Why the silence about H. Pinter's opposition to the Clinton/NATO assault on ex-Yugoslavia?

3 posts / 0 new

Log in or register to post comments

Last post

Tue, 2008-12-30 14:22

#1

Rikardo

Why the silence about H. Pinter's opposition to the Clinton/NATO assault on ex-Yugoslavia?

Nobel-laureate Harold Pinter's recent death gave us many articles, all of
which mention his opposition to Bush's war in Iraq. But Pinter was one of
the rare voices on the left to oppose Washington-Brussels policy in the
Balkans and the NATO 11-week "humanitarian" bombing in 1999. Here in
Canada it was Michael Bliss, Peter Worthington and George Jonas who spoke
out while Ed Broadbent and This Magazine supported NATO. The House of
Commons sat in rapt attention when visiting superstar Vaclav Havel warmly
praised the "humanitarian" bombs.
After Pinter's Nobel prize I vainly searched for mention of his courageous
position on ex-Yugoslavia. Nothing. Its Canada's Louise Arbour who is
Canada's heroine for her very selective rendering of justice. Justice, as
wrote George Jonas, is the mask behind which hide political fashions and
ideological agendas. With Obama in, Richard Halbrooke and Madeleine
Albright, architects of that just war, are back.

Tue, 2008-12-30 14:29

#2

Unionist

Here is Pinter's letter to The Guardian of April 8, 1999:

Quote:
US foreign policy can be defined as follows: "Kiss my arse or I'll kick your head in." Milosevic refused to kiss America's arse so Clinton is kicking in the head of the Serbian people (not Milosevic himself) with catastrophic con-sequences for the Kosovans. Nato's action is ill thought out, ill considered, misjudged, miscalculated, disastrous. It is also totally illegal and probably represents the last nail in the coffin of the UN. The justification for the action - "humanitarian considerations" - is clearly a very bad joke. It also demonstrates a profound hypocrisy on the part of the US and UK. Sanctions on Iraq -led by those countries - have killed nearly one million Iraqi children. That's genocide for you - in no uncertain terms. Milosevic is undoubtedly ruthless and savage. So is Clinton: Clinton continues the vicious Reagan/Bush tradition with no trouble at all. But he combines that tradition with a shy grin and a beguiling southern drawl. He can really be so sweet on television. Blair is the one who kisses Clinton's arse fervently and dreams that he is Mrs Thatcher. The level of intelligence employed in this whole enterprise is pathetic if not infantile. The US is now a highly dangerous force, totally out of control.

[u][url=http://www.haroldpinter.org/politics/politics_serbia.shtml#]Source.[/url...

Tue, 2008-12-30 18:22

#3

Fidel

Yes, and as soon as Brzezinski's Afghan-Arabs threw those dirty communists out of Kabul and Jalalabad some two and a half years behind schedule, they were transplanted to the Balkans in 1992. Separatists were in place for years in Croatia, Bosnia, Slovenia etc. Milosevic dreamed the separatist dream and all. Iranian Revolutionary Guard, mujahideen, and KLA gangsters were aided and abetted by the US military and British SAS and did what the IMF and European banksters set out to do in 1980's Balkans. Germany sought ties with Zagreb early on and was among the first NATO countries to recognize the breakaways

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/1r9lpy.gif[/IMG]