By Denis Hay
Description
Earth’s Greatest Enemy exposes the U.S. military’s environmental impact – and why Australia’s unquestioning support must be challenged.
Watching Earth’s Greatest Enemy is a deeply disturbing experience.
Journalist Abby Martin’s documentary confronts viewers with a reality largely missing from mainstream climate debate: one of the world’s greatest sources of pollution and environmental destruction is also one of its most politically protected institutions – the United States military.
The film’s official description calls the Pentagon “the world’s single largest institutional polluter.” That claim is confronting, but the broader case does not depend on rhetoric. Government records, academic research and the experiences of affected communities reveal an enormous environmental footprint involving fossil fuels, toxic chemicals, contaminated water, destroyed ecosystems and the lasting consequences of war.
The film can leave viewers feeling depressed and powerless. Yet powerlessness is precisely what entrenched institutions depend upon. The purpose of confronting these facts should not be to surrender to despair, but to understand what must change – and how citizens can help change it.
The climate cost hidden behind military power
Public discussions about climate change commonly focus on household electricity use, petrol cars, air travel and consumer choices. These issues matter, but concentrating almost entirely on personal behaviour allows powerful institutions to escape scrutiny.
The Pentagon operates aircraft, warships, armoured vehicles, global supply chains and hundreds of military installations. Fighter aircraft and aerial refuelling tankers can consume extraordinary amounts of fuel during a single operation.
Research by Brown University’s Costs of War project estimated that the U.S. military produced approximately 1.2 billion tonnes of greenhouse-gas emissions between 2001 and 2017. More than 400 million tonnes were attributed to war-related fuel consumption. In 2018 alone, Pentagon emissions were estimated at approximately 56 million tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent – more than the total emissions of many countries. (Brown University Costs of War)
The Pentagon’s own climate plan reported that its Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions in 2021 represented about 76 per cent of U.S. federal government emissions and were equivalent to approximately one per cent of total U.S. emissions in 2020. The document also reported reductions from earlier levels, but the remaining footprint is still enormous. (U.S. Department of Defense)
These figures do not capture the complete climate cost of militarism. They may exclude parts of military supply chains, weapons manufacturing, bombed buildings, burning oil facilities, destroyed forests and the carbon-intensive reconstruction that follows war.
The Pentagon may recognise climate change as a threat to military operations, but making bases more resilient to extreme weather is not the same as confronting militarism’s contribution to the crisis.
Military pollution is more than carbon
The environmental damage caused by military activity extends far beyond greenhouse gases.
Military bases and training areas can contaminate soil and groundwater with fuel, solvents, heavy metals, explosives and toxic firefighting chemicals. One particularly serious problem involves PFAS—persistent synthetic chemicals that remain in the environment for decades and have been associated with harmful health effects.
In 2025, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that the Department of Defense expected future PFAS investigation and cleanup costs to exceed US$9.3 billion. The estimate had more than tripled since 2022 and was expected to increase as the full extent of contamination became known. (U.S. Government Accountability Office)
The 2021 fuel leaks at the Navy’s Red Hill facility in Hawai‘i provide a devastating example. According to the Government Accountability Office, the leaks contaminated drinking water serving approximately 93,000 military personnel and civilians. A further accident in 2022 released hazardous firefighting-foam concentrate into the facility and surrounding environment. (U.S. Government Accountability Office)
In Vieques, Puerto Rico, decades of U.S. Navy exercises left areas contaminated by former military activities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency placed the former training area on its Superfund National Priorities List, reserved for some of America’s most serious hazardous-waste sites. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
These are not isolated mistakes. They demonstrate the environmental risks created when military necessity is repeatedly placed above public health, Indigenous rights and ecological protection.
War continues killing after the bombing stops
The destruction of war cannot be measured only by battlefield casualties.
Bombing can destroy hospitals, sanitation systems, electricity networks, farms and water supplies. Toxic remnants, unexploded weapons and contaminated land may remain dangerous for generations. Reconstruction consumes vast quantities of cement, steel, fuel and other resources.
Brown University researchers estimate that the post-September 11 wars involving the United States have contributed to at least 4.5 to 4.7 million direct and indirect deaths across affected war zones. The estimate includes between 3.6 and 3.8 million people believed to have died indirectly because war damaged economies, healthcare, food supplies, infrastructure and the environment. More than 38 million people were displaced. (Brown University Costs of War)
These figures should be described carefully. They do not mean every death was caused directly by an American weapon or solely by the United States. Multiple governments, armed groups and historical forces were involved. Nevertheless, the scale exposes the catastrophic consequences of wars initiated, expanded or sustained by U.S. military power.
The environment is not separate from human survival. Poisoned water, ruined farmland and destroyed health systems kill people just as surely – although often less visibly – than bombs.
Why military emissions remain difficult to see
Military emissions are not entirely absent from international climate accounting, but they remain inadequately disclosed.
