Who Killed Djindjic?
And What Will Be the Repercussions in the Balkans?
Sherlock Holmes would have plenty of work to do in the Balkans. And
plenty of suspects on his hands because it would be difficult to find
anyone who was a friend of Zoran Djindjic. "You are the head of the
mafia, and I've got the proof!" said Vojislav Seselj, making his
accusation before a full session of Parliament. A lot of others
thought so, too. Where is Serbia going?
Michel Collon
Who put Zoran Djindjic in power? The mainstream media tells us that
the Serbian people did. In reality, his popularity rating was always
close to zero. Especially after he supported NATO while the bombs were
raining on his country.
Who put Djindjic in power? The West. Thanks to more than nine years
of a crushing embargo (dictated by the IMF in order to destroy
workers' self-management and to impose globalization), plus nine years
of an info-war demonizing the Serbian people, plus 78 days of NATO
bombardment and tens of millions of dollars spent on a destabilization
campaign to get rid of Milosevic, a campaign which was orchestrated by
the CIA in 2000. It's the same kind of campaign that is now being led
against Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.
Since then, no one ever talks about Yugoslavia, a country to which
the West had generously offered the "free market," democracy and the
promise of NATO and EU membership in exchange for surrendering all of
its wealth to multi-national corporations. Not a word since 2000. Is
this the End of History, with globalization triumphant all the way to
Belgrade? And in Kosovo, where the forces of Globalization are
discretely privatizing 25% of the publicly-owned companies while
closing down the rest?
But History has never ended. The Serbian people are resisting
privatization and betrayal. The workers at the Zastava auto plant
just went on strike, refusing to be thrown into the garbage heap so
that a group of Canadian investors can get the upper hand in their
factory. They still judge NATO as it deserves to be judged, as "an
aggressor." Their pride is unbowed, and they are stirring up a crisis
for the group in power.
Two or Three Hypotheses
Who killed Djindjic? There are many hypotheses, even if at this stage
it is better to remain cautious. The professional method employed in
the assassination seems to exclude the idea of a patriot wanting to
avenge the betrayal and sell-out of his country. This is what
remains: 1) Rivalries at the core of the ruling clique; 2) The mafia
settling scores. Or both.
Djindjic toppled Milosevic while building a diverse coalition of 18
political parties, whose sole bonding element was opportunism. Once
the coalition gained power, Djindjic had to seize the reins of power
himself, which aroused frustration because the privatizations, for the
most part, profited his pals (see our article Two years later: where
is Yugoslavia?). Those who felt betrayed in his own camp were,
therefore, numerous and certainly would not have given him a nickel to
hire more body guards.
But who were these "pals" of Djindjic? A few months ago, he quashed
an investigation of the mafia and the cabinet ministers from
Kostunica's party responded by resigning in protest. Mention the word
mafia, and it conjures rivalries, noxious interests and the settling
of scores. We can't speculate on the question of where the bullet
came from, but we can recall precedents: All of the West's protégés
in the former Yugoslavia were tied to illegal trafficking, even though
the mainstream media remains discrete about it. The entourage of the
Bosnian Muslim President Izetbegovic pilfered millions of dollars of
"international aid." The KLA, according to European police agencies,
have turned Kosovo into a lazy Susan bearing drug trafficking, weapons
and prostitution. "NATO entered into a marriage of convenience with
the mafia," as we pointed out in our film, The Damned of Kosovo.
Western propaganda refers to Djindjic as "the man who installed
democracy." However, this is a completely disastrous estimation. He
dismantled the Yugoslav state simply to deprive his rival, Kostunica,
of a government position. He illegally excluded from Parliament
deputies from the largest party, the one headed by Kostunica. He
trampled the verdict of the Supreme Court that invalidated this
exclusion. He did the same thing when the Court rejected the
kidnapping and extradition of Milosevic to The Hague. He cut the
army's budget (including food for the soldiers) because it had
unmasked foreign spies in the heart of the government. The man on
whom the West had pinned its hopes for the future was simply a
political gangster.
Washington against Berlin?
