The URL for this article is
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/on.htm
For printer-friendly version, click here.
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
What Is Going On in Yugoslavia and The World?
'No Room for Abstentions!'
by Prof. Ivan Angelov
Edited and shortened by Jared Israel (12-15-2000)
In the days when the former "Socialist Community" was giving up
its Marxist ideology and destroying its military potential,
organizational networks and arsenals, concepts were elaborated, and
obviously, plans made to "transform the guerilla fighter from a 20th
Century tool of Marxist
states into a major, 21st Century asset in the arsenal of Western
powers. Western supported and sponsored insurgents will be used for the
purposes of protecting and securing Western interests, and Western
organizations, possessing skills in supporting guerrilla forces will be
held in readiness
for purposes of deterrence." (From a publication of the Institute of
Land Warfare of the U.S. Army, quoted below).
People from far away may rightfully expect that we in Bulgaria
would know more than they about the situation in Yugoslavia since the
two countries are neighbors. Sorry to disappoint them.
It's true that in the weeks before the Oct. 5 coup the Bulgarian
airwaves were thick with tal
k about Yugoslavia. However, the numerous, and as a rule high-volume,
commentaries were mainly limi
ted to the already well-known maxim that "Milosevic is bad and has to
go."
After October 6, when the 'Scourge of Humanity' vanished from the
political arena, very illog
ically the mainstream media's interest vanished too. Hardly anything has
been said about the events
that accompanied Milosevic's decision to resign. Pictures of fires in
Belgrade appeared on the fro
nt pages of newspapers but people had to guess who set those fires and
why. E-mails and Internet co
mmunications became scarce.
The usual answer to the question, "What took place in Yugoslavia?"
is: they had early electio
ns. (Early because the governing coalition wasn't required to call
elections on Sept. 24th.)
But were they truly "elections"? To what extent does "election"
describe what happened in and
around Yugoslavia this past Fall? A thoughtful answer to this question
can clarify what kind of wo
rld we live in and what we can expect from the future.
Intervention: The New Norm
It is annoying that neither Yugoslav authorities nor the
opposition - neither leaders nor ord
inary citizens - neither experts in law nor humanitarians - no one in
Yugoslavia, in nearby countri
es or the world has for a single moment questioned the idea that these
elections could be considere
d fair when part of a country is occupied - as Yugoslavia is occupied -
by foreign troops.(1)
Perhaps because Great Power interference has been commonplace
world-wide for decades it is no
w a norm of Law? If so, then various International Agreements should be
amended. That way future ge
nerations will know there is nothing wrong with having foreign troops on
a country's soil, that for
eign pressure helps citizens freely express themselves..
How would the citizens of divided Germany or the anti-Communist
protestors in Poland, Hungary
or Czechoslovakia have treated this interesting notion ten years ago?
Elections in the presence of foreign troops continue to be held in
many areas. Bosnia is just
one example. Such elections are even encouraged in Kosovo which isn't
an independent nation but ra
ther part of Yugoslavia, an established state.
Elections to Sanctify Imperial Gains
Perhaps in today's world elections are increasingly devoid of
their original meaning. Perhaps
instead they function to further and sanctify certain covert
intentions, activities and interests.
Perhaps elections are increasingly a ritual aimed at pronouncing a
blessing (or a blasphemy?) over
a certain state of things, established by other means.
Yugoslavia's Fall elections, held ahead of term, are part of a
series of actions imposed on Y
ugoslavia by threat from the most powerful military, economic and
political forces in the world. Da
yton and other so-called peace agreements were reached in the same way -
at the point of a gun - ju
st as "peace" was established in Kosovo.
Elections were freely held under the threat of force, i.e., of
another war, and this threat r
emained over Yugoslavia after the idea of early elections was imposed.
Obviously this is now consid
ered normal, just as putting a 5 million dollar bounty on the head of
Miloshevich, President of Yug
oslavia, is considered normal, as if we were living in the times of
Genghis Khan, or the Ottoman Co
nquests, as if we were living under the Nazi occupation of Europe.
Foreign legislative and executive bodies made official
declarations concerning not only how Y
ugoslavia's elections were to be conducted, but on the acceptability
(and unacceptability) of vario
us possible outcomes. How helpful for the citizens! In an unprecedented
step, parallel counting of
votes was organized, bankrolled by Western powers. NATo-organized
military exercises were carried o
ut near Yugoslavia and NATO's Deputy Secretary General visited
neighbouring countries on the very e
ve of the elections. The US Chief of Staff, Gen. Shelton, visited
immediately afterwards. Hours bef
ore the vote, top EU and NATO officials literally forbade one of the
electoral candidates [Miloshev
ich] from winning.
And remember, all these "suggestions" about how the Yugoslavs
should run their elections, and
who had permission to win, were made in an atmosphere where violent
intervention was threatened. I
t was suggested that a new intervention could be more massive and
destructive than during the 78 da
y bombing in 1999. Weren't these speculations of dire consequences,
should the wrong side win, mean
t to guide Yugoslav voters? And of course, the events of 1999 clearly
showed that neither the UN no
r anybody else was willing or able to stop such violence.
