War Games Issue Stirs Puerto Rican Protest - CNN Online News May 10, 1999 Web posted at: 1:11 a.m. EDT (0511 GMT)

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (CNN) -- Protesters remained camped on U.S. Navy land Sunday, as members of Puerto Rico's independence party protested U.S. war games that killed a civilian and injured four other people on the island of Vieques. Navy officials have said the site occupied by the protesters is filled with unexploded live ordnance that poses a danger to them.

Vieques' 9,300 residents say war games' bombing harms the environment, destroys marine life, stunts economic development and may be linked to an above-normal cancer rate. They also worry about the danger presented by the bombs themselves.

Controversy over the war games has created a rare political unity on the Caribbean island, where the debate on whether Puerto Rico should seek U.S. statehood, seek independence or maintain its U.S. commonwealth status usually keeps the three main political parties from agreeing on issues.

The protesters have enjoyed wide community support, with fishermen ferrying out supplies donated by local residents.

On the firing line

Members of the Puerto Rican Independence Party trespassed on the Navy property on Vieques Saturday.

Amid cheering crowds, they joined a band of protesters who have camped at the site since civilian security guard David Sanes Rodriguez was killed by an errant bomb during war games on April 19.

"We are going right into the middle of the firing line," said party President Ruben Berrios. "They only have two choices: stop bombing or arrest us."

Residents have long opposed the Navy's presence on the 33,000-acre island of Vieques off Puerto Rico's east coast. On Vieques, the Navy runs the North Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Facility, one of the largest live weapons training grounds in the world.

"Sanes Rodriguez's death shows how much danger Vieques residents are in each day," said Robert Rabin of the Committee for the Development of Vieques, an economic development and environmental group that opposes the military presence.

Seeking alternatives to bombing

Gov. Pedro Rossello of the ruling pro-statehood New Progressive Party has called for a permanent halt to live weapons training.

"There must be a viable alternative to the shelling, bombing and strafing of populated areas," he said in an April 20 letter to President Bill Clinton.

And Anibal Acevedo Vila, president of the pro-commonwealth Popular Democratic Party, has written to House Speaker Dennis Hastert urging a Congressional investigation.

The Navy is still looking into the accident, in which two Marine F/A-18 Hornet jets accidentally bombed an observation point, killing Sanes Rodriguez and injuring three other civilian workers and a Navy officer.

Navy apologizes, but practice may continue

The Navy apologized and said it would indefinitely halt military maneuvers using live ammunition. But Navy officials said the Vieques target range was essential to national defense because it is a unique location where planes and ships can bomb, and troops can be deployed.

Several lawmakers have called for an end to Navy bombing in Vieques or have called for hearings on the matter.

Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said in a letter to Navy Secretary Richard Danzig, "The U.S. Navy cannot, and should not, force the people of Puerto Rico to live in fear for their lives by continuing to use their island for target practice."

Rossello met with Danzig on Friday but little concrete seems to have come from the meeting.

"There was no agreement. We didn't even agree to agree. But I feltthe secretary was sincere and wanted an opening to look for alternatives," Rossello said.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Poll: Americans want temporary halt to airstrikes CNN Inbox Direct News, 26 May 1999

President Clinton's approval rating has dropped seven points in the last two weeks amid growing opposition to the NATO airstrikes in Kosovo, a new CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll shows. Clinton's approval rating, now at 53 percent, is the lowest of his second term. And 82 percent of Americans favor a temporary halt to the airstrikes while the U.S. and NATO attempted to resolve the matter through negotiations and other means.

Clinton approval rating lowest this term

By Keating Holland/CNN

May 25, 1999 Web posted at: 6:33 p.m. EDT (2233 GMT)

WASHINGTON (May 25) -- President Bill Clinton's approval rating has dropped seven points in the last two weeks amid growing opposition to the NATO airstrikes in Kosovo, a new CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll show.

Clinton's approval rating, now at 53 percent, is the lowest of his second term.

The number of Americans who oppose U.S. participation in NATO airstrikes, 47 percent, is the highest since those attacks began.

According to the new poll, the number of Americans who are confident in Clinton's ability to handle the situation in Kosovo has dropped from 66 percent in March to 57 percent now.

The public does not want the U.S. and NATO to end the airstrikes permanently, making no further effort to help the Kosovar refugees. Rather, 82 percent favor a temporary halt to the airstrikes while the U.S. and NATO attempted to resolve the matter through negotiations and other means.

Opposition to sending U.S. ground troops to Kosovo if the airstrikes are not effective in achieving U.S. objectives has remained steady, at 57 percent, since late April.

