Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation

Changing "Horses": Wesley Clark's Record in Terror and Human Rights Violations

by Michel Collon

www.globalresearch.ca    29 September 2003

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/COL309A.html

Is Wesley Clark the long hoped for contender to go up against Bush II?

We will later examine why certain leadership circles in the U.S. anticipate the possibility of “changing horses”.

But, first of all, this silence about Clark’s past record? Yes, you could vote for Wesley Clark, provided that your forget about...


Clark, assigned to Panama to lead the US Southern Command, namely, Latin American operations, supplied various regimes that practice terror on their citizenry with a great many military “advisors” and US mercenaries. During this period, Latin America experienced a sharp increase in human rights violations. In Colombia, for example, there were 2,400 political assassinations (not taking into consideration the numerous incidents of people going missing or simply vanishing) committed by the military as well as paramilitary groups that were trained and equipped by Wesley Clark.

    The Objective: a long series of aggressions against Chile, Cuba and many others. It’s about waging brutal combat operations against liberation movements in Colombia, Peru, Guatemala, Mexico and Bolivia. It’s always done for the purpose of allowing U.S. multi-nationals to continue to keep the upper hand, with respect to economic relations, in Latin America. The fact that these wars were fought far away from news cameras does not diminish Clark’s responsibility.
[http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/ihr/display_details.cfm?ID=120&document_type=commentary] [http://www.nato.int/cv/saceur/clark.htm]


What about the war against Yugoslavia? Some people saw it as a humanitarian operation whose real goals corresponded to its announced goals. Others saw a hypocritical military operation that foresaw gaining control of Balkan oil routes and the country’s markets, meanwhile eliminating workers’ self-management and the social benefits of “Yugoslav socialism”.

    It seems that Clark himself could have answered this question by drawing on the following summary he made of his own mandate: “Potential adversaries should recognize that Western nations are fully capable - militarily, diplomatically and industrially - of high intensity combat operations that include the use of ground forces when their vital interests are involved and even when less-than-vital interests are involved.” Clark forgot to mention of the humanitarian pretexts that had been so frequently invoked before and during the war. (“Clark Recalls ‘Lessons’ of Kosovo, IHT, May 3, 2000).

    Be that as it may, the crimes committed during this war by NATO, which was under the command of Wesley Clark, are undeniable. Even though Clark, among others, will never be convicted because international law does not exist for the mighty.

    What about criminal acts? Even though he hit a laughably small number of Yugoslav tanks, Clark bombed the Radio-Television building (killing 16 journalists and technicians), factories, petrochemical complexes (which resulted in a dramatic rise in cancers and other maladies), civilian infrastructure (electric power generating stations), a convoy of Albanian refugees who were returning to Kosovo (70 victims), a passenger train... and, last but not least, the Chinese embassy (3 victims). Which was, in other words, a “warning” because Beijing was supporting Yugoslav independence. And let us not omit the use of “fragmentation bombs”, which are deadliest, in the long term, for children. And the use of so-called “depleted” uranium shells that has polluted the region for a long time to come. The Spanish NATO pilot, Martin de la Hoz, protested openly against the deliberate bombardment of civilian targets (Articulo 20, Madrid, June 14, 1999).

    Far from simply being a “obedient soldier”, Clark is described by one and all as a “super-hawk” who, most notably, wanted to bomb all the bridges of Belgrade in order to intimidate the population. This super - hawkishness could also be seen in his attitude right after the war when Russian troops moved toward Prishtina to try to protect the minority Serb population. Wesley Clark, in a fit of monstrous rage, demanded that British General Jackson block the Prishtina airport to prevent the Russians from landing. General Jackson replied: “Sir, I’m not going to start WWIII for you!”. Afterwards, Clark helped the terrorist militias of the KLA (UCK) escape demilitarization, which had nevertheless been stipulated by a UN resolution. Today, these military mafias are conducting a reign of terror against all of the national communities in Kosovo as well as against a large part of the Albanian population.

IRAK (2003)

Now that Bush has gotten entangled with the resistance put up by the Iraqi people, Wesley Clark brags: “I told you so”. He is even trying to cultivate an “anti-war” image through the electoral process. But what did he say before the war? “I am categorically certain that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction” (CNN, January 18, 2001).

    And what did he write on April 10 of this year? Oh, well, he welcomed the aggression against Iraq, which was motivated, according to him, by “strong convictions (...) Bush and Blair can be proud of their determination.” He reasoned that “nothing could be more moving” than the “liberation” of Baghdad and that it was necessary to hurry up and “achieve this great victory”. He also applauded General Tommy Franks, a war criminal who is guilty of having, on the one hand, ordered or, on the other, having concealed, the bombardment of civilians and attacks against hospitals, ambulances, journalists...

    And Clark, “a man of peace”, has announced that “the operation in Iraq will also serve as a point of departure (...) for military actions against countries that support terrorism and have deployed weapons of mass destruction”. This is an article to which Bush could have added his by-line. (The Times of London)


Why is Clark scaling the ladders of power? Because the setbacks experienced by Bush have begun to disturb one part of the leadership circle in the United States. They are afraid that, by having disregarded all of their allies, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to wage the various wars of aggression that they have prepared. In fact, the various factions of the U.S. bourgeoisie are in complete agreement with the plan to totally recolonize the world in order to save U.S. multi-national corporations from an economic crisis. But these factions disagree on the methods: Should they share a tiny part of the plunder and booty with their European allies or not? Should they respect at least the semblance of international law or not?

    If Bush is going to be discredited by the resistance put up by occupied countries, by his own lies, by scandals and by the failure of his own economic policies, then it will be necessary for a replacement to lead the very same policies more effectively.

    The episode demonstrates that the U.S., despite its superpower status, has its weaknesses. The leadership circles in the U.S. are now in trouble because resistance to their policies is growing worldwide. At the same time, the affair also shows that the “solutions” put forth by this system consist of replacing one war criminal with another.
    The professional positions that Clark held previously in his career prove that he too will be a man who belongs to U.S. multi-nationals and their dangerous projects. Knowing that China is being singled out to a greater and greater degree as a major target for the U.S. around 2015, it is interesting to recall one recent interview that went almost unnoticed.  Wesley Clark, questioned on the subject of Saddam, responded that the U.S. would do much better to express more interest in China: “During the Cultural Revolution they had cannibalism in China. And the same guys that ran over the students in Tiananmen, they're still there.”
(Fortune Magazine, quoted in http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/21/102656.shtml )

General Jackson wasn’t wrong, it seems, when he labeled Wesley Clark as the man who wanted to start WW III... Progressives, despairing for their cause, do not chose a shark that appears to be less dangerous than the one currently in power. Progressive politics is concerned with eliminating the system of sharks.

 © Copyright M Collon 2003  For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement .