Video Archive

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger

Kissinger talks about the mistake of recognizing Bosnia and Herzegovina as an independent state even tough it had never existed as such previously in history – that is, except for in the Middle Ages under the Serbian Kotromanić dynasty. At the same time he admits that the United States encouraged Alija Izetbegović to go that path when it objected to the Carrington-Cutileiro peace plan of February 1992, which would have made Bosnia a confederation divided into several ethnic cantons on the model of Switzerland.

But when listening to Kissinger, one should not overlook the real motive for why the Americans gave Alija Izetbegović backing when decelerating the independence of a country where he represented only a minority of 40 percent. For it was not because they were worried Russia was going to break up, as Kissinger states here, but their hidden agenda of undermining the Europeans on their own turf by creating another crisis for them to deal with.

This crisis, which could have been avoided had Alija Izetbegović not revoked his signature from the Carrington-Cutileiro peace plan, eventually developed into a war that was to last for roughly four years. And a war which the Americans – needless to say, after heavy bombardment of the Serbs – solved in 1995 with the signing of the Dayton Peace Accord. With it the Americans had at shown to all critics that there was a role of NATO to play even after the Cold War.

This is an extract from an interview by Charlie Rose made in 1994.

Kissinger explains why he is against any bombing or even taking sides against the Bosnian Serbs, in contrast to other influental American politicians in the likes of Senators Bob Doyle and Joe Biden. When he is asked about the offensive against the Bihać, which was an event that triggered shouth for Western intervention, Kissinger describes this as merely an answer to Muslim provocations with the take-over of Western Bihać by Serb allie Fikret Abdic, something which the Serbs countered by attacking the rest of the Bihać pocket, a supposedly Safe Area and thereby meant to be demilitarized.

This pure counter-offensive was something the Muslims without doubt had set out to provoke from the beginning and was the trigger event that made politicians shout for intervention.

The real motive tough can be find in their firm will of assuring the very existence of NATO in what was then a still uncertain time for the organization – or, in other words, for the hegemony of the United States that was gained over the Western Europeans after the Second World War as NATO became “the institutional link between the United States and Western Europe” (to use Kissinger’s own words from an 1995 interview).

This is an extract from an interview by Charlie Rose made in 1994.

Kissinger talks about the role of post-Cold War NATO which years after the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 was never clearly defined. The United States’ firm will to justify the existence of NATO after this overwhelming change can also give an explanation to why there were so many politicians in the United States eager to start bombing the Bosnian Serbs.

All it was about was really putting NATO in use to prove to the world and Europe in particular that the organization had to survive. For the Americans themselves, this was so much important because NATO was the institutional connection between them and the Europeans. They could not allow the Europeans to create their own security system, which was the plan in their strive to be more independent from the Americans after nearly 50 years of protection under Soviet fear.

And when the Americans got the event they they had been waiting for (the explosion at Markale in Sarajevo killing several dozens of people), this aggressive line against the Serbs marked an important part of NATO’s history. But it was not as simple as that; it was only after the Serbs had refused to remove their heavy altillery over Sarajevo that NATO could start bombing, which was after the Serbs had been refused an assurace that the Muslims would not attack Serb parts of Sarajevo.

This is an extract from an interview by Charlie Rose made in 1994.

Kissinger makes some ending remarks about the role of NATO after the collapse of the Berlin Wall in this interview on Charlie Rose from 1994. Here one will clearly get a glimpse of the clashes fought within the NATO states about which direction to take, especially when Kissinger starts hacking at the French.

But ultimately, the Americans got all the Europeans under their umbrella when NATO as a unified force started pounding the Bosnian Serbs in 1995. But the game of securing the future of NATO and with it the hegemony the Americans had obtained over the Western Europeans some forty years before, was fought throughout the 1990’s, something which at the end culminated in the NATO agression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999.

This is an extract from an interview by Charlie Rose made in 1994.

