Targetting of Chinese Embassy 'culpable, and
May 10 (EIRNS)--Democratic Presidential pre-candidate Lyndon H. LaRouche
issued the following statement on the implications of the recent
NATO bombing of China's Belgrade Embassy.
The following points are to be emphasized as the crucial
dilemmas in the bombing of China's Belgrade Embassy:
The most important element of proof of the certainty of
willful guilt by parties at the highest level of the NATO
command, feature the following:
The use of "over-the-horizon" targetting of
regulated trajectory bombs and missiles requires a GPS-based
method of enforced exclusion of non-permitted targets (such as
embassies, hospitals, schools, etc.) from the targetting.
In other words, every electronic target must be stated in
terms of military-grade GPS position, and that targetting
screened against the GPS-position list of prohibitted targets. A
coincidence must ensure immediate, automatic pre-cancellation of
the target. This is to ensure that no
"Strangelove"-type of character within the NATO air and
ship-based air and missile command bypasses a central prohibition
against those prohibited targets.
Negligence in respect to efficient enforcement of this rule
is, according to the "drunken driver principle,"
already sufficient proof of culpability at all relevant layers of
the NATO military command, from the top down.
The obligation to effect and enforce such targetting
discipline goes automatically with "the territory." Any
failure to install and maintain such a discipline efficiently, is
a court-martial offense on principle. Any violation of that rule
is prima facie evidence of culpability by those officials at the
highest level who should have established and efficiently
enforced such rules. The least result of violation of this rule
shall be prompt dismissal of all such officials "for the
good of the service." Willful violation of the requirement
to establish and enforce such a rule is proof of a culpability of
the relatively highest degree. The Nuremberg wartime standard of
"either knew, or should have known" applies to any
relevant high-ranking NATO military or other official of any
In the case of a military official, this is sufficient cause
for court-martial proceedings. In the case of a relevant
non-military official, this is cause for war-crimes proceedings.
In the most important cases, the culpable military official is
also subject to war-crimes proceedings.
Enforcement of the "either knew, or should have
known" standard requires no proof of explicit intent.
The statement of NATO's Gen. Wesley Clark, to the effect
that he continues to stand by the system, if verified as to
accuracy of the quote and explicit context of the utterance,
would be sufficient proof to require his immediate discharge for
cause of culpable intent to foster negligence in related
The foregoing rules apply as long as the warfare continues.
Only under the rule of the Treaty of Westphalia can exceptions to
such prosecutions be allowed. This is relevant to the matter of
possible charges of crimes against humanity which might be placed
at some future time against such parties as officials of
Yugoslavia or others. The power of forgiveness is relegated in
cases of offenses committed during warfare or similar states of
conflict, is a treaty power, which if adopted, must be respected
in perpetuity. This power of forgiveness is a natural extension
of the principle of justified warfare, as typified by the labored
definition of this connection in the course of the protracted
negotiations of the Treaty of Westphalia.
Revenge is never an honorable feature of justice. Action for
purposes of revenge is itself a crime against the principles of
justified warfare, and thus a crime against humanity. Revenge is
an act of barbarism in and of itself.
For reasons of proof defined above, the targetting of
China's Belgrade Embassy was not only culpable per se, but
The failure to establish and apply reasonably available
means to ensure no targetting of prohibited places is sufficient
proof of intent under the Nuremberg rule of "knew, or should
There are expressed motives by NATO and related relevant
officials, before and after the bombing of China's Belgrade
Embassy, to show the intent to conduct such violations of
international law under the pretext created by use of covert
means, to lay the blame after the event on an anomaly in the
system. This intent has been shown, not only by the statement
attributed to NATO's Gen. Wesley Clark, but by such opponents of
the recent decisions by both U.S. President Clinton and NATO's
Washington summit, as Her Majesty's Blair government. A similar
intent is indicated for the cases of palpably disgruntled
opponents of President Clinton's decision within the U.S.A.
institutions participating in NATO operations against Yugoslvia,
and against strong opponents of President Clinton's doctrine of
"constructive engagement within China."
The NATO bombing of China's Belgrade Embassy is
consistent, in imputable intent and consequences, with the
efforts of the British government and the U.S. anti-China lobby,
to enrage China to such a degree as to undermine the present
government of China and its efforts to maintain constructive
engagement with the U.S.A.
The great folly in U.S. policy which contributes to
allowing such a mess to be created by such meddlers, is the error
of allowing it to be said that the present Balkan war is a local
Balkan issue defined solely by the issue of Kosovo "ethnic
cleansing." This war is the result of an orchestrated
campaign, led by Her Majesty's Blair government, and including
Blair government sympathizers within the U.S.A. political and
executive establishment, to introduce a new global military
policy. This new policy was first attempted to be put into effect
in the aborted effort to launch a new war against Iraq, during
early 1998, and was set into motion on or about the time of the
first weeks of October 1998, with the sequence of bombing of
Sudan, Iraq, and the deliberate abortion of the Rambouillet
negotiations to the purpose of orchestration of the present
The target of this war has been the collaboration developing
among China, India, and Russia, assuming that the targets are
sufficiently weak, in face of a confrontation with the NATO
superpower force, that they have no choice but to submit to the
terrifying will of Her Majesty's Blair government, even to the
extent of allying with Her Majesty's government against the
This consideration must be faced. The implication is, that any
U.S. official supporting the policies of Her Majesty's Blair
government may be acting treasonously, if not otherwise
explicitly guilty of treason, against the U.S.A.