Where can we find an analogy to this level of intervention except
in the Munich Deal of 1938,
the capture of Abyssinia [or Ethiopia, by Mussolini's Fascist troops]
and the rape of Manchuria [b
y Japan] before World War II. (I wonder, did certain sensible
intellectuals in Germany, Italy or Ja
pan write articles pointing out that the Abyssinian and Manchurian
governments had never held prope
r elections, that the Italian and Japanese armies were therefore
contributing to democracy by smash
ing these non-democratic regimes, which coincidentally existed in zones
of special interest to Ital
y and Japan?)
The attacks on Manchuria and Abyssinia [or Ethiopia] are viewed as
outright aggression in doc
uments on International Relations and Law. Perhaps now these views
should be revised. Maybe it's ou
tmoded to speak of "aggressor countries", referring to those great
powers of the near past. Or will
scholars prove that Yugoslavia is much less democratic than, say,
Abyssinia and Manchuria in the 1
930s, thus justifying the use of force by today's Great Powers? There is
a great deal of room, here
, for scholarly work.
Elections a Cover for Covert Action
Even if we assume that all forms of external coercion are
permissible in the struggle against
that arch "enemy of Humanity" (meaning, of course, Mr. Milosevic) the
question remains: can and sh
ould all these tactics be attributed to the concept, the process and the
procedure of elections?
In fact, from the beginning the idea of early elections was a way
of creating the necessary c
overt conditions and atmosphere for carrying out the next stage of a
very special war effort agains
t Yugoslavia and its established institutions.
Isn't it troubling that much of what has happened and is possibly
going on in Yugoslavia fits
almost perfectly into what is called in the specialized literature on
military issues, Low-Intensi
ty Conflict (LIC)?
Low Intensity Conflict: Subversion Foreseen in 1990
"Low-Intensity Conflict" - according to its definition - "is armed
conflict for political pur
poses short of combat between regularly organized forces" (See: Rod
Pascal, "LIC 2010 - Special Ope
rations and Unconventional Warfare in the Next Century, Future Warfare
Studies. Published with the
Institute of Land Warfare Association of the U.S. Army," 1990,
Brassley's Inc, US., page 7.).
"It is not mid-intensity conflict, which is armed conflict between
regularly organized milita
ry forces" (though it "may also include terrorist incidents, or even
concurrent insurgent campaigns
"), neither a high-intensity conflict which is "armed combat involving
the use of mass-destructive
weapons" (ibid., page 8)
The Low-Intensity Conflict "definition surely includes a terrorist
act but excludes, for exam
ple, the usual hostage-taking by a bank robber. It includes a
counter-insurgency campaign in which
a regular-armed force is pitted against guerillas or irregulars. It
describes the activities of ins
urgents engaged in an armed attempt to overthrow a government. The
definition also encompasses the
efforts of a 'peace-keeping force.'" (ibid., page 7).
a.. Though it is noted that "these definitions differ somewhat
from the basically blessed t
erminology of the US Army" there is a little doubt left that "they
accurately reflect the intent of
the U.S. Army definitions" (ibid., page 8).
Ten years ago, when Mankind sincerely believed that not a "New
World Order" but a New Epoch o
f Peace, International Confidence and Cooperation was ahead, some
specialists in military theory we
re foreseeing that "insurgency, perhaps one of the oldest forms of
warfare, should be much in evide
nce in 2010." (ibid., page 6).
In the days when the former "Socialist Community" was giving up
its Marxist ideology and dest
roying its military potential, organizational networks and arsenals,
concepts were elaborated and p
lans made to "transform the guerilla fighter from a 20th Century tool of
Marxist states into a majo
r, 21st Century asset in the arsenal of Western powers. Western
supported and sponsored insurgents
will be used for the purposes of protecting and securing Western
interests, and Western organizatio
ns, possessing skills in supporting guerrilla forces will be held in
readiness for purposes of dete
rrence." (ibid., page 6)
And further, "special operational forces are those military or
naval elements specifically or
ganized, trained and equipped to conduct or support insurgency,
sabotage, psychological deception,
counter-terrorist, foreign assistance or commando-type operations. These
units are normally capable
of performing rescue, reconnaissance, and intelligent-gathering tasks."
(ibid., page 8)
Every country has the right and obligation to foresee necessary
concepts and technologies in
the military field. The fact that a group of countries (like the former
Eastern block) have, for wh
atever reason, unilaterally given up this duty, by no means entails any
obligations by others. Stil
l, since these countries did really leave the "doors open" with
practically no one against the West
(at least since 1989) the question arises: why should their inclusion
into the New World Order be
accompanied not only by economic ruin but also by sabotage, deliberately
set fires or a variety of
mid- and low-intensity conflicts?
Of course, one could give many meaningful answers to that
question. Internal causes cannot be
ignored. And external interference is not always easily found or
proved.
But it is beyond doubt that a very dangerous imbalance has become
appallingly obvious during
the last decade of the 20th Century because while one of the two main
Global forces, i.e., the East
ern block, has destroyed most of its military establishments and
arsenals, Western counterparts hav
e maintained and further perfected theirs.
