No doubt in my mind that war crimes were committed by the US in our bombing campaign in Serbia, such as the bombings of the power plant that provided electricity to Belgrade, the Chinese Embassy, and Serbian TV, among others.
It was no secret that the CIA relied on Al-Qaeda to recruit Chechen, and other Islamic jihadists, for the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army.
The role of NATO in the Serbian campaign is viewed by many reputable human rights advocates as having violated the UN Charter and international law.
While Milovan Milosovic is facing trial for genocide at The Hague, I must point out that he was not the first Yugoslavian leader to engage in ethnic cleansing. That dubious honor goes to the late President of Croatia, Franjo Tudjman.
There is also little dispute of EU's own failure to prevent genocide in the Balkans, partly fueled by the pathological fears about an Islamic government in Europe.
The entire breakup of Yugoslavia was a major cluster fuck in which the entire international community bears responsibility, this includes the UN, the EU, Russia, and the US.
It is quite appropriate to raise questions about Wes Clark's conduct as NATO commander during the Serbian war. However, a cursory examination of Clark's command of NATO reveals no glaring acts of war crimes, particularly when compared with the actions by General Tommy Franks. Unlike the obvious illegal war of aggression that Franks planned for, and conducted against Iraq, Clark had at the very least a legal framework to operate from.
Let's separate the war in the former Yugoslavia from Wesley Clark. One cannot even begin to point fingers in the direction of Clark, without first taking into consideration the context of the war, and the role that NATO, the UN, Russia, and the US played. By the time we get through the entire cast of characters in this sorry episode, we may come to the conclusion, as I have, that Clark's conduct and behavior during the war in the former Yugoslavia was honorable and stands to close scrutiny.
Here is a 1999 WSWS article about the war in the Balkans that you should read as background:
The US and ethnic cleansing--the case of Croatia
By David North
15 April 1999If the first casualty of war is the truth, the second, it would seem, is the capacity for critical thought. Beneath the mind-numbing pressure of unrelenting propaganda--centered on the fate of the Kosovar people--a large number of usually intelligent people are losing their political bearings and supporting the US-NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. "Normally"--i.e., when there is no war in progress--they oppose imperialism and militarism. As a general proposition, they are against the waging of war for markets, profits and other geo-political strategical interests. But this war is different: it is being waged for "human rights," to save lives that are threatened by racially-motivated atrocities being committed by the military forces unleashed by the Yugoslav government. In such a situation, it is argued, one is left with no choice but to accept the necessity of war to stop the barbarism known as "ethnic cleansing."
This position seems, at least on the surface, very reasonable. After all, who possibly can argue against the moral imperative of saving lives? A political criminal--Milosevic--has been identified. The images of his numerous victims have been broadcast all over the world. If bombing is what it takes to deal with this criminal and end the carnage, then so be it.
However, if the history of the 20th century teaches us anything, it is to beware of such "self-evident" justifications for the wars waged by the major capitalist powers. In weighing the explanations offered by the United States and its West European NATO allies for this or some other military intervention, one must never fail to distinguish the various good reasons --i.e., those couched in suitably altruistic and moralistic terms--from the real reasons--i.e., considerations of international imperialist power politics and commercial-financial bourgeois class interests.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/apr1999/croa-a15.shtmlIn conclusion, I think that Milosevic has presented a vigorous defense during his trial at The Hague. I am curious if this man, whose sanity has come into question on more than one occasion, will be acquitted by the international court.