The Serbia street called Djindjic "the guy who belongs to the
Germans." This morning, an Italian journalist asked us: "Could the
murder be tied to the rivalry between Washington and Berlin, which you
have spoken of for so many years?" This is not the kind of thing that
can be proven so easily . But it is, in any case, perfectly
possible. There are several clues:
Clue #1. Now is the time to recall why the war in Bosnia lasted so
long. In his memoirs, Lord Owen, the EU's special envoy to the
Balkans, wrote: "I have a great deal of respect for the United
States. But during the last four years (1992-1995), this country's
diplomacy is guilty of needlessly prolonging the war in Bosnia."
What does he see? He sees what we exposed in our book, Liar's Poker
(Poker menteur) : Berlin forced the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1991
and took control of the new regimes in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia.
Washington, at first taken aback by its suddenness, was forced to take
the cards back into its own hands. Yugoslavia, i.e., the Danube, is a
strategic route to the Middle East and the Caucasus, therefore, to oil
and gas. It is the route that all the great powers have always wanted
to control.
Berlin wants to transport its oil via the Danube and the Rhine. On
the other hand, Washington wants to construct a pipe line further
south, spanning Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania because the U.S.
intends to control the energy supplies of its rivals, Europe and
Japan. There, they built a super military base, Camp Bondsteel, which
they count on using against Iraq.
In Bosnia, Washington ordered the Bosnian Muslim President,
Izetbegovic, not to sign any peace plan proposed by the Europeans,
promising him he could win the war on the ground. This strategy
accomplished its goals. In brief, the U.S. prolonged the war by two
years, and prolonged the suffering of all the different peoples living
in the region. The lowest blows are permitted in the rivalry between
great powers.
Clue #2: In 2000, Washington, which controls the credits that are
granted or withheld by the IMF, promised a flood of credits to help
the new regime and to maintain the electoral illusions disseminated
among the population. But no such credits materialized. In an
interview with Spiegel, a German weekly, Djindjic complained that he
was in danger because of it: "I warned the West." It was a warning.
All that one can say at this stage is that Djindjic's passing will be
regretted much more by Berlin than by Washington.
Clue #3. What is going on these days between the great allies who are
forever bound together, the U.S. on the one hand, and Germany and
France on the other? They are embroiled in the greatest dispute since
World War II. If Washington absolutely wants to attack Iraq, and then
Iran, it is also in order to weaken their European rivals. The
Anglo-American multinationals, Esso, BP, and Shell want to oust the
French corporation, Total, from Iraq. And Washington also wants to
oust its number one economic partner, Germany, from Iran. At the very
moment Berlin and Paris are upsetting Bush's plans, the blow dealt to
their Serbian pawn could very well be a warning in this cynical game
of chess, which is in fact a global war.
And Now?
What will be the consequences of Djindjic's disappearance from the
scene? 1. The Crisis at the heart of the regime will be exacerbated
and Kostunica will try to regain his lost power. Various clans will
confront one another to take control of the economy and illegal
trafficking. 2) A fascist threat is lying in wait for Serbia because
the new power will have a lot to do to break the resistance of the
workers. 3. The Balkans could once again be plunged into
destabilization.
Were the Balkans pacified by Western humanitarian intervention? The
myth is going to have a hard time sustaining itself. After the
protégés of the U.S. unleashed a war in Macedonia in 2001, the Sandzak
could flare up next with a new separatist menace based on
"nationalism," which would in reality be manipulated from outside the
country. In Kosovo, Washington continues to protect the KLA and its
policy of ethnic cleansing, which is driving Serbs out of Kosovo, as
well as Jews, Roma and Muslims, in short, all non-Albanian
minorities. This is disturbing to certain European powers that want
to stabilize the area and construct their "energy corridor." Other
neighboring regions could topple. A region where pipe line projects
are confronting each other would not be capable of staying calm for
long.
With this catastrophic summary, it is high time that the Western Left
emerges from its silence and draws up a balance sheet of four years of
NATO occupation in Kosovo. It is a catastrophe. At the very moment
Washington is preparing invasions and occupations, the truth must be
known and recognized once and for all. Let the debate finally begin!
Translated by Milo Yelesiyevich
By the same author:
- Two Years Later: Where Is Yugoslavia? (Deux ans après, où en est la
Yougoslavie ?)
- Kosovo, Test Your Knowledge (Kosovo, testez vos connaissances)
- Interview: What Is Now Going on in Kosovo? A New Film Breaks the
Silence (Interview : Que se passe-t-il à présent au Kosovo ? Un film
brise le silence).
