A war is the worst of abominations and we are all concerned by the one in Yugoslavia. Who is blocking the search for a peaceful solution in Kosovo ? Milosevic or Clinton ? Recently (April 27), Mr Hubert Vedrines, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs who participated to the Rambouillet negotiations said : "A Rambouillet, il y a eu blocage" (In Rambouillet, no real discussion occurred) without indicating that Serbians were responsible for this situation as systematically repeated by Mrs Albright and all TVs in western Europe. Leaks in Rambouillet reveal that Serbia accepted an occupation of Kosovo by UNO while Mrs Albright was determined in favor of an occupation of Kosovo by NATO. The difference is important. In the first case, the international community recognizes Kosovo as a part of Serbia. In the second case, Americans are strongly suspected to want a second independent muslim republic (after Bosnia) under the protection of NATO armies. This is obviously unacceptable for Serbians as Kosovo is the "cradle" of their nation. What would say the Italians if some external country would decide the independence of Toscana, the native land of Etruscans. What would say the Spanish if some external country would decide the independence of Galicia, the region of Santiago de Compostella, a Mecca of Christianity in the middle age. For my part, I think that only UNO can solve the Kosovo problem, in a stable manner under the guarantee of several great powers. A crucial question is to know whether or not the US State Department, that commands the most powerful army in the World, whishes a negotiated peace in Kosovo. Indeed, I observe that USA have adopted a warlike approach and refuse all peace initiatives from Germany and Italy, in particular. In addition, this war raises important questions:

1 - Why USA have attacked a sovereign country for the fourth time in eight years (Irak in 1991, then Somalia, Irak again last year, and now Yugoslavia)? As shown by history, any war has a goal (generally economical or geopolitical). Clinton is lying (again) by invoking "humanistic" reasons for the extremely expensive war in Yugoslavia. Why USA do not attack Turkey (Kurdish people), England (North Ireland), Spain (Basque Country), France (Corsica), where at least one ethnic minority exists? Indeed, all the above conflicts have a clear geopolitical connotation as the year 1991 coincides with the end of the Soviet Union and as Irak, Somalia, and Yugoslavia were part of the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union before 1991.

2 - Why USA are trying to supplant UNO that is in charge of security and stability across the world with the guarantee of all the great powers (USA, Russia, China...)? This is an extremely worrying point as USA, with the most powerful army, want to be both judge and judged. This reveals an insatiable need to dominate, based on the law of the strongest.

3 - Why USA are infringing the NATO statutes which foresee mutual assistance in case of aggression by an external country (e.g. the Soviet Union), but do NOT anticipate an aggression of NATO against a non-NATO country? Inside NATO, the influence of USA is overwhelming (since 1949 the NATO commander- in-chief is systematically American). But both USA and NATO European countries are responsible for such statutory rerouting, although only five European countries are participating to the war in Yugoslavia. In fact, this war acutely poses the problem of an independent European Community (i.e. with an independent army) and I'm not sure that USA have nothing to lose in this war as demonstrated by the strong divergences that clearly appeared, despite official lies, during the last NATO summit in Washington (only USA and Engl[Band are favorable to a ground war while Germany, Greece, Italy, the Czech republic at least are against).

4 - Why USA are supporting the Liberation Army of Kosovo, known to be leaded by Maoist chiefs? This clearly shows that the "humanistic" reason is nothing more than a lame excuse. However, the situation of ethnic Albanian people inside and outside Kosovo is extremely worrying. But this serious problem cannot be solved by NATO bombing.

NATO destroys. NATO kills. NATO lies. With the systematic destruction of Yugoslavian media, USA is trying to monopolize the information about what NATO is doing. This behavior was that of Nazisms and Communisms. It is unworthy of a democracy such as USA. The French position is also pitiful. Both Chirac and Jospin (prime minister) have adopted a similar, hard position because they will likely be rival for the incoming (2002) presidential elections. However, unlike Chirac, the French Goverment has recently claimed that France will not participate to a ground war.

C. Barat, CESR, France

"Русский переплет"