Translated from German


Frankfurter Rundschau ( Frankfurt/Main )
09 January2001
COMMENTARY
To the Detriment of NATO
by Rolf Paasch

The European members of NATO are demanding an unconditional explanation about the use of uranium-containing ammunition in the Balkans. Suddenly the Chancellor considers it "not right to use such ammunition."And last year Defense Minister Scharping had Balkan soldiers examined for potential cases of illness in connection with uranium-hardened ammunition.

What kind of military alliance is that, in which the majority of members always have to beg the superpower for information? And why did it first take soldiers getting sick with leukemia or dying in order to remind Europe of its political responsibility for NATO's warfare? Did the Chancellor and his defense minister consider the use of "such munitions" to be right before the unexplained cases of illness? Or were they always against warfare using means whose effect on soldiers and civilians in the war area is at least unexplained, if not even dangerous?

 It must be assumed that the Europeans did not think the use of uranium munitions was right -- but that it was also not worth a conflict within NATO.

Thus the scandal about the suspected "Balkan syndrome" became a lesson about the inner life and operation of NATO: the Americans bomb, and the Europeans cover up for them. And not until the United States overshoots the mark does a postwar know-it-all criticism form in Europe.

To the detriment of civilians, soldiers and in the end NATO as well.