And What Will Be the Repercussions in the Balkans?
Sherlock Holmes would have plenty of work to do in the Balkans. And
plenty of suspects on his hands because it would be difficult to find
anyone who was a friend of Zoran Djindjic. "You are the head of the
mafia, and I've got the proof!" said Vojislav Seselj, making his
accusation before a full session of Parliament. A lot of others
thought so, too. Where is Serbia going?
Michel Collon
Who put Zoran Djindjic in power? The mainstream media tells us that
the Serbian people did. In reality, his popularity rating was always
close to zero. Especially after he supported NATO while the bombs were
raining on his country.
Who put Djindjic in power? The West. Thanks to more than nine years
of a crushing embargo (dictated by the IMF in order to destroy
workers' self-management and to impose globalization), plus nine years
of an info-war demonizing the Serbian people, plus 78 days of NATO
bombardment and tens of millions of dollars spent on a destabilization
campaign to get rid of Milosevic, a campaign which was orchestrated by
the CIA in 2000. It's the same kind of campaign that is now being led
against Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez.
Since then, no one ever talks about Yugoslavia, a country to which
the West had generously offered the "free market," democracy and the
promise of NATO and EU membership in exchange for surrendering all of
its wealth to multi-national corporations. Not a word since 2000. Is
this the End of History, with globalization triumphant all the way to
Belgrade? And in Kosovo, where the forces of Globalization are
discretely privatizing 25% of the publicly-owned companies while
closing down the rest?
But History has never ended. The Serbian people are resisting
privatization and betrayal. The workers at the Zastava auto plant
just went on strike, refusing to be thrown into the garbage heap so
that a group of Canadian investors can get the upper hand in their
factory. They still judge NATO as it deserves to be judged, as "an
aggressor." Their pride is unbowed, and they are stirring up a crisis
for the group in power.
Two or Three Hypotheses
Who killed Djindjic? There are many hypotheses, even if at this stage
it is better to remain cautious. The professional method employed in
the assassination seems to exclude the idea of a patriot wanting to
avenge the betrayal and sell-out of his country. This is what
remains: 1) Rivalries at the core of the ruling clique; 2) The mafia
settling scores. Or both.
Djindjic toppled Milosevic while building a diverse coalition of 18
political parties, whose sole bonding element was opportunism. Once
the coalition gained power, Djindjic had to seize the reins of power
himself, which aroused frustration because the privatizations, for the
most part, profited his pals (see our article Two years later: where
is Yugoslavia?). Those who felt betrayed in his own camp were,
therefore, numerous and certainly would not have given him a nickel to
hire more body guards.
But who were these "pals" of Djindjic? A few months ago, he quashed
an investigation of the mafia and the cabinet ministers from
Kostunica's party responded by resigning in protest. Mention the word
mafia, and it conjures rivalries, noxious interests and the settling
of scores. We can't speculate on the question of where the bullet
came from, but we can recall precedents: All of the West's protégés
in the former Yugoslavia were tied to illegal trafficking, even though
the mainstream media remains discrete about it. The entourage of the
Bosnian Muslim President Izetbegovic pilfered millions of dollars of
"international aid." The KLA, according to European police agencies,
have turned Kosovo into a lazy Susan bearing drug trafficking, weapons
and prostitution. "NATO entered into a marriage of convenience with
the mafia," as we pointed out in our film, The Damned of Kosovo.
Western propaganda refers to Djindjic as "the man who installed
democracy." However, this is a completely disastrous estimation. He
dismantled the Yugoslav state simply to deprive his rival, Kostunica,
of a government position. He illegally excluded from Parliament
deputies from the largest party, the one headed by Kostunica. He
trampled the verdict of the Supreme Court that invalidated this
exclusion. He did the same thing when the Court rejected the
kidnapping and extradition of Milosevic to The Hague. He cut the
army's budget (including food for the soldiers) because it had
unmasked foreign spies in the heart of the government. The man on
whom the West had pinned its hopes for the future was simply a
political gangster.
Washington against Berlin?