The Paris Agreement requires countries to provide national greenhouse-gas inventories. However, military fuel use is often grouped into broad categories instead of being separately identified. Governments may also restrict information on national-security grounds, while emissions from international aviation and shipping fuels are reported separately rather than included in national totals.
The Conflict and Environment Observatory found that military-emissions reporting remains inconsistent and frequently lacks the detail required for meaningful public scrutiny. (CEOBS military-emissions framework)
This creates a serious double standard. Governments demand that families accept higher energy costs, change their behaviour and reduce emissions while military operations receive far less public examination.
A genuine climate policy must include transparent accounting for military bases, operations, exercises, procurement, weapons manufacturing, conflicts and post-war reconstruction.
Australia is not merely an innocent bystander
Australians should not view Earth’s Greatest Enemy as a documentary about another country.
Successive Coalition and Labor governments have tied Australia increasingly closely to U.S. military strategy through Pine Gap, the Marine Rotational Force in Darwin, expanded air operations, weapons cooperation and AUKUS.
Australian Defence documents show that U.S. Force Posture Initiatives include expanded fuel storage, aircraft facilities, ammunition infrastructure and support for U.S. aircraft at RAAF Base Tindal. Similar development supports the U.S. Marine presence in northern Australia. (Australian Department of Defence)
From as early as 2027, HMAS Stirling in Western Australia is expected to host a rotational presence of up to four U.S. and one British conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines under Submarine Rotational Force–West. The Australian Government is investing billions of dollars in the supporting infrastructure. (Australian Department of Defence)
Governments insist these arrangements respect Australian sovereignty and strengthen deterrence. Those claims deserve open examination, not automatic acceptance.
When Australian territory, ports, airfields, intelligence facilities and fuel infrastructure become integrated into U.S. military planning, Australia also shares responsibility for the environmental risks and human consequences of that system.
Calling these arrangements “rotations”, “joint facilities” or “force-posture initiatives” does not answer the fundamental democratic questions:
- Could these facilities support a war that Australians had never approved?
- Who makes the final decision about how they are used?
- What environmental liabilities could Australia inherit?
- Would their presence make Australia safer – or turn Australian communities into strategic targets?
- Are complete emissions and contamination risks being publicly disclosed?
These are not anti-American questions. They are pro-democracy, pro-sovereignty and pro-peace questions.
Australia has already experienced military contamination
Concern about the environmental risks of military facilities is not hypothetical.
Australia’s Department of Defence operates a national program addressing PFAS contamination on and around Defence properties. Communities near bases including Williamtown, Oakey and Tindal have faced restrictions, uncertainty and diminished opportunities for using affected land.
At Swartz Barracks near Oakey in Queensland, Defence acknowledges that PFAS has travelled beyond the base through drainage systems and groundwater. Alternative drinking water has been supplied to eligible residents, and further groundwater investigations and remediation planning continue. (Australian Department of Defence)
This history should make Australians cautious about accepting further military expansion without rigorous environmental assessment, transparent monitoring and enforceable responsibility for cleanup.
China’s military response did not arise in a vacuum
China’s military expansion, pressure on Taiwan and territorial disputes should not be ignored or excused. However, portraying China as the sole cause of Indo-Pacific militarisation produces a dangerously incomplete picture.
The United States maintains major forces and alliances across the region and is expanding military infrastructure, logistics, missile systems and access agreements. Its own Pacific Deterrence Initiative describes investments designed to strengthen U.S. force posture, infrastructure, presence and readiness against China. (U.S. Department of Defense)
SIPRI researchers describe the expanding undersea competition between China and the United States as a security dilemma: each side presents its military buildup as defensive, while the other interprets it as threatening and responds with further expansion. (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute)
China is therefore responding not only from its own ambitions and nationalism, but also to decades of U.S. military presence, alliances and expanding facilities across its surrounding region.
Acknowledging this does not mean endorsing every Chinese government policy. It means recognising that peace requires understanding the fears and actions of all sides. Australia’s growing role as a platform for U.S. military operations risks deepening this cycle instead of helping to resolve it.
If every new missile, submarine and military base is justified as a response to the other side, the arms race has no logical endpoint.
What could Australia do differently?
Australia does not have to choose between passive dependence on Washington and isolation from the world.
A genuinely independent foreign policy could:
- Require parliamentary approval before Australian forces or facilities support overseas wars, except when Australia faces an immediate attack.
- Publish comprehensive data on military emissions, fuel consumption, pollution and environmental remediation.
- Conduct independent environmental and safety assessments of all U.S. military activities in Australia.
- Reassess AUKUS and the expansion of foreign military access to Australian territory.
- Strengthen regional diplomacy, arms-control negotiations and conflict-prevention institutions.
- Support a nuclear-weapons-free region and reject participation in nuclear war planning.
