From: •••@••.••• Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 22:58:17 EDT Subject: Chinese embassy bombing A thought in support of the idea that the US purposely bombed the Chinese Embassy: I begin with the studied premise that the US wishes to develop political, economic and military hegemony over the entire world. (If you find that idea absurd, you should stop reading at this point.) Asia is part of "the entire world". China is clearly the principal barrier to US hegemony over Asia. The bombing of the embassy was Washington's cute way of telling Beijing that this is only a small sample of what can happen to you if you have any ideas of resisting the American juggernaut. Being able to have a "plausible denial" for carrying out such a bombing may have been irresistible to American leaders. The chance would never come again. Bill Blum Author: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm (note the capital "A" and the underline _ ) From: •••@••.••• Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 22:12:13 EDT Subject: chinese embassy footnote Since my last mailing on the Chinese embassy bombing, I've read that the US also bombed the Chinese embassy in Dec. 1966 while bombing Hanoi, and in April 1986, when the US was readying to bomb Libya, it asked France for permission to fly over its airspace. France refused. So the US had to reach Libya a roundabout way. And guess what the US planes bombed in Libya, besides killing Gadaffi's daughter? That's right, the French embassy. Will coincidences never cease? Bill Blum Author: Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm *************************************************************** Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 09:09:44 -0400 (EDT) From: jan m <•••@••.•••> Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 01:04:18 -0400 From: Jerry Markatos <•••@••.•••> Subject: Peter Dale Scott: "unintentional" bombing of Chinese Embassy (cf: VietNam War) For those examining the motives and the details of the bombing of Yugoslavia, the following 720 word commentary by a respected writer brings back some history for comparison. The friend who sent it to me takes a dark view of war, and commented: "i'm of opinion that china embassy bombing was probably the most accurate and deliberate thing they've destroyed so far. they were under imminent threat of peace accord curtailing their best corporate war market expansion." See also "Help for the Map-Challenged" (next mesage) Jerry Markatos <In war, all bets are off, except for jingoism and the economic imperative> ------------------------------------- misc.activism.progressive Date: Tuesday, May 11, 1999 5:34 PM Actual heading: Bombing of Chinese Embassy COMMENTARY-720 WORDS "UNINTENTIONAL" BOMBING REPEATS A FAMILIAR PATTERN EDITOR'S NOTE: NATO forces and President Clinton have expressed regret over the fact that the Chinese embassy in Belgrade was destroyed just as there was word of a possible peace initiative, calling the incident unfortunate and unintentional. But the timing and nature of the bombing brings to mind a number of similar actions during the Vietnam War era. PNS contributor Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat, has authored numerous books and articles on U.S. foreign affairs. BY PETER DALE SCOTT, PACIFIC NEWS SERVICE The recent bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade looks like a replay. During the Vietnam War era, U.S. forces hit political targets, specifically embassies, just when international peace initiatives looked promising. Congress should insist on a thorough accounting from those responsible for the bombing. The attack on the Chinese Embassy came one day after Russia and leading NATO nations agreed to a set of general principles for ending the conflict over Kosovo. NATO has called the incident unintentional, but the Chinese claim that three separate precision missiles hit the Embassy. Eyewitness reports appear to corroborate the Chinese version. The threat to the peace process is obvious. The draft plan calls for approval by the U.N. Security Council, where China, a bitter opponent of the bombing, exercises a veto. This recalls December 1966, when the Rumanian Premier visited Hanoi in support of a secret Polish peace initiative dubbed "Marigold." Mid-December saw U.S. bombing of downtown Hanoi at unprecedented levels, after months when the city's center had been off-limits to American planes. During the raids one U.S. rocket damaged three adjacent Embassies -- the Rumanian, the Polish, and the Chinese which effectively terminated "Marigold." The U.S. called the Embassy bombings unintentional. But such correlations occurred repeatedly. In April 1966, just as a Polish diplomat was arriving in Hanoi to initiate "Marigold," bombs dropped near a Polish vessel in a Vietnamese harbor. In June 1967, just after the White House-Kremlin hot line was first used in a search for a diplomatic solution, the Soviet freighter Turkestan was bombed by two U.S. fighter planes. Three times, in almost identical circumstances, other Polish and Soviet vessels were later attacked. When in 1967 two French emissaries bearing a U.S. peace message arrived in Hanoi, the city experienced yet another surge in the bombing. My 1972 book, "Conspiracy" analyzed more than a dozen such incidents. The habit of timing bombs to peace initiatives apparently began as a deliberate policy of Lyndon Johnson, who habitually balanced concessions to hawks and doves. Thus Johnson authorized the December 1966 raids at the LBJ ranch in November, one day after he learned of "Marigold" from his roving ambassador Averell Harriman. In this way Johnson ensured that, if the North Vietnamese did negotiate, it would be in a context of humiliating air strength. But by June 1967 a different pattern emerged -- one involving military attacks which the President had forbidden. When activating the