Clinton's lower approval ratings are matched by the public's view of congressional Democrats as well. When asked whether the country would be better off if the Republicans or Democrats controlled Congress, Americans currently split evenly, with 37 percent picking the Democrats and 36 percent choosing the GOP.

Last December, during a low point for the GOP caused by the impeachment of Clinton, only 30 percent picked the GOP, while 41 percent chose the Democrats. It is difficult to tell whether the Cox report on Chinese espionage was responsible for any part of the drop in Clinton's ratings, since the issue of Chinese spying has just begun to hit the public radar.

The poll was conducted May 23-24 and included interviews with 1,050 adult Americans. The polls sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points, unless otherwise noted.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bill Clinton is handling his job?

Approve
Now     53%
May 7-9     60

As you may know, the military alliance of Western countries called NATO has launched air and missile attacks against Serbian military targets in Yugoslavia. Do you favor or oppose the United States being a part of that military action?

Favor     Oppose
Now 49%     47%
May 7-9 55     38

How confident are you in President Clinton's ability to handle the situation in Kosovo -- very confident, somewhat confident, not too confident, or not at all confident?

Now     March
Confident 57%     66%
Not confident 42     33

As you may know, the NATO countries participating in the attack on Yugoslavia have a number of options right now. For each of the following possible options, please say whether you would approve or disapprove if the United States and NATO decided to take that course of action today.

If the U.S. and NATO were to temporarily suspend the airstrikes and attempt to resolve the matter through negotiations and other means.

Approve 82%
Disapprove 15

If the U.S. and NATO were to permanently end all military action and make no further effort to help the refugees return to Kosovo.

Approve 25%
Disapprove 71

If the current NATO air and missile strikes are not effective in achieving the United States' objectives in Kosovo, would you favor or oppose President Clinton sending U.S. ground troops into the region along with troops from other NATO countries?

Favor 40%
Oppose 57

If the current NATO air and missile strikes are not effective in achieving the United States' objectives in Kosovo, would you favor or oppose President Clinton sending U.S. ground troops into the region along with troops from other NATO countries?

Favor     Oppose
March 39%     57%
April 52     45
May 40     57

Do you think the country would be better off if the Republicans controlled Congress, or if the Democrats controlled Congress?

Now     December
Democrats 37%     41%
Republicans 36     30

JUDGES’ BOMBSHELL VERDICT AGAINST NATO Znet 29 May 1999

Twenty members of the Council of State (Greece’s supreme administrative court) have issued a statement deploring the international crimes against Yugoslavia, which inaugurate a "period of lawlessness" and bring us back to the "eras of the Holy Alliance and the Axis"

NATO was found guilty of an unprecedented and barbaric attack against Yugoslavia in a statement signed by 20 high-ranking judges of the Greek Council of State, headed by its most senior vice-president Michalis Dekleris.

In this important statement, the judges condemn the NATO bombardments, denounce the international crimes being committed by the NATO countries through this armed attack, and warn that any law passed deciding to involve Greece in this war will constitute a gross violation of the Constitution.

For the first time since the bombing began, Greek judges have taken a stand and, citing legal arguments, point out that the NATO offensive against Yugoslavia has inaugurated a period of lawlessness in international relations, bringing us back to the eras of the Holy Alliance and the Axis. In fact, they pointed out that "this attack is accompanied by the revival of black propaganda that attempts to exploit the misfortunes of the refugees to draw public attention away from the violation of international law."

Following is the full text of the statement:

1. NATO’s offensive against a sovereign European state, unprecedented in the post-war years, is an affront not only to the ethical principles of Greek and European civilisation, but also to the fundamental precepts of international law. This latter is a legal issue and should not be overshadowed by the moral revulsion that is justly provoked by this cowardly and barbaric attack. On the contrary, this issue is of primary importance and must be clarified in particular by those who have a competent opinion about the Law, since their duty is to serve it.

2. This inexcusable attack is taking place in flagrant violation of articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations Charter, which expressly prohibits the use of violence in international relations, and designates the Security Council (article 41 ff.) exclusively competent in international crises. According to these provisions, but also to the generally recognised precepts of international law, there is no room for self-appointed crisis managers, nor is it permitted, on any pretext whatsoever, for third countries to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state.

3. But this attack even violates the NATO Charter, the exclusive purpose of which is collective defence of the area defined therein that coincides with the boundaries of its member states, and which has expressly committed itself in its international relations to refrain from the threat or use of violence in any way whatsoever that is incompatible with the principles and purposes of the UN (article 1). That is, by its own Charter, NATO has been placed under the rule of the UN Charter. And it could not have been otherwise, since no international organisation or alliance can be placed above the United Nations.

