Joschka Fischer lies about the Rambouillet accord

By Knut Rognes

The left has recently been accused of misconstruing the Rambouillet accords when it claims that certain parts of it, especially Appendix B to chapter 7, is impossible for Yugoslavia, or any sovereign state, to accept. It is objected that Rambouillet does not contain anything that Yugoslavia has not agreed to in writing already, e.g. in the Dayton accords.

A recent example from the Norwegian press is an article by the journalist Kjell Arild Nilsen in the mainstream paper Aftenposten (our NYT) entitled "Tvilsom historieskriving" (=Dubious writing of history" on http://www.aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/d81011.htm.

However, it appears that the first one to have made such objections is the leader of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Joschka Fischer, probably reacting to the publication of the details of Appendix B by the German left-wing newspaper taz-tageszeitung. On April 14, 1999 the German Foreign Office made the following statement on the Appendix B of the Rambouillet accord:

"Rambouillet-Abkommen, Appendix B, vergleichbar mit anderen Abkommen dieser Art

Das Auswärtige Amt hat den Appendix B des Rambouillet-Abkommens (Status multinationaler militärischer Implementierungskräfte) mit anderen Vereinbarungen dieser Art (u.a. Vereinbarung zwischen der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien und der NATO betreffend den Status der NATO und ihres Personals, Muster-Statusregelung der Vereinten Nationen für Friedensoperationen) synoptisch verglichen. Ein detaillierter Textvergleich belegt, daß die Dokumente in allen zentralen Punkten wort- oder sinngleich sind. Damit ist der Vorwurf, der Appendix B enthalte Formulierungen, die für die jugoslawische Seite nicht zumutbar gewesen seien, in vollem Umfang entkräftet. Bereits in der Vergangenheit (Dayton-Vertrag, 1995) hatte Jugoslawien entsprechenden Vereinbarungen zugestimmt.

Eine vom Auswärtigen Amt erstellte Übersicht dokumentiert die Übereinstimmungen zwischen den genannten Vereinbarungen. Die Übersicht und der Text der Vereinbarungen kann beim Auswärtigen Amt (Tel.: 0228/17-2304) angefordert werden."

(Source: http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/6_archiv/inf-kos/p/p990414c.htm)

Joschka Fischer states here that he has compared Appendix B with other agreements of this kind, and mentions explicitly an accord entitled: "Vereinbarung zwischen der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien und der NATO betreffend den Status der NATO und ihres Personals".

The Dayton Accords are published in the "U. S. Department of State Dispatch, The Dayton Peace Accords, March 1996 Vol. 7 Supplement No. 1, Washington, DC : Government Printing Office, 1996" subsequently made available on the internet through the web-pages of The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/intdip/bosnia/daymenu.htm.

It appears that no Dayton agreement between Yugoslavia and NATO entitled "Vereinbarung zwischen der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien und der NATO betreffend den Status der NATO und ihres Personals" (in equivalent English terms) exists at all. Om the other hand there exists an "Agreement Between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Concerning Transit Arrangements to Peace Plan Operations" (my emphasis), thus not "... betreffend den Status der NATO und ihres Personals". The latter words (in equivalent English terms: "... Concerning the Status of NATO and its Personnel"), however, are the ones used in the corresponding documents concerning NATO forces and Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, respectively.

So this is the first lie of Fischer.

Going into the details of the Dayton-documents concerning the relationships between NATO forces and Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Yougoslavia, respectively, I find the following to be the case:

 As regards NATO/Croatia og NATO/Bosnia-Herzegovina NATO has been given wide powers, cf. paragraph 9:

 "9. NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout Croatia including Croatian airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations ..." (in the other document 'Bosnia-Herzegovina' is substituted for 'Croatia').

As regards NATO/Yugoslavia NATO has not been accorded similar wide powers in the FRY at all (no text like the one above can be found), but FRY accords NATO the right of transit, which is to take place along routes to be agreed upon, cf.paragraph 2 and 4:

"2. The Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia shall allow the free transit over land, rail, road, water or through air of all personnel and cargo, equipment, goods and material of whatever kind, including ammunition required by NATO for the execution of the Operation, through the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia including Federal Republic of Yugoslavia airspace and territorial waters.

4. ... The modes of transport will be communicated by NATO to the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in advance. The routes to be followed will be commonly agreed upon."

Texts to this effect are absent from the NATO/Croatia and NATO/Bosnia-Herzegovina documents.

So here is Fischer's second lie. The claim that "Ein detaillierter Textvergleich belegt, daß die Dokumente in allen zentralen Punkten wort- oder sinngleich sind" is simply false.

Returning to the Rambouillet accords (http://www.balkanaction.org/pubs/kia299.html#Appendix B: Status of Multi-National Military), we find that NATO wanted exactly the same wide powers in Yugoslavia as it was given in the corresponding Dayton accords for Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia, cf. paragraph 8 of Appendix B:

"8. NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft, and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the FRY including associated airspace and territorial waters. This shall include, but not be limited to, the right of bivouac, maneuver, billet, and utilization of any areas or facilities as required for support, training, and operations."

 

The third lie is therefore committed by Fischer when he states: "Damit ist der Vorwurf, der Appendix B enthalte Formulierungen, die für die jugoslawische Seite nicht zumutbar gewesen seien, in vollem Umfang entkräftet. Bereits in der Vergangenheit (Dayton-Vertrag, 1995) hatte Jugoslawien entsprechenden Vereinbarungen zugestimmt."

Yugoslavia has never accepted such wide powers for NATO in the FRY as the ones formulated in the text Fischer wants to keep under the carpet, not in Dayton and never since.

It appears that this is one of the things the war is about: For NATO to get free access to the whole of Yugoslavia. It seems to be worth lies at the highest levels to hide this fact.

(Written May 15, 1999)