The imbalance means Mankind seems to have lost one of its real
chances to abolish war as a wa
y of settling disputes. This brings us to the very important question of
the moral responsibility o
f the victors in the Cold War. Surprisingly this issue has not been
touched upon, either by Bush or
Gorbachov, though the world has obviously suffered through a decade
that began with the promise of
an era of peace, brotherhood and prosperity for all.
West Encourages Destructive Forces in the East
People in Western countries may find this difficult to believe,
but the very existence of thi
s dis-equilibrium has produced an increased inclination towards violence
in the East. Things like t
he unnecessary fires in downtown Bucharest [Romania] and Sofia
[Bulgaria] during the so-called "vel
vet revolutions" in the early 90s, the artillery shooting assault on the
Russian Parliament in 1993
, etc., could hardly happen without the belief (was it erroneous?) that
such acts would be understo
od and supported by previous adversaries in the West. Similar
expectations of Western support in Ko
sovo and elsewhere in Yugoslavia have also been decisive in bringing
about extreme violence there.
In the same way, once begun, the notion of early elections in
Yugoslavia followed all the mai
n points of, say, the Nicaraguan scenario of free and fair elections in
1990. While the atmosphere
around the country was thick with threats of another war, a series of
demonstrative murders of well
-known personalities took place in Belgrade and in other main cities. In
Nicaragua this meant: "Thi
s will continue if you do not vote for the right candidate!" Such
Warnings obviously worked in Nica
ragua. Why would they pass unnoticed in Yugoslavia? Its population had
been keenly educated by a de
cade of war, carried out by superior military powers. And remember, with
very few exceptions, there
was no meaningful understanding and support from any institution or
world power for Yugoslavia's e
fforts to maintain its independence and self-designed path of
development.
What is being determined these days in Yugoslavia is the course
and quality of life of many g
enerations in many countries all over the world, including those in the
states that have been engag
ed in attacking Yugoslavia. People can only take temporary consolation
if the wars and abuses of so
vereignty and dignified human life take place at seemingly great
geographic distances. Once these a
buses exist they have a marvelous capacity to spread. They will even
come home, like a boomerang. T
his has happened throughout history. (2)
Yugoslavia's political system manifested a certain number of
deficiencies, faults, even crime
s in the course of its existence. This is true in all countries. Yet the
Yugoslavs have turned out
to be capable of maintaining a dignified and independent position both
during World War II and the
Cold War. Perhaps for this reason many people the world over expected
the Serbs to resist alone and
even once again win a victory over the overwhelming military powers
once again challenging their i
ndependence. Perhaps many people are even disappointed with the lack of
sufficient resistance and e
ven massive sacrifice for the sake of that cause.
Obviously Humanity (or at least a substantial part of it) needs
another Christ to suffer and
die for it and - to be more exact - for things and causes that it has
not been able to keep and def
end itself.
But does it have the right to expect suffering and sacrifice on
the side of others while it i
tself, with all its might, potentials and capacities has proved
practically incapable of doing anyt
hing to prevent practices of abuses of International Law, Freedom,
Justice and Independence? Why di
dn't any of the powerful members of the UN Security Council use their
veto against the Internationa
l Tribunal in the Hague, that violates the UN's own legal procedures and
practices? On which basis
then may any of these countries expect understanding or support among
the world public when it will
need them? (3)
What did the people of Yugoslavia's immediate neighbouring
countries do when NATO conducted m
ilitary exercises on their territories on the very days of those so-very
free elections? Official d
eclarations were made, of course, that these "exercises have been
planned long before the elections
" and "can in no way be interpreted as acts of interference into the
internal affairs of a sovereig
n country". That is very reassuring, and yet the question remains why
these exercises were not put
off when it was discovered that they coincided with the elections? Why
did no political party or le
gal expert express any doubt, concern or protest, related to these
numerous "entirely accidental ra
ndom coincidences"?
What is the value of all the talk of Free and Fair Elections in a
country, a substantial part
of which (Kosovo) is under occupation of foreign troops? International
Law still has to give adequ
ate answers to this and similar questions. What could be the legal
foundations of claims for early
elections under such conditions? Could even the decision of the
Government of this country to set a
date for such elections be considered legitimate under such
circumstances?
Very surprisingly, so far questions like these have hardly been
asked. It does not mean, howe
ver, that they need not be answered.
Obviously it will take quite some time before we learn the truth
about what really happened i
n Yugoslavia or what is happening now. Like elsewhere in Eastern Europe
in similar cases we may not
learn why it was necessary to start fires in downtown Belgrade or
maltreat people who obviously co
uld offer no resistance.
The joy and feasts in the streets of Belgrade over the "victory"
apparently has not lasted lo
ng. Perhaps because the groups and units whose purpose was to ensure the
transfer of power, have be
en assigned other specific tasks, like getting hold of banks, customs
and other important instituti
ons. It seems as if the very name of the new President [Koshtunitsa], no
matter if he knows or does
not know what's happening around him, tends to be repeatedly used as a
kind of a substitute for la
ws and all the other existing institutions and levels of state power in
the country. Observing all
this from as close as 100 miles away, we in Sofia and elsewhere in
Eastern Europe are reminded of a
movie that we have already seen. And what we already know very well out
of personal experiences is
that hardly anything of what has been promised before the crisis and
'victory' will come true afte
rwards. The people of Yugoslavia will alas learn this truth.