- Redirect skills and productive resources from unnecessary weapons projects into renewable energy, climate resilience, public transport, housing and environmental restoration.
- Guarantee that affected communities and Traditional Owners have genuine decision-making power – not merely consultation after decisions have been made.
Security should mean more than preparing for war. It should include secure housing, healthcare, clean water, reliable energy, stable employment, a safe climate and peaceful relations with neighbouring countries.
Australia can afford human and environmental security
Political leaders frequently suggest that Australia must choose between environmental restoration, social services and national security because the government has “run out of money”.
That is misleading.
The Australian Government is the sovereign issuer of the Australian dollar. It cannot involuntarily run out of its own currency in the way a household, business or state government can. Its real constraints are available workers, expertise, equipment, technology, energy and natural resources – and the inflation that may result when spending exceeds those productive limits.
The important question is therefore not simply, “Where will the money come from?” It is:
What should Australia’s real resources be used to achieve?
Resources committed to military expansion cannot simultaneously build public housing, restore damaged ecosystems, staff hospitals or construct renewable-energy infrastructure. Australia has the financial capacity to fund peacebuilding and environmental repair. What it requires is political commitment and careful management of real resources.
A safer society is not created merely by possessing more weapons. It is created by ensuring that people and the planet have what they need to survive and flourish.
From despair to collective power
Earth’s Greatest Enemy is difficult to watch because it reveals the enormous scale of the system confronting us. No individual can personally stop the Pentagon, dismantle hundreds of military facilities or reverse decades of environmental damage.
But history shows that major institutions change when informed citizens organise, speak publicly, support affected communities and make political silence impossible.
Ordinary people have helped end wars, prohibit weapons, protect land, expose government misconduct and force industries to clean up pollution. These victories were rarely immediate. They began when people refused to accept that destructive policies were inevitable.
Viewers can respond by:
- Sharing the documentary and discussing its evidence.
- Contacting federal MPs and senators about military emissions and foreign bases.
- Supporting peace, climate and anti-nuclear organisations.
- Demanding parliamentary debate over AUKUS and U.S. military access.
- Listening to Indigenous and local communities affected by military contamination.
- Asking environmental organisations to include militarism in climate campaigns.
- Challenging media reporting that treats every military expansion as automatically necessary.
Despair tells us that nothing can change. Democracy begins when citizens reject that message.
Conclusion: protecting the planet requires confronting militarism
The central lesson of Earth’s Greatest Enemy is not that the United States is uniquely evil or that other militaries cause no harm. It is that the world’s most powerful military institution operates on a scale unmatched by any other—and receives far less environmental scrutiny than its impact demands.
Its fossil-fuel consumption, toxic contamination, global infrastructure and wars impose costs that extend far beyond national borders. Australia cannot condemn climate destruction while offering increasingly unconditional support to the military system helping to drive it.
Protecting the planet requires more than cleaner consumer choices. It requires confronting the political and military structures that consume extraordinary resources, intensify international tensions and leave communities living with poisoned water, ruined land and the consequences of war.
The documentary may make us feel powerless. But seeing the system clearly is the first step towards changing it.
The choice is not between national security and peace. The choice is between a narrow idea of security built around permanent militarisation and a broader human security founded on cooperation, environmental survival and social justice.
Which future should Australia help create?
Frequently asked questions
Is the U.S. military the world’s biggest polluter?
The precise ranking depends on whether researchers measure emissions, fuel use, toxic waste, supply chains or the environmental effects of war. However, available evidence establishes that the Pentagon is one of the world’s largest institutional fossil-fuel users and greenhouse-gas emitters.
Are military emissions excluded from the Paris Agreement?
They are not subject to a simple blanket exclusion. Countries must report national emissions, but military data is often aggregated, incomplete or protected on security grounds. International aviation and shipping emissions are also treated separately, leaving major gaps in public accountability.
Does opposing U.S. bases mean opposing the American people?
No. Criticism of military policy is not hostility towards Americans. Many American veterans, scientists, environmental campaigners and peace organisations also oppose militarism and Pentagon pollution.
Would reducing military spending leave Australia defenceless?
Australia requires an appropriately equipped defence force. The real debate concerns what threats Australia should prepare for, whether current policies make conflict more likely, and how much security comes from diplomacy, regional cooperation and climate resilience rather than expensive power projection.
What can one person realistically achieve?
One person rarely changes national policy alone. Individuals become politically effective through education, voting, public advocacy, community organising and coordinated pressure on institutions.
If you found this article insightful, explore more about political reform and Australia’s monetary sovereignty on Social Justice Australia.
Share this article with your community to help drive the conversation toward a more just and equal society.
Click on our Reader Feedback menu. Let us know how our content has inspired you. Submit your testimonial and help shape the conversation today!
Additionally, leave a comment about this article below.