Kissinger lays forward some very tought-provoking views and suggestions on what ought to be done in the Bosnian War to media tycoon billionaire Mort Zuckerman, sitting in for Charlie Rose. They weigh more when you bear in mind that it comes from a man of his importance, who by many is regarded as the most influental American Secretary of State of the 20th century.

Among other things, Kissinger dismisses the notion that the Serbs are separatists in Bosnia and goes on to talk about the West’s bombing of the Serbs and the siege of Sarajevo. In line with this perception of the events in Bosnia, Kissinger suggests that the Serbs as well as Croats should be allowed to join their motherlands.

But whilst looking at the interview, one should not forget that it would have been a whole different story had the now-retired man been in office. A former American statesman himself, Kissinger is by no means a saint. It’s just that now he couldn’t care less about telling the truth, and probably more so when the truth is so obvious.

This is an extract from an interview by Mort Zuckerman made in 1995 on Charlie Rose.

Kissinger will go on talking about the role of NATO which was the major issue for American foreign policy thoughout the 1990s and came to decide much of how they acted in this period. Two very good examples of this, which are probably the best examples one can come up with, is NATO’s intervention in 1995 against Bosnian Serbs and the 1999 intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

What was in fact the hidden motive behind these both “interventions” was of cource securing the very existence of NATO. In the case of Bosnia, when the Americans encouraged Alija Izetbegovic to declere independece after revoking his signature from a plan that would have made Bosnia and Herzegovina a confederation, divided into ethnic cantons in the same model as Shwitzerland, it was to undermining the Europeans on their own turf by creating another crisis for them to deal with – which the Americans themselves, needless to say, after heavy bombardment of the Serbs solved in 1995 with the Dayton Peace Accord and with it had found its justification for the existense of post-Cold War NATO.

But the game of securing NATO was not over. The Europeans were still working on their European Security System in their strive to be more independent. And the intervention in Kosovo did not have anything to do with saving the credibility of NATO at that point: as professor Peter Gowan nicely points out in his “The Twisted Road to Kosovo”, by the time the bombing was nearing itself, Malden Albright and other American officials had themselves repeated how NATO’s credibility was at stake so many times that they along with other NATO member states (who until then were not all backing the Americans because they knew what the real hidden motive was) willingly forced themselves and their allies to the point that they had to bomb the Serbs.

This is an extract from an interview by Charlie Rose made in 1995.

Professor Noam Chomsky

Chomsky talks about intellectuals who were supporting the bombing campaign against Yugoslavia and comes to the conclusion that they are far from independent minds. All they really do is follow the party lines within some more or less defined boundaries.

This is an extract from an interview by Serbian journalist Danilo Mandić made in 2006.

Chomsky says that to apply the term genocide to Kosovo is an “insult to the victims of Hitler”. To prove his point he quotes documents and records from NATO countries and talks about provocations from the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army and brings up examples of places in the world that were far worse off than Kosovo, such as those in Turkey inhabited by Kurds, which unlike Kosovo is inside the borders of NATO.

This is an extract from an interview by Serbian journalist Danilo Mandić made in 2006.

Chomsky, in connection to the charge filed by the Yugoslav government against the United States for crimes during the aggression, explains why the United States has right to commit genocide. One might be amazed by this fact, but really it isn’t so hard to believe. Anyone interested in today’s politics and global issues ought to know that the United States has always had a policy of undermining the United Nations whenever it can. This is something which there are countless examples of. The fact that the United States have vetoed more resolutions than any other country says it all, not lease the case with the Genocide Convention which is talked about here.

This is an extract from an interview by Serbian journalist Danilo Mandić made in 2006.

Chomsky talks about the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and why the Serbs actually resolved to force out the Albanians from their homes. As he points out, the expulsions came days after the initial NATO strikes, and there was no plan called ‘Operation Horseshoe’ that existed, which means that the ethnic cleansing was not planed but can merely be seen as revenge actions – and in some cases a voluntary evacuation because of the full-scale war which broke out right after the bombing between the Serbs and terrorist so-called Kosovo Liberation Army.