Historic parallels are always somewhat risky. Still, what may be
called the "Fall of Belgrade
" these days may be compared to a certain extent to the Fall of Paris at
the end of the "Strange Wa
r" in 1940. In both cases there were expectations of greater resistance.
It took quite a time, great efforts and sacrifice for Humanity to
stop the spread of War and
Evil across the world in the first half of the 20th Century.
Will there be a need of another Stalingrad or El Alameyn, or ...
Armageddon to do this once a
gain sometime in the new Century? When and where may this take place?
And who is going to be on whi
ch side?
We can only guess what may happen in the future. What seems likely
however, is that national,
ethnic or religious differences may turn out to be of minor importance
compared to moral differenc
es. And the choice will be as simple as that: "On Humanity's side or -
against it!"
And there will be no room for abstentions.
Dr. Ivan Angelov
Associate Professor, Social Aspects of International Relations
Sofia, Bulgaria
October 10, 2000
***
Comments and Further Reading:
(1) It is both tragic and ironic that in today's world accurate
news is as scarce as rubies;
one must sift through mountains of misinformation to find the truth.
Ironic because misinformation
thrives amidst the finest technology for transmitting information.
Tragic because the wall of lies
discourages people struggling against injustice; they don't know that
all around them, others share
their views. Because Dr. Angelov finished this article October 10th
(that is, shortly after the Yu
goslav coup) and also due to the increasing control of Bulgarian media
by U.S. Imperial interests,
Mr. Angelov states that nobody else has questioned the possibility of
holding fair elections in a Y
ugoslavia under intense U.S. and German attack. In fact, many people
have raised quite similar poin
ts, especially on the Internet. For example, consider the following
three (among many) articles pub
lished on Emperor's Clothes:
* "U.S. Arrogance and Yugoslav Elections" at
http://emperors-clothes.com/engl.htm
* "Yugoslav Election Results: Big Defeat for U.S. 5th Column
Tactics" at http://emperors-cl
othes.com/analysis/elec.htm
* "Election Day: A letter from Blagovesta Doncheva" at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles
/doncheva/electionday.htm
In his speech to Yugoslavia, delivered Oct. 2, Mr. Miloshevich did
not, like Mr. Angelov, exp
licitly question the validity of the elections, but he certainly
described the Imperial violence, t
hreats and massive bribery that accompanied those elections. (See
'Milosevic's Speech to the Nation
' at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/milosevi.htm )
Moreover, the Yugoslav government issued a report to the U.N.
Security Council documenting th
e outrageous level of foreign interference. This document, entitled
"Memorandum On Foreign Interfer
ence In The Yugoslav Elections" can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/memor.htm (though not in
the Western media!)
The Memorandum was issued Oct. 4th, just before the coup. The
Security Council's failure to a
ct on the Yugoslav government's searing report of violent interference,
involving three Security Co
uncil members - the U.S., England and France - in elections in one of
the U.N.'s founding member st
ates demonstrates the bankruptcy of the U.N. It has become a cover for
Imperial aggression.
(2) The idea Mr. Angelov raises here is dealt with in "For Whom
the Bell Tolls" by Jared Isra
el at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/tolls.htm
(3) See "Unjust From the Start, Part III: The Illegal Basis of the
War Crimes Tribunal" by Dr
. Kosta Cavoski http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-3.htm
***
Give the Gift of 'Judgment'!
What could be a better gift than the truth? It's more precious
than gold. Give it to friends,
relatives. Everyone needs to see this movie.
The Emperor's Clothes' movie 'Judgment' shows how pictures were
fabricated to demonize the Bo
snian Serbs. Remember that famous shot of the 'emaciated man behind
barbed wire'? In this 32 minute
movie we prove that this image was manufactured to fool the world and
we recreate the fabrication,
demonstrating step by step how it was accomplished.
To Order -
$25.00 within the U.S. * $26.00 outside the U.S. includes
shipping.
$3.20 extra for Priority Mail (2-3 days) or $11.75 extra for
Overnight in the U.S.
To order send your donation to:
a.. Emperor's Clothes
P.O. Box 610-321
Newton, MA 02461-0321
b.. Or call (617) 916-1705 in the US and ask for Bob.
c.. 2120 6151122 in Amsterdam and ask for Monica.
d.. Or use our secure server at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#secure
Please send an email to emperors1000@... Let us know any
special shipping instructions.
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
---
Bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"
Sito WEB : http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only")
Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid‘979 oppure
> http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eCircle ti offre una nuova opportunita:
la tua agenda sul web - per te e per i tuoi amici
Organizza on line i tuoi appuntamenti .
E' facile, veloce e gratuito!
Da oggi su
http://www.ecircle.de/ad637835/www.ecircle.it
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/on.htm
For printer-friendly version, click here.