Support Independent Analysis
Social Justice Australia receives no funding from corporations, political parties or lobbyists. Reader support helps keep every article independent, evidence-based and freely available.
Support Social Justice Australia with a one-time or monthly contribution.
Thank you for helping sustain independent, ad-free and reader-funded public-interest analysis.
Reference
About the Documentary Earth’s Greatest Enemy: The US military is ‘Earth’s greatest enemy’
This article was originally published on Social Justice Australia
Also by Denis
How Advance Australia Hijacked Democracy
Why Free Camping in Australia Is Under Threat
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless independent voice – holding power to account and delivering journalism that matters.
Running this site isn’t cheap. Rising costs mean we need your support now more than ever. Every donation, big or small, keeps our servers running, our writers working, and our stories free for everyone.
Donate here:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund for hosting and future improvements.
Thank you for standing with us. We couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude,
The AIMN Team
Frightening, but always there in some nightmares over time…the complete elimination of such bodies as the Pentagon, CIA, FBI, industries and corporations in military industrial political collaboration, everywhere, would be highly desirable, totally impossible, a beautiful dream. The wilful, evil, ambitious, narcissistic, domineering types always emerge…
Thanks Denis, if both Denis Hay and Caitlin Johnstone break tradition to give the movie a plug then ‘Earth’s Greatest Enemy’ must be worth watching.
The USA has has world hegemony for over 80 years. As the world’s most powerful superpower it has been a disaster for the world. Yes, Western countries prospered financially under US hegemony, but it was built on piliging third world countries, leading to wars, destruction, pollution and deaths.
Paul Keating once said that China will become the world’s most powerful superpower at some stage, and that we should try to mould it into being a beneficial superpower.
China constantly espouses trade and relationships for mutual benefit, it has shown no evidence of empire building. Australia, and countries like Australia, should be nurturing that attitude. Instead, Australia takes an aggressive stance against China, treats China as an enemy, constantly talks of war with it and acts as if it were about to go to war with China, all at the behest of the USA. What could possibly go wrong?
If you voted Labor ahead of more progressive alternatives in ’25, do you look at your grandchildren and think to yourself ‘sorry, I’d rather see Labor in power then you live in peace’?
Being a vassal state of the world’s greatest terrorist organisation, means the political will of our government is vanishingly small.But hey, it’s better than being in opposition,Hey Albo?
What credibility or expertise does US ‘journalist’ Abby Martin have, and using her as a single source?
She was on LNL last week flogging a book (as too many guests do) presenting as an expert on military carbon emissions, some years before had a show on RT Russia Today where she sort of called out Russia’s invasion of Ukraine/Crimea in 2014.
However, critics claim, like some indie outlets do in Oz, microfocus upon US and Israel, but frames out Russia and other adversaries from direct criticism (when Putin, Trump & Netanyahu are ‘the three amigos’).
Andrew Smith asks — “What credibility or expertise does US ‘journalist’ Abby Martin have,…”
Smith is defender of US imperialism, with all the brutality, bloodshed, death and theft that 250 years of plunder entails.
At Alex Carey: a century of business taking the risk out of democracy Smith said Noam Chomsky, who has devoted his life to exposing the evil behind US imperialism, at great risk to his own safety, “prefers to lazily and glibly oppose US or western policies…”
Smith knows all about “lazy and glib”; he’s a long-term practitioner.
This was in a comment that he began by accusing Chomsky of “genocide denial on Srebrenica some years ago”.
Chomsky was correct.
There was no Srebrenica genocide.
The alleged genocide by Bosnian Serbs was a propaganda fabrication manufactured to further the cause of US control of the Balkans.
As John Pilger explained, the false allegation was used as a pretext for the bombing of Kosovo that “was both a fraud and a war crime. In 2008, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte, revealed that she had been pressured not to investigate NATO’s crimes.
This was the model for Washington’s subsequent invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and, by stealth, Syria. All qualify as “paramount crimes” under the Nuremberg standard; all depended on media propaganda.
Smith continues his support for the slaughter machine in his comment here.
In his usual style, he misrepresents history and persists in promoting fabricated propaganda.
Russia did not invade Ukraine or Crimea in 2014.
At the time of the Kiev coup in 2014 that the US instigated, Russia had 20,000 troops in Crimea as part of an agreement with Ukraine that is still in force until the 2040s.
So there was no invasion of Crimea.
Russian troops did not enter Ukraine until 2022, when Russia invaded to protect Ukrainian citizens who were under attack from their own government.
Smith’s character assassination of Abby Martin was so lacking in substance that he was forced to bolster it with a deflection from US crimes, by implying that “some indie outlets in Oz”, (which includes AIMN) are too focused on the US and Israel, while giving a pass to Putin Trump and Netanyahu.
The sentence was constructed in a manner that eliminates a flow of logic, it was basically incoherent, but the intention was clear.