This is an extract from an interview by Serbian journalist Danilo Mandić made in 2006.

Chomsky nullifies the Hague indictment against Slobodan Milošević for genocide and crimes against humanity. He brings up concrete evidence for his stance, such as a Dutch inquiry report made shortly after the Srebrenica massacre, and the fact that the charges for crimes in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina came only after the prosecutors realized that they had a weak case for Kosovo (further proven when the Kosovo-part of the indictment was dropped by the prosecutors, strangely enough something not that particularly familiar to ordinary people).

This is an extract from an interview by Serbian journalist Danilo Mandić made in 2006.

Chomsky gives his views on what he sees as Western arrogance when attempting to justify their wars, and of Japanese in the case of the colonization of China in the 1930’s when he draws some interesting parallels.

This is an extract from an interview by Serbian journalist Danilo Mandić made in 2006.

Colonel David Hackworth and the Albanian Lobby

David Hackworth, a highly decorated United States Army colonel and prominent military journalist, attacks former Congressman and President of the Albanian lobby on Capitol Hill for buring the Serbian flag on a demonstration during the NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia.

This is an extract from March 29 from the Fox News show Hannity & Colmes.

Renowned American veterans David Hackworth and Bob Maginnis infuriate the president of the Albanian lobby when they accuse the Kosovo Liberation Army of being a bunch of criminals involved in terrorist activities. While Hackworth refers to sources from Interpol for such claims, Maginnis looks to articles from famous American newspapers going a long time back. The truth of the matter is tough that these terrorists had covertly received equipment and training from American and German intelligence services months before the West officially became involved in the conflict.

These are extracts from March 29 and April 7 from the Fox News show Hannity & Colmes.

The trait of interrupting other people while they’re talking, or in this case answering questions not directed to one, is evidently something shared by booth Shirley Cloyes and spouse, the president of the AACL Joseph DioGuardi. Finally, David Hackworth has it enough and stands up against her.

Concerning the part where Frank Gaffney claims that the war could have do something with Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, one shouldn’t give that much serious thought. Most likely, he himself doesn’t believe in something like that but at the same time he won’t admit the real cause, that the war was really just an attempt to find a justification for NATO after the end of the Cold War.

This is an extract from April 1 from the Fox News show Hannity & Colmes.

Bob Maginnis looks back at the Second World War to demonstrate the Serbs’ fighting capacities and then counts up facts about the capacity of the Yugoslav Army to prove that the Serbs are far from being sitting ducks in this war.

This is an extract from April 7 from the Fox News show Hannity & Colmes.

Not paying much attention to Shirley Cloyes’ motor mouth, David Hackworth gives his impressions of the Serbian people from this war. He also talks about his personal experiences with the Serbs.

This is an extract from April 8 from the Fox News show Hannity & Colmes.

David Hackworth is somewhat confused when Shirley Cloyes keeps mentioning the “we”, keeping in mind that she is a member of the Albanian lobby on Capitol Hill and a big propagandist for it. Finally, he has it with her and lets loose some demeaning remarks about her.

As far as Captain Ryan Henry’s claim are concerned that the KLA doesn’t exist as an effective fighting force, this was akso true some months back, when the province was totally peaceful and no fighting except small and insignificant activities from the KLA could be observed. The fact is that at the time the bombing began on 24 March 1999, the KLA had no significance at all. It was only with the assistance of the biggest military powers on earth that they managed to rebuild and enter Kosovo and then parade on the streets as victors, when in fact they had done nothing and didn’t have a chance against the Serbian army, as David Hackworth says himself.

This is an extract from April 8 from the Fox News show Hannity & Colmes.