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
What Is Going On in Yugoslavia and The World?
'No Room for Abstentions!'
by Prof. Ivan Angelov
Edited and shortened by Jared Israel (12-15-2000)
In the days when the former "Socialist Community" was giving up
its Marxist ideology and destroying its military potential,
organizational networks and arsenals, concepts were elaborated, and
obviously, plans made to "transform the guerilla fighter from a 20th
Century tool of Marxist
states into a major, 21st Century asset in the arsenal of Western
powers. Western supported and sponsored insurgents will be used for the
purposes of protecting and securing Western interests, and Western
organizations, possessing skills in supporting guerrilla forces will be
held in readiness
for purposes of deterrence." (From a publication of the Institute of
Land Warfare of the U.S. Army, quoted below).
People from far away may rightfully expect that we in Bulgaria
would know more than they about the situation in Yugoslavia since the
two countries are neighbors. Sorry to disappoint them.
It's true that in the weeks before the Oct. 5 coup the Bulgarian
airwaves were thick with tal
k about Yugoslavia. However, the numerous, and as a rule high-volume,
commentaries were mainly limi
ted to the already well-known maxim that "Milosevic is bad and has to
go."
After October 6, when the 'Scourge of Humanity' vanished from the
political arena, very illog
ically the mainstream media's interest vanished too. Hardly anything has
been said about the events
that accompanied Milosevic's decision to resign. Pictures of fires in
Belgrade appeared on the fro
nt pages of newspapers but people had to guess who set those fires and
why. E-mails and Internet co
mmunications became scarce.
The usual answer to the question, "What took place in Yugoslavia?"
is: they had early electio
ns. (Early because the governing coalition wasn't required to call
elections on Sept. 24th.)
But were they truly "elections"? To what extent does "election"
describe what happened in and
around Yugoslavia this past Fall? A thoughtful answer to this question
can clarify what kind of wo
rld we live in and what we can expect from the future.
Intervention: The New Norm
It is annoying that neither Yugoslav authorities nor the
opposition - neither leaders nor ord
inary citizens - neither experts in law nor humanitarians - no one in
Yugoslavia, in nearby countri
es or the world has for a single moment questioned the idea that these
elections could be considere
d fair when part of a country is occupied - as Yugoslavia is occupied -
by foreign troops.(1)
Perhaps because Great Power interference has been commonplace
world-wide for decades it is no
w a norm of Law? If so, then various International Agreements should be
amended. That way future ge
nerations will know there is nothing wrong with having foreign troops on
a country's soil, that for
eign pressure helps citizens freely express themselves..
How would the citizens of divided Germany or the anti-Communist
protestors in Poland, Hungary
or Czechoslovakia have treated this interesting notion ten years ago?
Elections in the presence of foreign troops continue to be held in
many areas. Bosnia is just
one example. Such elections are even encouraged in Kosovo which isn't
an independent nation but ra
ther part of Yugoslavia, an established state.
Elections to Sanctify Imperial Gains
Perhaps in today's world elections are increasingly devoid of
their original meaning. Perhaps
instead they function to further and sanctify certain covert
intentions, activities and interests.
Perhaps elections are increasingly a ritual aimed at pronouncing a
blessing (or a blasphemy?) over
a certain state of things, established by other means.
Yugoslavia's Fall elections, held ahead of term, are part of a
series of actions imposed on Y
ugoslavia by threat from the most powerful military, economic and
political forces in the world. Da
yton and other so-called peace agreements were reached in the same way -
at the point of a gun - ju
st as "peace" was established in Kosovo.
Elections were freely held under the threat of force, i.e., of
another war, and this threat r
emained over Yugoslavia after the idea of early elections was imposed.
Obviously this is now consid
ered normal, just as putting a 5 million dollar bounty on the head of
Miloshevich, President of Yug
oslavia, is considered normal, as if we were living in the times of
Genghis Khan, or the Ottoman Co
nquests, as if we were living under the Nazi occupation of Europe.
Foreign legislative and executive bodies made official
declarations concerning not only how Y
ugoslavia's elections were to be conducted, but on the acceptability
(and unacceptability) of vario
us possible outcomes. How helpful for the citizens! In an unprecedented
step, parallel counting of
votes was organized, bankrolled by Western powers. NATo-organized
military exercises were carried o
ut near Yugoslavia and NATO's Deputy Secretary General visited
neighbouring countries on the very e
ve of the elections. The US Chief of Staff, Gen. Shelton, visited
immediately afterwards. Hours bef
ore the vote, top EU and NATO officials literally forbade one of the
electoral candidates [Miloshev
ich] from winning.
And remember, all these "suggestions" about how the Yugoslavs
should run their elections, and
who had permission to win, were made in an atmosphere where violent
intervention was threatened. I
t was suggested that a new intervention could be more massive and
destructive than during the 78 da
y bombing in 1999. Weren't these speculations of dire consequences,
should the wrong side win, mean
t to guide Yugoslav voters? And of course, the events of 1999 clearly
showed that neither the UN no
r anybody else was willing or able to stop such violence.
