THE OLD RULES

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz was in the news recently [EDIT: 
when I started writing this a month ago] babbling about the end of 
an alleged rules-based international order. Canada's prime minister 
has also been busy talking of geopolitical doom:

"Stop invoking rules-based international order as though it still 
functions as advertised. Call it what it is - a system of 
intensifying great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue 
their interests, using economic integration as coercion,"

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/rules-based-order-donald-trump/tucqu8dcw

This is all reacting to Trump, and most particularly his recurring 
whimsy about buying Greenland. A horror since, unlike all the other 
countries the USA has tried to fiddle with over the years, they're 
a (territory of a) NATO member.

Somehow Western leaders during the Biden presidency could look at 
Israel flattening Gaza and bombing any of its neighbours that 
object using advanced American weapronry, and feel comfortable that 
the rules of international order are being secured by western 
diplomacy. But now that Trump's taken over and wants to copy some 
of China's well known economic coercion tactics for use against the 
elite western states of NATO, it's suddenly the end of the world. 
The blatent hypocracy of politics never fails to amaze me.

The extent of the hypocracy regarding NATO is well demonstrated by 
looking back on the alliance's rebirth as a police force of the 
"rules-based order" following the end of its original mission to 
try and keep the Communists out of Western Europe during the Cold 
War. The documentary "Yugoslavia: The Avoidable War" (1999).

...

Unfortunately I ran out of time at that point, and now I really 
can't remember the details of what I didn't have time to write 
then. Also I don't have time now either really. So here begins my 
vague summary which I probably won't feel very happy with... [ I 
still can't do summaries, so I wasted half the day just  babbling 
on without the proper details ]

"Yugoslavia: The Avoidable War" was produced rather surprisingly, 
but quite professionally, by an ex-steelworker from Gary, Indiana, 
USA. It aims to expose the one-sided reporting of the 1990s civil 
war in Yugoslavia, which also backed up NATO intervention in the 
conflict in the form of bombing missions that came to include many 
civilian targets, yet nevertheless were unsuccessful at breaking 
the Serbian government.

The documentary emphasises the simplified narrative which was 
effectively pushed to Western media and politicians by the 
break-away states in Yugoslavia, of one-sided "ethnic clensing" by 
the Serbs. It highlights the influence of foreign backed military 
groups in destabilising the region by provoking conflict with the 
Yugoslav army whose response was singly reported by the Western 
media as one-sided agression. Western observers also describe 
attacks attributed to the Serbs which were likely in fact launched 
by the Bosnian forces again their own people to create a pre-text 
for Western intervention against the Yugoslav government. 
Independent assessments of figures for deaths and population 
displacement by respected organisations (I forgot which ones, but 
their reports are now online if you search for them) have also 
highlighted vast misrepresentations in statistics used to justify 
the war in the media and also within the US government. Furthermore 
the strategy of targeting journalists and civilian infrastructure 
in Serbia during the NATO bombing campaign is highlighted, 
including the use of cluster bombs by the American and British air 
force which caused many civilian deaths.

A more mainstream documentary series titled "The Death of 
Yugoslavia" retains the conventional Western viewpoint. I watched 
this a long time ago and remember finding it difficult to 
understand some key aspects of its narrative, but it was too long 
ago to comment accurately on that. Following "The Avoidable War".I 
did however watch "The Fall of Milosevic (2001)". This was by the 
same filmmaker, Norma Percy, as "The Death of Yugoslavia" and as 
such even though it very much retains the one-sided viewpoint 
against the Yugoslav then Serbian government, it follows her 
typical style of including straightford interviews with enough 
important figures from all sides of the topic that it's easy to 
form your own viewpoint. This documentary only begins after the 
break-up of Yugoslavia, with the conflict in Kosovo which 
eventually drew in NATO. It largely confirms the other 
documentary's allegations regarding the one-sided approach of many 
western observers who even shared intelligence with Kosovo 
Liberation Army opposing the Serbs in Kosovo, and even attributes 
many civilian deaths to them before direct conflict with the 
Serbian army.

