Effects of Bombing on the Environment

Chemical Warfare by NATO -- Illegal Use of Depleted Uranium, again

Once again, there was illegal⁴ use of depleted uranium (DU) by the US and UK. It was also used in the Gulf War⁵.

Note that in 1996 the United Nations Human Rights Tribunal called upon states to "to curb the production and the spread of weapons of mass destruction or with indiscriminate effect, in particular nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, fuel-air bombs, napalm, cluster bombs, biological weaponry and weaponry containing depleted uranium;" (You can see the UN resolution at their web site from this link⁶. See also this link⁷ for additional information.)

The following are good accounts and information about DU:

• This report⁸ is an on-line radio talk about the effects of DU being used. You may need to download the Real Audio⁹ player to listen to this.
• "Not such conventional weapons¹⁰" by Christine Abdelkrim-Delanne, from Le Monde Diplomatique is short, but also provides a detailed account about depleted uranium.)
• The World Health Organization has an informative fact sheet¹¹ about Depleted Uranium, where they point out that DU has both chemical and radiological toxicity with the two important target organs being the kidneys and the lungs. While they indicate that some impacts of DU at smaller doses may not be as bad as first thought, at higher dosage, there are possible risks of lung cancer and kidney damage, for example.

March 2000, about 9 months after the bombing ended, finally NATO admitted to the UN that it used depleted uranium¹². NATO said they dropped 10 tonnes¹³ of depleted uranium in shells. However, NATO is still holding back critical data¹⁴ on how depleted Uranium was used, while being urged by the UN to clean up its uranium debris in Kosovo¹⁵, as reported by the Guardian.

As early as July 1999, environmentalists warned that KFOR troops and civilians may suffer from the effects of depleted Uranium, resulting in similar effects¹⁶ as the Gulf War Syndrome. In fact, since the Gulf War 1991, there have been similar concerns.

Towards the end of 2000, it was revealed that Depleted Uranium was also used in other areas of the Balkans. Various European nations are now concerned (in many, it has become an uproar) about the effects on their soldiers, especially when six Italian soldiers died¹⁷ from Leukaemia, which is linked to radiation exposure (and observed amongst survirors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as this article¹⁸ points out). Only the United States and the United Kingdom's defence departments claim that there is no risk, while further evidence is increasing against their claims¹⁹. While it has caused an uproar in the European mainstream, the U.S media in comparison hardly mentions anything²⁰.

However, it should be noted that even though there is discussion on this issue, the discourse of the wider issues of the bombing itself remains unquestioned by the mainstream. The effects on those who have to live near bombed checmical factories and polluted rivers that have resulted from this NATO bombing remains unquestioned. Of course, concern for one's own soldiers is valid, but so to is of other people.

Back to top

Chemical Threat

Contradictory²¹ statements from Clinton were made warning Milosevic not to use chemical weapons while NATO/US themselves were using depleted uranium weapons, bombing oil refineries²² and other factories that ended up spewing toxic clouds of lethal chemicals into the air. Furthermore, as John Pilger highlights²³, the U.S. has used chemical weapons in many prior conflicts as well.

Back to top

Long Term Effects Hard to Ascertain

As it turns out, a UN agency that went to Kosovo and other areas of Yugoslavia, has said that the NATO air strikes have had a "devastating²⁴ impact" on the environment. It says that it has also affected agriculture, industries, employment, essential services, land, air, rivers, lakes and underground waters as well as the food chain and public health has also been affected.

Interestingly enough, another UN report suggests that Yugoslavian claims of environmental catastrophe from the bombing have been rejected²⁵, although it is admitted that there are some severe local problems. An additional point is that there has been little data²⁶ about the environment before the bombing so that the comparison is difficult to make.

Regardless, it is estimated that it could take billions of dollars worth of aid and up to ten years²⁷ to restore the war-torn Balkan region.

Visit the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Balkans web site²⁸ for more updated information and reports on the environmental effects of the region.

Back to top