Where can we find an analogy to this level of intervention except
in the Munich Deal of 1938,
the capture of Abyssinia [or Ethiopia, by Mussolini's Fascist troops]
and the rape of Manchuria [b
y Japan] before World War II. (I wonder, did certain sensible
intellectuals in Germany, Italy or Ja
pan write articles pointing out that the Abyssinian and Manchurian
governments had never held prope
r elections, that the Italian and Japanese armies were therefore
contributing to democracy by smash
ing these non-democratic regimes, which coincidentally existed in zones
of special interest to Ital
y and Japan?)
The attacks on Manchuria and Abyssinia [or Ethiopia] are viewed as
outright aggression in doc
uments on International Relations and Law. Perhaps now these views
should be revised. Maybe it's ou
tmoded to speak of "aggressor countries", referring to those great
powers of the near past. Or will
scholars prove that Yugoslavia is much less democratic than, say,
Abyssinia and Manchuria in the 1
930s, thus justifying the use of force by today's Great Powers? There is
a great deal of room, here
, for scholarly work.
Elections a Cover for Covert Action
Even if we assume that all forms of external coercion are
permissible in the struggle against
that arch "enemy of Humanity" (meaning, of course, Mr. Milosevic) the
question remains: can and sh
ould all these tactics be attributed to the concept, the process and the
procedure of elections?
In fact, from the beginning the idea of early elections was a way
of creating the necessary c
overt conditions and atmosphere for carrying out the next stage of a
very special war effort agains
t Yugoslavia and its established institutions.
Isn't it troubling that much of what has happened and is possibly
going on in Yugoslavia fits
almost perfectly into what is called in the specialized literature on
military issues, Low-Intensi
ty Conflict (LIC)?
Low Intensity Conflict: Subversion Foreseen in 1990
"Low-Intensity Conflict" - according to its definition - "is armed
conflict for political pur
poses short of combat between regularly organized forces" (See: Rod
Pascal, "LIC 2010 - Special Ope
rations and Unconventional Warfare in the Next Century, Future Warfare
Studies. Published with the
Institute of Land Warfare Association of the U.S. Army," 1990,
Brassley's Inc, US., page 7.).
"It is not mid-intensity conflict, which is armed conflict between
regularly organized milita
ry forces" (though it "may also include terrorist incidents, or even
concurrent insurgent campaigns
"), neither a high-intensity conflict which is "armed combat involving
the use of mass-destructive
weapons" (ibid., page 8)
The Low-Intensity Conflict "definition surely includes a terrorist
act but excludes, for exam
ple, the usual hostage-taking by a bank robber. It includes a
counter-insurgency campaign in which
a regular-armed force is pitted against guerillas or irregulars. It
describes the activities of ins
urgents engaged in an armed attempt to overthrow a government. The
definition also encompasses the
efforts of a 'peace-keeping force.'" (ibid., page 7).
a.. Though it is noted that "these definitions differ somewhat
from the basically blessed t
erminology of the US Army" there is a little doubt left that "they
accurately reflect the intent of
the U.S. Army definitions" (ibid., page 8).
Ten years ago, when Mankind sincerely believed that not a "New
World Order" but a New Epoch o
f Peace, International Confidence and Cooperation was ahead, some
specialists in military theory we
re foreseeing that "insurgency, perhaps one of the oldest forms of
warfare, should be much in evide
nce in 2010." (ibid., page 6).
In the days when the former "Socialist Community" was giving up
its Marxist ideology and dest
roying its military potential, organizational networks and arsenals,
concepts were elaborated and p
lans made to "transform the guerilla fighter from a 20th Century tool of
Marxist states into a majo
r, 21st Century asset in the arsenal of Western powers. Western
supported and sponsored insurgents
will be used for the purposes of protecting and securing Western
interests, and Western organizatio
ns, possessing skills in supporting guerrilla forces will be held in
readiness for purposes of dete
rrence." (ibid., page 6)
And further, "special operational forces are those military or
naval elements specifically or
ganized, trained and equipped to conduct or support insurgency,
sabotage, psychological deception,
counter-terrorist, foreign assistance or commando-type operations. These
units are normally capable
of performing rescue, reconnaissance, and intelligent-gathering tasks."
(ibid., page 8)
Every country has the right and obligation to foresee necessary
concepts and technologies in
the military field. The fact that a group of countries (like the former
Eastern block) have, for wh
atever reason, unilaterally given up this duty, by no means entails any
obligations by others. Stil
l, since these countries did really leave the "doors open" with
practically no one against the West
(at least since 1989) the question arises: why should their inclusion
into the New World Order be
accompanied not only by economic ruin but also by sabotage, deliberately
set fires or a variety of
mid- and low-intensity conflicts?
Of course, one could give many meaningful answers to that
question. Internal causes cannot be
ignored. And external interference is not always easily found or
proved.
But it is beyond doubt that a very dangerous imbalance has become
appallingly obvious during
the last decade of the 20th Century because while one of the two main
Global forces, i.e., the East
ern block, has destroyed most of its military establishments and
arsenals, Western counterparts hav
e maintained and further perfected theirs.
