Subscribe to our *free
send this text or the link to a friend.
you seen the Emperor's Clothes JUDGMENT!
Video? It proves the
Western media lied about Bosnia.
Learn more about JUDGMENT! here.
With Internet Explorer, Best Viewed With Medium Text Size
The Rambouillet Ultimatum
A crime against peace and an
insult to reason
[ This is the revised text of the Rambouillet section from Pr. Gil-White's The Oslo War Process, which includes a critique of Norwegian diplomacy that has become influential in Sri Lanka (a country now under attack by Norwegian diplomacy) http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/oslo.htm ]
[ www.tenc.net ]
On February 2nd 1999, what NATO called ‘peace talks’ began in the town of Rambouillet, France. The following is from The Washington Post: 
Notice the language that the Washington Post employs.
Belgrade is "the principal stumbling block" because of "its opposition to the peacekeeping force."The use of the phrase "peacekeeping force" makes the Belgrade government sound pathologically mule-headed. Who in his right mind wouldn't want to keep the peace? And therefore, if NATO felt like it had no further choice but to declare war, Belgrade's "intransigence" would be to blame.
How different the public's impressions of all this would have been if the Post and the rest of the Western media had merely done two things:
But they didn't.
Readers of ours who still believe the Western press is free should consider this: the contents of the Rambouillet Agreement, which Milosevic was being ordered to sign at the point of a gun, were never quoted in the Western media. In fact, the contents of the agreement were not even paraphrased. This is shocking. How can readers be expected to understand the behavior of the Yugoslavs without knowing what they were rejecting?
The terms of Rambouillet effectively separated the province of Kosovo from the Republic of Serbia, of which it was part, leaving the KLA terrorists as the provincial authority.This alone was reason enough for any country not to sign. What country would want to sign, under duress, a document prepared by a foreign power, and meant to section off a piece of the country - and especially the very piece which is the cradle of one's culture? Should any country, on top of that, want to leave the forcibly seceded population at the mercy of terrorists?
But if that were not enough to help you understand the Yugoslav refusal to sign Rambouillet, there is also Appendix B of the 'Agreement,' which stipulates the details of the NATO "peacekeeping force." Here are some excerpts:
This 'Agreement' would have made NATO lord and master of Yugoslavia. They were demanding terms comparable to those imposed by the invading Nazis in WWII. How could anyone but a quisling government sign such a document?
Since NATO was saying to Milosevic, "Sign or we will bomb you," and since the document was designed so that it was impossible to sign, NATO was declaring war. Not exactly hard to figure out.
Knut Vollebaek, Chairman of the OSCE, and Norwegian Foreign Minister, was naturally perfectly familiarized with the contents of Appendix B, and he was at the center of the Rambouillet maneuver.
The Washington Post garnishes its article with a dash of candor: "…concerted efforts to *subdue* Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic...," but this cannot overwhelm the rich Orwellian sauce. The Rambouillet Agreement was cooked up to be a declaration of war, but the Post and everybody else in the mainstream media served it up as a 'peace process.'
Vollebaek was a central figure in the effort to subdue Milosevic into accepting NATO's *occupation* process, "jetting around the globe, fielding calls from [NATO's] Solana and comparing notes with French counterpart [Foreign Minister] Hubert Vedrine and German opposite number Joschka Fischer," and "he and Albright saw ‘eye-to-eye,’" as the Post explained.
But perhaps the most amazing thing about Albright, Vollebaek, and Co. threatening the Yugoslavs with bombs unless they signed is that, at the time of the threats, the "other party" to the supposed agreement - the Albanian secessionist delegation at Rambouillet - was refusing to sign!Well, actually (look at the dates), two full weeks *after* the Yugoslavs were threatened, the other side was still refusing to sign...
The ethnic Albanian factions still aren't signing. The document is still a draft (!) and its *American* author expresses optimism - optimism! - that the Albanians will perhaps sign... But two weeks earlier, when NATO was already threatening Milosevic with bombs lest he refuse to sign, the Washington Post had told its readers that, "The principal stumbling block to achieving an agreement at the 12-day-old Kosovo peace talks outside Paris remains the opposition of the Serb-led Belgrade government…"
Illegality, absurdity and war
The Rambouillet 'Agreement' was never anything of the sort. Let us review the relevant points.
That absurdity was the capping stone.
At Rambouillet, the Yugoslav delegation, comprised of legitimate representatives of the various ethnic communities in Kosovo, was never allowed to meet face-to-face with the NATO-organized secessionists. Not once. Instead, NATO officials stage-managed their Rambouillet phony diplomacy, directly meeting with the various delegations and with the press even though they were not one of the parties involved in the "talks."