This was an attempt to blame Trump for the inhuman consequences of the US drive for world domination, when it’s clear to anyone paying attention that Trump is merely fulfilling his duty as part of the US Continuity of Agenda.
Andrew Smith defends, justifies, protects, the US Continuity of Agenda.
Thank you, Andrew. Questioning a journalist’s background and possible bias is entirely reasonable. Abby Martin is an investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker, not a climate scientist. However, the article does not use her as its single source. Her documentary is the starting point.
The factual evidence comes from Brown University’s Costs of War project, the Pentagon’s own emissions plan, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the Environmental Protection Agency, SIPRI and the Australian Department of Defence. Rejecting Martin’s political framing would not invalidate those independently documented findings.
Her former employment by the Russian-funded RT network is relevant context. However, she publicly condemned Russia’s 2014 military intervention in Crimea while broadcasting on RT, calling it wrong. That does not settle every criticism of her work, but it complicates the suggestion that she simply excuses Russia. (The Guardian)
The article does not excuse Russia, China or any other military power. It focuses on the United States because that is the documentary’s subject, because of the Pentagon’s enormous global reach, and because Australian governments have tied our country directly to U.S. military strategy.
Thanks, Harry. I would not personally describe the United States in precisely those terms, but your broader point about Australia’s political dependence is important.
Successive Coalition and Labor governments have deepened our military integration with the United States—through Pine Gap, troop rotations, expanded air and fuel facilities, and now AUKUS—without sufficient public discussion about whether these arrangements restrict Australia’s independence or could involve us in another American-led war.
Anthony Albanese had an opportunity to conduct a genuinely independent review of this relationship. Instead, his government has expanded it.
An alliance should not require automatic obedience. Australia should cooperate with the United States when our interests genuinely coincide, but retain the right to refuse participation when they do not. Major overseas military commitments should require open parliamentary debate and approval.
Winning government means little if those elected are unwilling to exercise Australia’s sovereignty.
Thank you, Phil. I understand that sense of despair. Institutions built around secrecy, military power and enormous corporate profits can appear almost impossible to challenge—especially when ambitious and domineering personalities repeatedly rise within them.
I am not sure that every defence, intelligence or law-enforcement organisation can or should simply disappear. Societies still require legitimate protection and investigation. The real problem arises when these bodies operate without sufficient democratic control and become entangled with weapons corporations, political donations, lobbying and permanent warfare.
Complete elimination may indeed be a beautiful but unlikely dream. However, limiting their power is not impossible. Public pressure has ended wars, restricted weapons, exposed covert operations and forced governments to adopt stronger oversight.
We may never eliminate human ambition or the desire to dominate, but we can build democratic institutions that prevent such people from exercising unchecked power. Accepting that nothing can change would guarantee that nothing does.
Thank you, Thommo. I agree that U.S. global dominance has brought enormous human and environmental costs, particularly to countries whose resources, governments and economies have been subjected to outside interference.
Australia’s interests are not served by treating war with China as inevitable. China is our largest trading partner and a permanent part of our region. Our priority should be diplomacy, cooperation and peaceful coexistence—not becoming a forward operating platform for another country’s confrontation.
I would add one qualification: no great power, including China, should be accepted uncritically. China’s rise has differed considerably from the history of Western colonial conquest, but all powerful countries should be judged by their conduct and held to international law. The objective should be a cooperative, multipolar world rather than replacing one dominant empire with another.
Many Australians voted Labor primarily to prevent a Coalition government, not because they supported AUKUS or confrontation with China. Nevertheless, Labor must be held responsible for its decisions. Peace, Australian independence and our grandchildren’s future should carry more weight than preserving the two-party political establishment.
Thank you for defending the article, Steve. However, I want discussion here to address arguments rather than personally label other commenters.
I also cannot endorse the claim that the Srebrenica genocide was fabricated. Both the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Court of Justice concluded that genocide occurred at Srebrenica. (UN Tribunal, International Court of Justice)
Russia did have troops lawfully stationed in Crimea under an agreement with Ukraine. That does not establish that no Russian military intervention occurred in 2014. The European Court of Human Rights found that Russia exercised effective control over Crimea from 27 February 2014, while the UN rejected the legality of the subsequent referendum and annexation. (ECHR, United Nations)
I strongly oppose U.S. militarism, but credibility requires applying the same evidentiary standards to every country. Criticism is welcome; personal attacks and unsupported historical claims are not.
Denis, when a person uses misrepresentation of history to defend imperialism, I will call that out.
When a person habitually engages in character assassination and childish guilt-by-association tactics against those he disagrees with, I will call that out.
You state “I also cannot endorse the claim that the Srebrenica genocide was fabricated.”
From John Pilger, August 2016 —
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague has quietly cleared the late Serbian president, Slobodan Milosevic, of war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war, including the massacre at Srebrenica.