The imbalance means Mankind seems to have lost one of its real
chances to abolish war as a wa
y of settling disputes. This brings us to the very important question of
the moral responsibility o
f the victors in the Cold War. Surprisingly this issue has not been
touched upon, either by Bush or
Gorbachov, though the world has obviously suffered through a decade
that began with the promise of
an era of peace, brotherhood and prosperity for all.
West Encourages Destructive Forces in the East
People in Western countries may find this difficult to believe,
but the very existence of thi
s dis-equilibrium has produced an increased inclination towards violence
in the East. Things like t
he unnecessary fires in downtown Bucharest [Romania] and Sofia
[Bulgaria] during the so-called "vel
vet revolutions" in the early 90s, the artillery shooting assault on the
Russian Parliament in 1993
, etc., could hardly happen without the belief (was it erroneous?) that
such acts would be understo
od and supported by previous adversaries in the West. Similar
expectations of Western support in Ko
sovo and elsewhere in Yugoslavia have also been decisive in bringing
about extreme violence there.
In the same way, once begun, the notion of early elections in
Yugoslavia followed all the mai
n points of, say, the Nicaraguan scenario of free and fair elections in
1990. While the atmosphere
around the country was thick with threats of another war, a series of
demonstrative murders of well
-known personalities took place in Belgrade and in other main cities. In
Nicaragua this meant: "Thi
s will continue if you do not vote for the right candidate!" Such
Warnings obviously worked in Nica
ragua. Why would they pass unnoticed in Yugoslavia? Its population had
been keenly educated by a de
cade of war, carried out by superior military powers. And remember, with
very few exceptions, there
was no meaningful understanding and support from any institution or
world power for Yugoslavia's e
fforts to maintain its independence and self-designed path of
development.
What is being determined these days in Yugoslavia is the course
and quality of life of many g
enerations in many countries all over the world, including those in the
states that have been engag
ed in attacking Yugoslavia. People can only take temporary consolation
if the wars and abuses of so
vereignty and dignified human life take place at seemingly great
geographic distances. Once these a
buses exist they have a marvelous capacity to spread. They will even
come home, like a boomerang. T
his has happened throughout history. (2)
Yugoslavia's political system manifested a certain number of
deficiencies, faults, even crime
s in the course of its existence. This is true in all countries. Yet the
Yugoslavs have turned out
to be capable of maintaining a dignified and independent position both
during World War II and the
Cold War. Perhaps for this reason many people the world over expected
the Serbs to resist alone and
even once again win a victory over the overwhelming military powers
once again challenging their i
ndependence. Perhaps many people are even disappointed with the lack of
sufficient resistance and e
ven massive sacrifice for the sake of that cause.
Obviously Humanity (or at least a substantial part of it) needs
another Christ to suffer and
die for it and - to be more exact - for things and causes that it has
not been able to keep and def
end itself.
But does it have the right to expect suffering and sacrifice on
the side of others while it i
tself, with all its might, potentials and capacities has proved
practically incapable of doing anyt
hing to prevent practices of abuses of International Law, Freedom,
Justice and Independence? Why di
dn't any of the powerful members of the UN Security Council use their
veto against the Internationa
l Tribunal in the Hague, that violates the UN's own legal procedures and
practices? On which basis
then may any of these countries expect understanding or support among
the world public when it will
need them? (3)
What did the people of Yugoslavia's immediate neighbouring
countries do when NATO conducted m
ilitary exercises on their territories on the very days of those so-very
free elections? Official d
eclarations were made, of course, that these "exercises have been
planned long before the elections
" and "can in no way be interpreted as acts of interference into the
internal affairs of a sovereig
n country". That is very reassuring, and yet the question remains why
these exercises were not put
off when it was discovered that they coincided with the elections? Why
did no political party or le
gal expert express any doubt, concern or protest, related to these
numerous "entirely accidental ra
ndom coincidences"?
What is the value of all the talk of Free and Fair Elections in a
country, a substantial part
of which (Kosovo) is under occupation of foreign troops? International
Law still has to give adequ
ate answers to this and similar questions. What could be the legal
foundations of claims for early
elections under such conditions? Could even the decision of the
Government of this country to set a
date for such elections be considered legitimate under such
circumstances?
Very surprisingly, so far questions like these have hardly been
asked. It does not mean, howe
ver, that they need not be answered.
Obviously it will take quite some time before we learn the truth
about what really happened i
n Yugoslavia or what is happening now. Like elsewhere in Eastern Europe
in similar cases we may not
learn why it was necessary to start fires in downtown Belgrade or
maltreat people who obviously co
uld offer no resistance.
The joy and feasts in the streets of Belgrade over the "victory"
apparently has not lasted lo
ng. Perhaps because the groups and units whose purpose was to ensure the
transfer of power, have be
en assigned other specific tasks, like getting hold of banks, customs
and other important instituti
ons. It seems as if the very name of the new President [Koshtunitsa], no
matter if he knows or does
not know what's happening around him, tends to be repeatedly used as a
kind of a substitute for la
ws and all the other existing institutions and levels of state power in
the country. Observing all
this from as close as 100 miles away, we in Sofia and elsewhere in
Eastern Europe are reminded of a
movie that we have already seen. And what we already know very well out
of personal experiences is
that hardly anything of what has been promised before the crisis and
'victory' will come true afte
rwards. The people of Yugoslavia will alas learn this truth.
