ] [ Importance of War Crimes ] [ Humanitarian Realpolitik ] [ Cultural Divides ] [ Scenarios Reach the TV Screen ] [ Abramowitz-Albright Policy For Yugoslavia ] [ How to sabotage the OSCE ] [ How to obtain "Justice" ] [ Unified Empires ] [ History as Melodrama ]