4. In addition, both the United Nations Charter and all generally recognised precepts of international law safeguard the equality and sovereignty of all peoples, irrespective of their numbers and power, and do not recognise any jurisdiction on the part of powerful nations to intervene in the internal affairs of weaker nations or to dictate solutions to their own liking. Consequently, however serious the crisis in Kosovo may be, it remains an internal Yugoslav affair and belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the sovereign Yugoslav state. Any humanitarian or other interest on the part of the UN, other international organisations or third countries may be manifested only in a peaceful way and by diplomatic means within the context of the UN Charter.

5. And, in this case, the United Nations, respecting these restrictions, remained within its jurisdiction, recommending to the lawful government of Yugoslavia that they fulfil their obligations (Security Council resolutions No 1160/31.3.1998 and 1199/23.9.1998). But behind the scenes, the NATO military alliance appeared in a self-appointed role, and without having – nor could it have had – any competence to become involved in this matter, having first dictated an insolent ultimatum disputing the very sovereignty of Yugoslavia, then launched an aggressive war against this state, demanding that it conform to NATO demands. This attack is accompanied by the revival of dark propaganda that attempts to exploit the misery of the refugees to draw public attention away from the violation of international law.

6. The legal significance of these actions should not be concealed nor underestimated. By their armed attack, the NATO countries are committing the following international crimes, in accordance with the charter being drafted for the International Criminal Court, which refers to the Geneva Conventions dated 12 August 1949 (UN Doc. A/CONF/183/9) and in particular: a) the crime of waging an offensive war, with the violent destruction of human life, cultural monuments and entire settlements, b) the crime of genocide by the deliberate destruction of the infrastructure of the Serbian community and the creation in it of conditions that lead to its physical annihilation, and c) the crime of ecological destruction by the use of military technology that causes damage to people’s health and to the natural environment, a crime also committed against third countries to which deadly pollution is carried.

7. During the recent Washington summit, the leadership of the attacking NATO countries tried to amend the provisions of its Charter to make it autonomous in continuing the attack on Yugoslavia, and also with regard to its plans for the future in carrying out so-called peace-making and humanitarian interventions under the pretext of "crisis management"! It tried in vain. The only valid crisis management, according to international law, remains as ever the UN. And no other organisation that is by definition inferior to it can remove or usurp this role. NATO cannot abolish international law nor can it produce new, generally recognised precepts of international legality. Its new Charter affects only the governments that signed it. And even if it is ratified by the national Parliaments of its member states, it will declare the intentions of just 19 out of a total of 158 states on the planet. The remaining states will not tolerate the falsification or mockery of international law. They reject the theory that might is right, whether overt or disguised. And small states like Greece will be in danger if they relinquish rights which have been undisputed for centuries. The truth is that NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia inaugurates a period of lawlessness in international relations. We are returning to the era of the Holy Alliance and the Axis, against which humanity, and the Greeks in particular, fought with such great sacrifices.

8. Having become involved in this crisis Greece has no option other than to do what its culture and Constitution dictate, namely to follow the generally recognised precepts of international law, to seek the consolidation of peace, and to use its armed forces only for defensive purposes (article 2 para 2 and article 4 para 6 of the Constitution). In the light of these provisions of the Constitution of the Hellenic State and the provisions of the United Nations Charter, it is possible to interpret the provisions of articles 27 para 2 and 28 para 3 of the Constitution, which after a special law is passed, make it possible for foreign troops to sojourn in or travel across the Hellenic State or for national sovereignty to be restricted. These provisions could, however, be implemented only with respect to the participation of Greece in a defensive war, and not to facilitate an attack against a third state. Consequently, the involvement of Greece in this on-going war against Yugoslavia cannot be decided upon even by law because such a law would be totally unconstitutional.

In addition to Mr. Dekleris, this statement was signed by the following Council of State members: St. Sarivalasis, Ioanna Mari, Dim. Kostopoulos, Evdoxia Galanou, Sot. Rizos, Pan. Pikrammenos, Nik. Sakellariou, Th. Papaevangellou, Nik. Rozos, Dion. Marinakis, St. Haralambos and associate judges Maria Karamanov, Ekaterini Christoforidou, I. Kapelousos, Dim. Alexandris, Eleni Anagnostopoulou, Euth. Antonopoulos, Varvara Kapitsi, Theo. Aravanis.

Macedonian Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski looks on as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright answers a reporters' question after their meeting Wednesday June 2, 1999 in Washington. The prime minister, bracing for a doubling of NATO forces in his country, discussed his concerns that Macedonia might be the staging grounds for an invasion of Yugoslavia. (AP Photo/Joe Marquette)