Washington-Moscow hot line in late May, Johnson ordered U.S. pilots to stay away from Hanoi and Haiphong, where there were Soviet ships. The two pilots who had attacked the Turkestan knew they were violating presidential orders. They and their commander tried to conceal the incident, the latter by destroying the planes' flight film. In his memoir former Defense Secretary McNamara recalled the "scathing denial" he erroneously issued after this incident, blaming "an outright lie by a military officer." He added that the colonel responsible for the bombing "was later court-martialed and fined." McNamara did not mention that the colonel's conviction and $600 fine were soon set aside. The two pilots were acquitted and remained on active duty, even though their unauthorized action had killed a Soviet seaman. This suggests that the bombing had high-level military support. A similar Air Force action in 1971 temporarily ended the series of secret meetings which Kissinger had been holding with North Vietnam's Le Duc Tho. To help the meetings President Nixon had limited air strikes against North Vietnam to "protective reaction" after enemy attacks. But the USAF general in charge of the air war, John Lavelle, continued to target North Vietnam, instructing the pilots to suppress the fact that there had been no enemy provocation. Thus Kissinger was caught off guard when Le Duc Tho broke off the talks in November, insisting (over Kissinger's misinformed denials) that the bombing went beyond "protective reaction." In short, it is clear that in the past, U.S. military commanders have bombed without authorization at times of significant peace initiatives, of which they apparently did not approve. The recent attack on the Chinese embassy should be investigated. It is of course too early to analyze with confidence how it occurred. But history demonstrates unequivocally that such incidents frustrate diplomacy and prolong war. (05101999) **** END **** © COPYRIGHT PNS -- Sandy Close <•••@••.•••> Pacific News Service (415) 438-4755 ------------- end forwarded commentary ------------- A footnote: When Noam Chomsky spoke in NC a few years back, he suggested that when the US Navy's highest tech battleship blew an Iranian civilian passenger plane out of the sky, it was a message to Iran that they should settle the Iran-Iraq War under terms favored by our then-ally Iraq, or else. Although the official line was that it was an accident, when the Vincinnes returned to port in Norfolk, the captain and the deck officer responsible for the incident were awarded medals for meritorious service. --jm ******************************************************************** Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 09:17:22 -0400 (EDT) From: jan m <•••@••.•••> Subject: "Help for the Map-Challenged CIA" Date: Thu, 20 May 1999 01:22:27 -0400 From: Jerry Markatos <•••@••.•••> Hi, friends, The following letter from Cliff Pearson of Dallas TX, to the director of Central Intelligence, shows exactly how hard it is to get addresses right, when all the world's our target. One response from Congress has been that if the CIA failed to make the right decision on bombing the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, it was because they don't have enough money(?!). If you're inclined to communicate with your representative(s) in Congress, check "Contacting the Congress" at http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ Just let them know that an increase of $1.99 plus a couple of postage stamps should take care of it. Cheers, Jerry ----------------------------------------------- misc.activism.progressive Help for the Map-Challenged CIA Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit source: Green Left Weekly #361 5/19/99 Maps To Director of Central Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency Washington, DC 20505 It has come to my attention that there was a bit of a boo-boo in Belgrade this past week. Apparently the Central Intelligence Agency had some difficulty locating the Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement and accidentally bombed the Chinese Embassy. It seems the problem had to do with having an outdated map. Maps must be getting awfully expensive, because even with the CIA's $40 billion a year budget, you guys apparently couldn't afford a current one. Therefore, enclosed please find one map of Belgrade, Yugoslavia. I bought it at a local bookstore. (Don't worry about the cost, $1.99, it's on me.) It has a copyright date of 1999, so it should be current. While I was at the bookstore I also took the liberty of picking up a Frommer's Travel Guide for Yugoslavia for you, should you choose to travel there. What with all the death and destruction the United States and NATO are causing there right now, hotel rates are probably pretty cheap. Also, might I suggest that in the future you guys double check your maps with the Internet? I managed to find the following addresses in about five minutes of searching: Federal Directorate of Supply and Procurement Tresnjin Cvet ST. 5 11000 Belgrade, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Embassy of the People's Republic of China Tresnjin Cvet ST. 3 11000 Belgrade, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Cliff Pearson Dallas, Texas -30- Six-month airmail subscriptions (22 issues) to Green Left Weekly are available for A$80 (North America) and A$90 (South America, Europe & Africa) from PO Box 394, Broadway NSW 2007, Australia <jump/http://www.peg.apc.org/~greenleft/>http://www.peg.apc.org/~greenleft/ e-mail: <http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=bg]/profile.xp?author=•••@••.•••&ST=PS>gr •••@••.••• NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 <jump/http://www.blythe.org>http://www.blythe.org e-mail: <http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=bg]/profile.xp?author=•••@••.•••&ST=PS>nyt@blyth e.org