Most interesting though, and perhaps relevent today, is the 
exploration of internal politics in the West leading up to the NATO 
interversion. "The Avoidable War" notes the sense within NATO of 
needing to justify the alliance's existance following the collapse 
of the Soviet Union, the enemy it was formed to oppose. Now the 
socialist government of Milosevic in Serbia appeared a valid 
target. The advanced weaponry developed for fighting WWIII now 
became a key selling point, with the concept of modern bomb 
targeting technology facilitating targeted strikes, without the 
massive civilian losses seen from bombing in earlier wars where 
analogue targeting technology was limited and imprecise. This same 
story has been repeated recently during the many wars Israel, and 
now the US, has been fighting. In Serbia both documentaries agree 
that after three days the military targets of the former Yugoslav 
Army known by western intelligence from the outset of the bombing 
had all been destroyed. However, expecting this as the strategy of 
an opponent it had always prepared to face, the army had dispersed 
its resources in hidden locations outside the targeted bases. The 
scope of the strikes were therefore increasingly broadened and 
increasingly included civilian infrastructure. Particularly 
interesting is how NATO bombed a former Yugoslav Army base within 
the border of neighbouring Montenegro whose government wasn't 
alligned with Milosevic, with the USA claiming to NATO allies that 
the president of Montenegro had requested it. The bombing there 
also hit civilian buildings resulting in three civilian deaths 
including three children. In his interview the French president 
recalls phoning the president of Montenegro to confirm he'd granted 
permission for the NATO attack, and being told quite plainly that 
he hadn't. The US ceased attacks after this stark discrepancy had 
been raised privately by the French. It really shows the limited 
ability of NATO allies to control these actions involving their own 
militaries against the influence of the USA, especially once a 
conflict has begun.

The war in Gaza has shown the end-game of this approach to 
ethnicaly-driven warfare fought with aerial bombing. Entire 
neighbourhoods reduced to rubble from innumerable "targeted" 
strikes, still failing to fully eliminate the opposing forces which 
keep gaining numbers through mass resentment alone. The strategy of 
"decapitation strikes" - bombing leaders - is also openly discussed 
by Madeleine Albright (Secretary of State in the Clinton 
administration and a key proponent of NATO intervention) who 
describes encouraging the military to find justification for 
bombing Milosevic's house. An alleged communication centre 
underneath was deemed suitable justification, but it turned out 
Milosevic and his family were't home when the house was bombed and 
destroyed. In the end the documentary describes how the US was 
beginning preparations for a ground invasion (much as recent 
reports show them doing now for Iran), but domestic political 
pressure against the European NATO members, particularly Germany, 
dissuaded them from supporting a ground war in Serbia, and the NATO 
intervention was ended with Milosevic still in power.

With the wars over, "The Avoidable War" doesn't clearly cover the 
fate of Milosevic's government except his later war crimes trial by 
the UN. However "The Fall of Milosevic" of course continues to show 
how this leader, whose power had seemingly been consolidated by the 
war with NATO, was toppled by the USA. Having called an early 
election to capitalise on his strong political position following 
the war, Milosevic unwittingly exposed himself to the powers of 
foreign political manipulation from the USA. The Americans openly 
discuss forming an opposition party with American campaign advisors 
and tens of millions of dollars sent to support it. It was a huge 
success and, in spite of his attempts to tamper with the results, 
Milosevic's government was eventually forced to step down, with the 
Americans eventually pressuring the new government into sending him 
off for the trial which eventually dragged on until his death.

It's interesting now, remembering all the drama over Russia 
"hacking" the US election to get Trump elected the fisrt time, with 
them allegedly the source of Hillary Clinton's leaked emails which 
highlighted all her dodgy dealings before her political career was 
over and she was willing to chat to Norma Percy about them for a 
doco. That was presented as an evil attack on democracy. Yet in her 
husband's time in office the USA was litterally running the main 
opposition party in Serbia during their elections. Granted the 
documentary raises how Milosevic had constrained political freedoms 
in Serbia, but it shows how one hypocritical America's attitude 
towards democracy can be.

So those were NATO's old rules, not really many to break, or nobody 
really cared if the USA was leading their breaking. The only 
international order that's changing is how the USA deals with its 
other NATO members. Perhaps no more dishonestly, but more publicly 
aggressive.

Looking at this history in the context the war in Iran, now Trump 
has, on and off, sidelined NATO and gone in partnered with Israel 
(and any dopy country like us Aussies whose government feels it 
should tag along a bit), plus indirectly involving unwilling NATO 
countries like Germany anyway through the use of US bases they've 
built in Europe on the basis of supporting the alliance. Again it's 
been all about "targeted strikes", and yet from the outset 
civilians have been hit, while the Iranian military continues to 
strike back after most of their fixed military targets have 
presumably been hit already, and Israeli (if not also US) 
airstrikes are now targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran. Again 
it's unlikely that airstrikes alone will bring down the Iranian 
government, and forming a friendly opposition party to win 
elections isn't going to be a plan-b over there. But unlike in 
Serbia the USA doesn't need to win NATO over before beginning a 
ground invasion in Iran, though Trump might find winning over 
American voters these days is a harder task again.

 - The Free Thinker