Milosevic died of a heart attack in 2006, alone in his cell in The Hague, during what amounted to a bogus trial by an American-invented “international tribunal.” Denied heart surgery that might have saved his life, his condition worsened and was monitored and kept secret by U.S. officials, as WikiLeaks has since revealed.
Milosevic was the victim of war propaganda that today runs like a torrent across our screens and newspapers and beckons great danger for us all. He was the prototype demon, vilified by the Western media as the “butcher of the Balkans” who was responsible for “genocide,” especially in the secessionist Yugoslav province of Kosovo. Prime Minister Tony Blair said so, invoked the Holocaust and demanded action against “this new Hitler.”
David Scheffer, the U.S. ambassador-at-large for war crimes, declared that as many as “225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59” may have been murdered by Milocevic’s forces.
This was the justification for NATO’s bombing, led by Bill Clinton and Blair, that killed hundreds of civilians in hospitals, schools, churches, parks and television studios and destroyed Serbia’s economic infrastructure.
Once NATO began bombing, there was a stampede of Kosovar refugees “fleeing a holocaust.” When it was over, international police teams descended on Kosovo to exhume the victims.
The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing “a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines.”
The final count of the dead in Kosovo was 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the pro-NATO Kosovo Liberation Front. There was no genocide. The NATO attack was both a fraud and a war crime.
In 2008, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte, revealed that she had been pressured not to investigate NATO’s crimes.
This was the model for Washington’s subsequent invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and, by stealth, Syria. All qualify as “paramount crimes” under the Nuremberg standard; all depended on media propaganda.
You say “The European Court of Human Rights found that Russia exercised effective control over Crimea from 27 February 2014…”
Is that in dispute?
*”That does not establish that no Russian military intervention occurred in 2014.”
Nor does it establish that Russian military intervention occurred.
The West has tried to find evidence of intervention in Crimea, and failed.
“while the UN rejected the legality of the subsequent referendum and annexation.”
According to Jacques Baud, the 96.77% acceptance in the referendum “ is consistent with the 93.6% obtained in January 1991 and seems to be confirmed by a Gallup poll of April 2014.
Moreover, such results are not exceptional, as we saw in Kosovo in 1991 (99.98%185 ) or in the Falkland Islands in 2013 (99.8%).
So these accusations are nothing more than an artificial construction, based on hypotheses, which rule out the existence of a previous referendum, in order to imagine a plot hatched by Russia… thus meeting the definition of conspiracy! Moreover, it is carefully avoided that on 10 March 2014, the Crimean authorities asked the OSCE to send observers for the referendum187, but the organisation refused on the pretext that it was unconstitutional.
This will become a regular tactic for the Western community, and in particular for the European Union: refusing to go and observe elections and then declaring them illegitimate…
Crimea requested international observers and was refused.
What does that tell us about international coverage of the matter?
Could these facilities support a war that Australians had never approved?
They already do – Pine Gap and the schemozzle in Iran.
Denis, I’m surprised that one as well-read as you has not acknowledged and taken into account a pattern of hidden manipulation, not only in the conduct of US foreign policy, but also in the proceedings of the international justice framework.
Not only was the West involved in instigating unrest and violence in the Balkans in the 1990s, they were able to use that to further the aims of Empire.
Once a pattern of killing by all sides was in place, there was no need to find Serbia guilty of genocide, although that was tried.
All that was needed was a finding that the government did not act to prevent genocide, and that was indeed the final outcome.
So simple.
A charge almost impossible to defend against.
A finding that was basically a matter of opinion.
“Hey, we did such and such…”
“Yeah, but you coulda shoulda done more!”
That was the pretext for the US/NATO bombing of Belgrade that continued for 78 days.
An unimaginable horror.
A punishment for violence that the West had fomented.
And to assume that the ICJ finding was a justifiable finding, requires that we forget the shameful shenanigans these courts engage in.
In the trial of Milosevic we saw the prosecutor present false testimony to the court.
Sir Geoffrey Nice, Q.C, the British barrister knighted by the Queen for his (cough, cough) services to Britain, decided that the highlight of his career would be an attempt to frame Yugoslavia’s President Milosevic.
He claimed that the Kosovo Field speech made by Milosevic proved Milosevic was for a Greater Serbia.
But Milosevic produced the real speech proving that he had said the exact opposite of what Nice claimed, that he had called for inter-ethnic tolerance.
Not-so-Nice was proved to be a liar.
Do you really think that this was the only false evidence presented to get a finding against Belgrade on the lesser charge?
Can you really overlook the statement from the tribunal official that she had been pressured to not investigate NATO crimes?
Can we ignore the ongoing threats to the careers and personal safety of UN officials such as Francesca Albanese who are brave enough to confront the US and its allies for their crimes?