Belgrade naturally refused to sign the 'Agreement' - and this is precisely what NATO intended when it drafted it: to make it impossible for the Yugoslavs to sign. But it is significant that, until the last moment, neither did the secessionists sign it!
(And since nobody wanted to sign, who exactly was 'agreeing'? Chris Hill, the American author of the 'agreement'?)
As Slobodan Milosevic told the British and French Foreign Ministers in a letter: 
Obviously, this 'Agreement' was no agreement at all. It was a document drafted by a far away Imperial Power (the author, Christopher Hill, worked for the US State Department) in a rather crude attempt to create the impression that diplomacy had failed so that the "intransigence" of the Yugoslavs would be seen as the cause of war.
The crudeness of this attempt did not become apparent to Western citizens because the media did not report what was happening. For example, the media never printed the contents of the 'Agreement,' which would have allowed ordinary people to understand the natural reluctance - not the "intransigence" - of the Yugoslavs.
Instead the media obligingly cooperated with NATO disinformation. For example, notice how Knut Vollebaek, the very picture of a gentle, neutral Norseman, took this package of lies and threats of war, and turned it upside down (with no comment from the Post):
Notice what Vollebaek says, and how he talks.
First, he says that the OSCE observers were "unarmed." Yes, so long as you don't count the armed forces of the US, Britain, Germany, Holland, Norway, etc., etc, which stood behind them.
Second, he talks about the supposed "harassment" of OSCE observers. Huh? These OSCE observers were in fact intelligence agents forced on Yugoslavia in October 1998 under threat of bombing. They organized and trained the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) to be NATO's field army prior to the onset of NATO bombing. And they coordinated the KLA effort to take a dominating position among the heads of Kosovo Albanian clans. This was crucial, for the KLA needed to organize the mass exodus of Albanians at the outset of the bombing. How this propaganda coup was pulled off is explained in our article: "Why Albanians fled Kosovo during NATO bombing." [26a] The OSCE observers scoped out the countryside, selecting targets for later bombing attacks, even using CARE workers to place electronic bombing markers.[26b] If anybody harassed these people, they richly deserved it!
And why does Vollebaek refer to a beating by Yugoslav civilians as a *government* action?
And why does Vollebaek say "International military presence in Yugoslavia," when he should really be saying 'NATO army of occupation'?
Finally, notice that Vollebaek says: "Milosevic rather flatly refused." Refused *what*? To accept the complete NATO takeover of his country, a country he had sworn to protect, and of whose army he was Commander in Chief. Yes, I guess that's the sort of thing one flatly refuses.
What a Liar, this Gentle Knut.
Till the end, Vollebaek The Gentle Norse played the role of neutral diplomat from a tiny country, chairing the OSCE, an organization supposedly not under the direct command of the US and its allies. But the appearance of neutrality was an illusion. Here is Vollebaek delivering the final ultimatum (from the Washington Post): 
Vollebaek said he would have to call NATO commanders. Sometimes he tells the truth
[ Footnotes and Further Reading Follows the Appeal ]
[How to donate]
Emperor's Clothes is where you come for *rigorously documented* information and analysis that exposes how the mainstream media deceives people about US foreign policy.
If you find us useful, then please do your part to keep us afloat with a voluntary donation. Please give as generously as you can, but of course, within your means (every penny helps): $25, $50, $100, $500, $1000.
(If it's hard to decide how much we're worth, here's a useful comparison: for its misinformation, the New York Times charges about $50 a month.)
Footnotes and Further Reading
 The Washington Post, February 19, 1999, Friday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A01, 1139 words, Allies Reiterate Threats to Serbs; Albright to Join Kosovo Peace Talks, William Drozdiak, Washington Post Foreign Service, BERLIN, Feb. 18
 Full text of the Rambouillet Agreement: http://www.state.gov/www/regions/eur/ksvo_rambouillet_text.html
 The Washington Post, February 19, 1999, Friday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A18; DIPLOMATIC DISPATCHES, 896 words, Ready for Trouble in Yugoslavia, Nora Boustany
 The Washington Post, March 02, 1999, Tuesday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A13, 745 words, Kosovo Groups Warm to Pact; Belgrade Remains Opposed to Peacekeepers, Envoy Says, R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post Foreign Service, BELGRADE, March 1
 Krieger, H. (2001). The Kosovo conflict and international law: An analytical documentation 1974-1999, Cambridge International Documents Series, Volume II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.286
 The Washington Post, December 07, 2001, Friday, Final Edition, A SECTION; Pg. A44; DIPLOMATIC DISPATCHES NORA BOUSTANY, 959 words, Little Norway's Big Contributions, Nora Boustany
This Website is