If you think that Dana Rohrabacher is just that stupid or ignorant to think and then say something like that, you’re wrong. Nor is he talking like that just because he’s a Republican and Bill Clinton’s a Democrat. Its quite the opposite, because the answer can be found in his and other American politicians’ cleverness. They won’t admit that they started the war, that Malden Albright and Bill Clinton forced their Generals, the Pentagon and other NATO countries to attack Yugoslavia, even if all these ones were against the war, as is clearly seen her. But this was the only way the politicians could get the war they so desperately needed.

As Professor Peter Gowan nicely points out in his “The Twisted Road to Kosovo”, the credibility of NATO, and more importantly the United States, was at stake only because they made it come there: by the time the bombing had started, Malden Albright had repeated so many times how their credibility was at stake that something needed to be done, or NATO and the United States would have been humiliated to an unimaginable extent, something which their Generals, the Pentagon and other NATO countries didn’t want to risk. In other words, the talking was just a pretext for a war, a war which was staged so as to give all the skeptics a reason for why NATO had to exist even after the Cold War.

This is an extract from April 17 from the Fox News show Hannity & Colmes.

After a debate on whether the United States has the right to assassinate the democratically elected Slobodan Milošević, they go on to talk about a crucial part of the war, namely that the Pentagon had warned the politicians that an air-war alone could not obtain their goals. The same way, everyone knew how the Serbs would react to such an unprovoked attack on their country, which was whole-heartedly supported by the Albanians in Kosovo who were really pawns in the big game.

This further proves Peter Gowan’s point in his “The Twisted Road to Kosovo”, that no one except the politicians of the administration of Bill Clinton wanted the war. There was no opinion in the American public crying out for something to be done to stop the alleged genocide in Kosovo. This is probably why Clinton in his speech to the nation on the day of the first strikes on March 24 asked the American people to look Kosovo up on their maps (!), meaning that no one could have cared less about the issue.

Joseph DioGuardi, a former congressman himself, is fully aware of the real motives behind the war, and that it had nothing to do with the Albanians but really it was only about justifying the existence of post-Cold War NATO and strengthening the United States’ position over Western European countries. The same way he and Rohrabacher ought to be aware of the fact that the Kosovo Liberation Army was obtaining arms and training covertly from their own country and Germany.

This is an extract from April 17 from the Fox News show Hannity & Colmes.

Other Videos:

The President of the Albanian lobby on Capitol Hill is first confronted by the Serbian American Congresswoman Helen Delich Bentley for his inflamatory statements about the Albanians’ situation in Kosovo. After this spectacular event we will se a clip from The Hague where the accused Slobodan Milošević talks about the lobby’s role in the Kosovo conflict and the satanization of Serbs in the American public.

Despicable as it sounds, what Martti Ahtisaari is really saying on this occasion of him receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in December 2008, is that he implemented the policies of the same states that bombed Serbia and Yugoslavia in 1999. Or in other words: “we fooled the Serbs into these negotiations and said to the Albanians that they would get independence even if they were to blame for them not coming to a reach acceptable to both parties.” With this being said, the Albanian delegation refused to autonomy higher than any international standard anywhere in the world.

This was possible only because the politicians in Belgrade don’t want to rule the Kosovo Albanians, which is a fact they have repeated and made clear but one which Martti Ahtisaari does not mention here. Their interest is only to preserve their country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

But luckily, there are always those who stand up for the truth. David Jacobs, a Lawyer and expert on international law, lays waste to myths such as that Kosovo’s autonomy was revoked in 1989, when in fact Albanians had cultural autonomy on a level higher than many other minorities in Europe. This is illustrated by the fact that they had their own newspapers and other media, without any restrictions from the Serbian authorities whatsoever.

The thing was that the Albanian leaders saw it differently. As far as they were concerned, “Kosova” was already an independent state so they had no reason to negotiate with Belgrade. This is where the myth about “underground schools and hospitals” and even “apartheid” originates from. It was only a parallel society that they had created voluntarily, the same way they voluntarily refused to vote in the elections of a country which everyone except the Albanians in Kosovo recognized as a real state with that province as an integral part of that state with its internationally recognized borders.