Are we not dealing with an international justice framework where manipulation that was formerly concealed is now, increasingly, conducted openly and brazenly?
Denis, you might think it proper to refrain from harsh criticism of commenters to your articles who use despicable tactics and defend despicable causes, but I have no such qualms.
We are not taking part in a mere intellectual exercise.
This is not a debating society with rules of conduct.
This is not a game.
We are dealing with people who have no respect for your opinions, or your good manners.
They must be dealt with in a manner that reflects that.
I just came across some info that gives an insight into the operations of the international justice system.
Christopher Black was an international criminal and human rights lawyer. He was Chair of the Legal Committee for the International Committee for the Defence of Slobodan Milosevic and vice-chair of the overall committee, and was Lead Defence Counsel, at the Rwanda War Crimes Tribunal in the case of General Augustin Ndindiliyimana, Chief of Staff, Rwanda Gendarmerie and won his acquittal on all charges in 2014.
He was one of the advisers to President Milosevic until his death in 2006 and also worked on other cases at the Yugoslav and Rwanda tribunals.
The acquittal of Augustin Ndindiliyimana represented a serious embarrassment for the Tribunal and was preceded by some very ugly physical attacks and threats against Christopher Black and his work.
In November 2014 Christopher Black gave a presentation to the Rhodes Forum entitled “The criminalisation of international justice”. It is a remarkable indictment of the UN Tribunals system exposing gross criminality at the very heart of a system which we are asked to believe is set up to deliver Justice.
It is also so far removed from the British Establishment Official Narrative of these tribunals as to render it even more remarkable for being heard at a Forum in the lineage of the Rhodes-Milner-Selborne group with its roots at Oxford University. The Forum “is in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council since 2013”
He wrote the following in 2015, prior to the Milosevic “not guilty” finding.
The death of Slobodan Milosevic was clearly the only way out of the dilemma the NATO powers had put themselves in by charging him before the Hague tribunal. The propaganda against him was of an unprecedented scale. The trial was played in the press as one of the world’s great dramas, as world theatre in which an evil man would be made to answer for his crimes. But of course, there had been no crimes, except those of the NATO alliance, and the attempt to fabricate a case against him collapsed into farce. The trial was necessary from NATO’s point of view in order to justify the aggression against Yugoslavia and the putsch by the DOS forces in Belgrade supported by NATO, by which democracy in Yugoslavia was finally destroyed and Serbia reduced to a NATO protectorate under a Quisling regime. His illegal arrest, by NATO forces in Belgrade, his illegal detention in Belgrade Central Prison, his illegal rendition to the former Gestapo prison at Scheveningen, near The Hague, and the show trial that followed, were all part of the drama played out for the world public, and it could only have one of two endings, the conviction, or the death, of President Milosevic.
Since the conviction of President Milosevic was clearly not possible after all the evidence was heard, his death became the only way out for the NATO powers.
His acquittal would have brought down the entire structure of the propaganda framework of the NATO war machine and the western interests that use it as their armed fist. NATO clearly did not expect President Milosevic to defend himself, nor with such courage and determination. The media coverage of the beginning of the trial was constant and front page. It was promised that it would be the trial of the century.
Yet soon after it began the media coverage stopped and the trial was buried in the back pages.
Things had gone terribly wrong for Nato right at the start. The key to the problem is the following statement of President Milosevic made to the judges of the Tribunal during the trial:
“This is a political trial. What is at issue here is not at all whether I committed a crime. What is at issue is that certain intentions are ascribed to me from which consequences are later derived that are beyond the expertise of any conceivable lawyer. The point here is that the truth about the events in the former Yugoslavia has to be told here. It is that which is at issue, not the procedural questions, because I’m not sitting here because I was accused of a specific crime. I’m sitting here because I am accused of conducting a policy against the interests of this or another party.”
The prosecution, that is the United States and its allies, had not expected a real defence of any kind. This is clear from the inept indictments, confused charges, and the complete failure to bring any evidence that could withstand even basic scrutiny. The prosecution case fell apart as soon as it began. But once started, it had to continue. Nato was locked into a box of its own making.
If they dropped the charges, or if he was acquitted, the political and geostrategic ramifications were enormous. Nato would have to explain the real reasons for the aggression against Yugoslavia. Its leaders themselves would face war crimes charges. The loss of prestige cannot be calculated. President Milosevic would once again be a popular political figure in the Balkans.
The only way out for NATO was to end the trial but without releasing Milosevic or admitting the truth about the war.
This logic required his death in prison and the abandonment of the trial.
The Tribunal was told time and again that he was gravely ill with heart problems that needed proper investigation, treatment and complete rest before engaging in a trial. However, the Tribunal continually ignored the advice of the doctors and pushed him to keep going with the trial, knowing full well that the stress of the trial would certainly kill him.
