During the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, the second largest Yugoslav city of Novi Sad was one of the cities that bore the brunt of the bombing. According to NATO press releases, [1] the bombing targeted oil refineries, roads, bridges, and telecommunications relay stations, facilities which had military uses. The bombing of the city caused great damage to local civilians, including severe pollution and widespread ecological damage, consequences for the physical health of the people which will remain for years as well as permanent consequences for psychological health caused by almost 3 months of trauma and fear.
Contents |
|
|
|||||
The civilians of Novi Sad were greatly affected by the bombing of their city. Residential areas were cluster bombed several times while the city's oil refinery was bombarded daily, causing severe pollution and widespread ecological damage.
The bombing caused civilian deaths and injuries. Those who were not directly physically harmed suffer from consequences for their physical health caused by ecological damage as well as permanent consequences for psychological health caused by almost 3 months of trauma and fear.
Due to the NATO attacks, many in Novi Sad were left jobless, comprising a percent of an estimated 500,000 people unemployed throughout Yugoslavia. [2] Citizens experienced daily hardships such as loss of electricity, food shortages, and trauma.
Notably, NATO failed to give "effective advance warning" of attacks which may affect civilians, as required by Protocol I. [3] One such attack was the bombing of the Ministry of Education in Novi Sad, premises which administered social welfare programmes. [4]
The NATO bombing left the city without all of its three Danube bridges, communications, water, and electricity, which severely impaired the day to day living of the residents of Novi Sad. All bridges were not rebuilt before 2005 and one of the rebuilt bridges is only a temporary solution. Some residential areas were damaged by cluster bombs.
Water supplies (including drinking water) for parts of the city were cut off as a result of the bombing. One attack cut off water supplies to 40,000 people in Petrovaradin, and severely disrupted water supplies to 300,000 people in Novi Sad. [5] Services were restored only after two years, partially due to funding from Britain, one of the countries which sent planes to bomb the city in 1999. [6]
The bombing of Novi Sad had implications for the environment. A United Nations study (the BTF ‘Industrial Sites’ and ‘Danube’ missions) found that there were serious environmental issues, "requiring immediate action", some of which resulted from the bombing. [7] The bombing of Novi Sad's refinery caused fires which burned 50,000 tons of crude oil, sending toxins and carcinogens into the air and contaminating groundwater. The BTF study was complicated by the heavy pollution that existed before the bombing, with the group noting that "the enforced shutdown of the refinery may even have led to local improvements in the aquatic environment, due to a possible reduction in chronic pollution". [8]
Once all the samples for Novi Sad (Danube Mission) were collated, "based on field observation and results from sample analysis, the BTF concluded that there was no evidence of significant adverse impacts on the Danube aquatic environment as a result of air strikes on Novi Sad refinery. It is thought that most of the oils and oil products released were burned and that no significant volume entered the river". [9]
The BTF study also found that prior to the air strikes, local technicians helped minimise the potential harmful effects of air strikes by "removing oil products that could be harmful to human health if spilt or burnt, such as transformer oil containing PCBs. Production was also accelerated to use up as much as possible of the crude oil, intermediate products and additives, and the final products were shipped to other locations. The remaining oil was mixed with gasoline, so that the tanks would ignite if hit, rather than leak into the soil and groundwater". [10]
Local scientists also studied the impact of the bombing. “NATO didn’t use chemical weapons during the bombing”, said Dr. Zorka Vukmirović, a leading environmental physicist, “But indirectly it caused the effects of chemical weapons use. If you release so many hazardous substances, major air pollutants and carcinogens in the vicinity of big cities like Belgrade and Niš, it is obviously a deliberate action against the civilian population”. [11]
Not until 2003, the Danube river was declared clear again. It took four years of work by the Danube Commission to remove the debris of bombed bridges and ordnances. [12] The clearing of the debris was not only important for Novi Sad, but for European states (Hungary & Romania) who were economically impacted by the blockade of river traffic to the Black sea caused by the bombing.
The bombing is viewed by many as having deliberately targeted civilians and as being a war crime (See: Legitimacy of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia).
Novi Sad residents point out that the irony that Novi Sad was so heavily targeted by NATO also lies in the fact that during the time of the bombing, the city was ruled by the local Democratic Opposition, which was against the regime in Belgrade. Therefore, the citizens of Novi Sad were not able to understand why they had to pay so large price for the events in Kosovo, which were not caused by them.
A press release one year on from the bombing by then NATO Secretary General Robertson, claims that NATO encountered complications from Yugoslav military use of civilian buildings and human shields. Nato officials have "expressed deep regret at any civilian casualties it caused", [13]. The sincerity of that regret is questioned by some Novi Sad residents. NATO claims that the bombing of targets such as bridges was aimed at impairing the Yugoslav army's command and control structure. However, the efficacy of the campaign and choice of targets was brought into question by human rights groups, after bridges of no conceivable strategic relevance to the military situation in Kosovo were bombed, including a bridge which led to Hungary, a NATO country. It was argued by MAICL [14] that despite the NATO claims that their attacks were justified because military objects were present, "the civilian deaths caused are clearly disproportionate to the military benefits". [15]