According to the journalists' investigation the embassy bombing was a deliberate attack, which is

consistent with the pattern of strikes that night where, according to NATO's official briefing of May 8,
"the focus was wholly on disrupting the national leadership [of Yugoslavia]". [32] Apart from "the FDSP
weapons warehouse", every target that night was a command and control (C2) center. [32]
A further report in The Observer of November 28, 1999 added more details.[33] According to the
report, American officials indicated that the reason behind the bombing of the embassy, was
because they believe the embassy had provided signals facilities for Željko Ražnatović, commonly
known as Arkan, a Serb paramilitary leader wanted by the ICTY for war crimes. NATO's briefing of
May 8, which stated Arkan's HQ was at the Hotel Yugoslavia 500 m (550 yd) away, is consistent with
this interpretation.[32]
Representatives of NATO governments dismissed the investigation. Secretary of State Madeleine
Albright described it as "balderdash" and UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said there wasn't a
"shred of evidence to support this rather wild story".[34]
Initially, the New York Times refused to report on the investigation until its findings could be
corroborated. Subsequently, Andrew Rosenthal informed letter-writers by post that the Times hadn't
found evidence to support the allegations. The Times didn't contact the authors or their sources.
Other sources, including major American media such as the Washington Post, New York Times,
and Chicago Tribune maintained that while responsibility was found in the inaccurate planning of air
strikes, the attack was not deliberate.[35] International News wires like The Associated Press, Reuters,
and Agence France Press (AFP) published numerous reports supporting both the accidental and
deliberate attack theories. The American media was criticized for devoting little attention to the
incident, as well as for consistently referring to the incident as an "accidental bombing", where China
contested that belief.[36]
A 2010 Salon article by Laura Rozen featured an interview of Washington Post columnist and former
intelligence officer William M. Arkin, who was dismissive of the investigation. [37] While acknowledging
that investigators had spoken to signals intelligence officers in NATO, Arkin told Rozen: "The
Chinese Embassy and the Hotel Yugoslavia, where Arkan's generals were believed to be
commanding his paramilitary Tigers, are right across the street from each other, and in fact both
were bombed the same night ... I think there were communications emanating from the Hotel
Yugoslavia across the street. And I think that stupid people who are leaking rumors to the Observer
have made that mistake."
The Hotel Yugoslavia was attacked on May 7, but NATO was aware of its function and connection
with Arkan.[32] Arkin did not discuss the way that NATO planners could be aware of the HQ and target
it successfully if they were confused about its location.

ICTY investigation[edit]
A report conducted by the ICTY entitled "Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee
Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia"
after the Kosovo War examined the attack on the Chinese embassy specifically and came to the
conclusion that the OTP (Office of the Prosecutor) should not undertake an investigation concerning
the bombing.[38] In reaching its decision, it provided the following observations:

 That the root of the failures in target location appears to stem from the land navigation
techniques employed by an intelligence office