Historic parallels are always somewhat risky. Still, what may be
called the "Fall of Belgrade
" these days may be compared to a certain extent to the Fall of Paris at
the end of the "Strange Wa
r" in 1940. In both cases there were expectations of greater resistance.
It took quite a time, great efforts and sacrifice for Humanity to
stop the spread of War and
Evil across the world in the first half of the 20th Century.
Will there be a need of another Stalingrad or El Alameyn, or ...
Armageddon to do this once a
gain sometime in the new Century? When and where may this take place?
And who is going to be on whi
ch side?
We can only guess what may happen in the future. What seems likely
however, is that national,
ethnic or religious differences may turn out to be of minor importance
compared to moral differenc
es. And the choice will be as simple as that: "On Humanity's side or -
against it!"
And there will be no room for abstentions.
Dr. Ivan Angelov
Associate Professor, Social Aspects of International Relations
Sofia, Bulgaria
October 10, 2000
***
Comments and Further Reading:
(1) It is both tragic and ironic that in today's world accurate
news is as scarce as rubies;
one must sift through mountains of misinformation to find the truth.
Ironic because misinformation
thrives amidst the finest technology for transmitting information.
Tragic because the wall of lies
discourages people struggling against injustice; they don't know that
all around them, others share
their views. Because Dr. Angelov finished this article October 10th
(that is, shortly after the Yu
goslav coup) and also due to the increasing control of Bulgarian media
by U.S. Imperial interests,
Mr. Angelov states that nobody else has questioned the possibility of
holding fair elections in a Y
ugoslavia under intense U.S. and German attack. In fact, many people
have raised quite similar poin
ts, especially on the Internet. For example, consider the following
three (among many) articles pub
lished on Emperor's Clothes:
* "U.S. Arrogance and Yugoslav Elections" at
http://emperors-clothes.com/engl.htm
* "Yugoslav Election Results: Big Defeat for U.S. 5th Column
Tactics" at http://emperors-cl
othes.com/analysis/elec.htm
* "Election Day: A letter from Blagovesta Doncheva" at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles
/doncheva/electionday.htm
In his speech to Yugoslavia, delivered Oct. 2, Mr. Miloshevich did
not, like Mr. Angelov, exp
licitly question the validity of the elections, but he certainly
described the Imperial violence, t
hreats and massive bribery that accompanied those elections. (See
'Milosevic's Speech to the Nation
' at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/milosevi.htm )
Moreover, the Yugoslav government issued a report to the U.N.
Security Council documenting th
e outrageous level of foreign interference. This document, entitled
"Memorandum On Foreign Interfer
ence In The Yugoslav Elections" can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/memor.htm (though not in
the Western media!)
The Memorandum was issued Oct. 4th, just before the coup. The
Security Council's failure to a
ct on the Yugoslav government's searing report of violent interference,
involving three Security Co
uncil members - the U.S., England and France - in elections in one of
the U.N.'s founding member st
ates demonstrates the bankruptcy of the U.N. It has become a cover for
Imperial aggression.
(2) The idea Mr. Angelov raises here is dealt with in "For Whom
the Bell Tolls" by Jared Isra
el at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/tolls.htm
(3) See "Unjust From the Start, Part III: The Illegal Basis of the
War Crimes Tribunal" by Dr
. Kosta Cavoski http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-3.htm
***
Give the Gift of 'Judgment'!
What could be a better gift than the truth? It's more precious
than gold. Give it to friends,
relatives. Everyone needs to see this movie.
The Emperor's Clothes' movie 'Judgment' shows how pictures were
fabricated to demonize the Bo
snian Serbs. Remember that famous shot of the 'emaciated man behind
barbed wire'? In this 32 minute
movie we prove that this image was manufactured to fool the world and
we recreate the fabrication,
demonstrating step by step how it was accomplished.
To Order -
$25.00 within the U.S. * $26.00 outside the U.S. includes
shipping.
$3.20 extra for Priority Mail (2-3 days) or $11.75 extra for
Overnight in the U.S.
To order send your donation to:
a.. Emperor's Clothes
P.O. Box 610-321
Newton, MA 02461-0321
b.. Or call (617) 916-1705 in the US and ask for Bob.
c.. 2120 6151122 in Amsterdam and ask for Monica.
d.. Or use our secure server at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#secure
Please send an email to emperors1000@... Let us know any
special shipping instructions.
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
---
Bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"
Sito WEB : http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only")
Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid‘979 oppure
> http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eCircle ti offre una nuova opportunita:
la tua agenda sul web - per te e per i tuoi amici
Organizza on line i tuoi appuntamenti .
E' facile, veloce e gratuito!
Da oggi su
http://www.ecircle.de/ad637835/www.ecircle.it