The Tribunal refused prescribed medical treatment in Russia seemingly for political reasons and once again put the Tribunal’s interests, whatever they are, ahead of Milosevic’s health.
In other words they deliberately withheld necessary medical treatment that could have lead to his death. This is a form of homicide and is manslaughter in the common law jurisdictions. However, there are several unexplained facts contained in the Parker Report that need further investigation before ruling out poison or drugs designed to harm his health: the presence of the drugs rifampicin and droperidol in his system being the two key ones.
No proper investigation was conducted as to how these drugs could have been introduced into his body. No consideration was given to their effect. Their presence combined with the unexplained long delay in getting his body to a medical facility for tests raises serious questions that need to be answered but which until today remain unanswered.
More from Christopher Black, international human rights lawyer.
(Why did it take me so long to find this bloke? He’s a treasure trove.)
“I was approached by a CIA agent in a bar in Arusha at the ICTR – Rwanda Tribunal (the man was identified to me by someone else as CIA, backing up the agent’s claims to be connected to the CIA) a week before I left.
He began a conversation stating that many people have been murdered at the ICTR. He told me about several people (some of whom I was aware of from press releases re their deaths from supposed illness and accidents) some I was not aware of.
He told me that the CIA had used an undetectable poison in several cases that dissolves the blood vessels resulting in death in several days. He went on at length about this, ostensibly being very friendly with me and telling me for “my own good” and stated that people who don’t keep a low profile at the Tribunal don’t live long.
He backed up his “warning” by stating he had been a US Army officer in the first Gulf War, had then been transferred to Nato HQ in Brussels for several years, then New York and then placed in a civilian job at the Tribunal.
He pumped me for information as well as my companion. It made us both very nervous.
This is not the first time I have been threatened there or “warned”. My client thinks it is not serious and that they are simply trying to intimidate me.
But it is making me nervous. The last time I was threatened was by the RPF (Rwanda Patriotic Front) and I stated so in open court and asked for protection.
But the Tribunal investigated me instead of those who made the threat and tried to make me look like I was making it up to cause political trouble so I have no confidence in reporting this strange conversation to them now.
I state this for two reasons; first to raise the question of whether the CIA is involved at the ICTY and at the ICTR. It is my feeling that there are several CIA agents involved in various functions.
Second, I want this on record somewhere, in case.”
Chris Black, unfortunately now deceased, has also given evidence that the alleged Rwanda genocide was a propaganda story.
Perhaps some might understand now why I take a hard line on fools who come here spreading dangerous nonsense as though these things have no consequences.
As though this is all a game.
People like Julian Assange, Francesca Albanese, Chris Black, put their lives on the line to give us the truth, only to be barked at here, by yapping poodles.
Interesting further reading here–
https://www.blackagendareport.com/christopher-black-balancing-unbalanced-scales-international-criminal-justice
Denis referred above to a war crimes tribunal decision that showed a genocide at Srebrenica.
Christopher Black, war crimes lawyer, speaking in 2015 at the annual Rhodes Forum (attached to the United Nations Economic and Social Council), said this about war crimes tribunals — “The point of these tribunals, why they were set up, is basically propaganda. That’s their only real role. The propaganda is to put out a story about the war with which they’re concerned, and the propaganda is meant to demonize the government which has been overthrown, and to cover up the real role of the United States and its allies in that war. And that’s the only role these trials really have.”
A friend of Chris Black when interviewed after Black’s death, put it this way — As Chris said in his talk at the Rhodes Forum, propaganda was the purpose of the court. It was created to reduce the history of the 1990-1994 Rwandan war and its final 100 days to a Manichean tale of demonic Hutus massacring angelic Tutsis. The reality was far more complex, but the simple Manichean tale served the purposes of its creators, the US and the UN, which was then dominated by the US in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse. Remember that former UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali told Canadian author Robin Philpot that the Americans were largely responsible for the events of 1994.
US leaders wanted their guy, Rwandan Tutsi General Paul Kagame, to seize power in Kigali and become a hero to the international community as the leader who stopped the genocide. Two years later they supported Rwanda and Uganda’s invasion of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which was then Zaire, to topple aging dictator Mobutu Sese Seko and displace France as the dominant power in Central Africa. Newsweek explained this in its May 11, 1997, report “Washington’s Africa Move.”
All the cases adjudicated at the court should be studied in light of this propagandistic narrative that Chris identified as the purpose of the court. Only Hutus were indicted and prosecuted, making it the very definition of victor’s justice, but Chris nevertheless fought like a tiger for his innocent client, General Ndindiliyimana, and eventually won.
Denis concluded the article above with this — Protecting the planet requires more than cleaner consumer choices. It requires confronting the political and military structures that consume extraordinary resources, intensify international tensions and leave communities living with poisoned water, ruined land and the consequences of war.
War crimes tribunals are one of the “political and military structures” that the US uses to continue its trashing of the planet.