The Serbia street called Djindjic "the guy who belongs to the
Germans." This morning, an Italian journalist asked us: "Could the
murder be tied to the rivalry between Washington and Berlin, which you
have spoken of for so many years?" This is not the kind of thing that
can be proven so easily . But it is, in any case, perfectly
possible. There are several clues:
Clue #1. Now is the time to recall why the war in Bosnia lasted so
long. In his memoirs, Lord Owen, the EU's special envoy to the
Balkans, wrote: "I have a great deal of respect for the United
States. But during the last four years (1992-1995), this country's
diplomacy is guilty of needlessly prolonging the war in Bosnia."
What does he see? He sees what we exposed in our book, Liar's Poker
(Poker menteur) : Berlin forced the break-up of Yugoslavia in 1991
and took control of the new regimes in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia.
Washington, at first taken aback by its suddenness, was forced to take
the cards back into its own hands. Yugoslavia, i.e., the Danube, is a
strategic route to the Middle East and the Caucasus, therefore, to oil
and gas. It is the route that all the great powers have always wanted
to control.
Berlin wants to transport its oil via the Danube and the Rhine. On
the other hand, Washington wants to construct a pipe line further
south, spanning Bulgaria, Macedonia and Albania because the U.S.
intends to control the energy supplies of its rivals, Europe and
Japan. There, they built a super military base, Camp Bondsteel, which
they count on using against Iraq.
In Bosnia, Washington ordered the Bosnian Muslim President,
Izetbegovic, not to sign any peace plan proposed by the Europeans,
promising him he could win the war on the ground. This strategy
accomplished its goals. In brief, the U.S. prolonged the war by two
years, and prolonged the suffering of all the different peoples living
in the region. The lowest blows are permitted in the rivalry between
great powers.
Clue #2: In 2000, Washington, which controls the credits that are
granted or withheld by the IMF, promised a flood of credits to help
the new regime and to maintain the electoral illusions disseminated
among the population. But no such credits materialized. In an
interview with Spiegel, a German weekly, Djindjic complained that he
was in danger because of it: "I warned the West." It was a warning.
All that one can say at this stage is that Djindjic's passing will be
regretted much more by Berlin than by Washington.
Clue #3. What is going on these days between the great allies who are
forever bound together, the U.S. on the one hand, and Germany and
France on the other? They are embroiled in the greatest dispute since
World War II. If Washington absolutely wants to attack Iraq, and then
Iran, it is also in order to weaken their European rivals. The
Anglo-American multinationals, Esso, BP, and Shell want to oust the
French corporation, Total, from Iraq. And Washington also wants to
oust its number one economic partner, Germany, from Iran. At the very
moment Berlin and Paris are upsetting Bush's plans, the blow dealt to
their Serbian pawn could very well be a warning in this cynical game
of chess, which is in fact a global war.
And Now?
What will be the consequences of Djindjic's disappearance from the
scene? 1. The Crisis at the heart of the regime will be exacerbated
and Kostunica will try to regain his lost power. Various clans will
confront one another to take control of the economy and illegal
trafficking. 2) A fascist threat is lying in wait for Serbia because
the new power will have a lot to do to break the resistance of the
workers. 3. The Balkans could once again be plunged into
destabilization.
Were the Balkans pacified by Western humanitarian intervention? The
myth is going to have a hard time sustaining itself. After the
protégés of the U.S. unleashed a war in Macedonia in 2001, the Sandzak
could flare up next with a new separatist menace based on
"nationalism," which would in reality be manipulated from outside the
country. In Kosovo, Washington continues to protect the KLA and its
policy of ethnic cleansing, which is driving Serbs out of Kosovo, as
well as Jews, Roma and Muslims, in short, all non-Albanian
minorities. This is disturbing to certain European powers that want
to stabilize the area and construct their "energy corridor." Other
neighboring regions could topple. A region where pipe line projects
are confronting each other would not be capable of staying calm for
long.
With this catastrophic summary, it is high time that the Western Left
emerges from its silence and draws up a balance sheet of four years of
NATO occupation in Kosovo. It is a catastrophe. At the very moment
Washington is preparing invasions and occupations, the truth must be
known and recognized once and for all. Let the debate finally begin!
Translated by Milo Yelesiyevich
By the same author:
- Two Years Later: Where Is Yugoslavia? (Deux ans après, où en est la
Yougoslavie ?)
- Kosovo, Test Your Knowledge (Kosovo, testez vos connaissances)
- Interview: What Is Now Going on in Kosovo? A New Film Breaks the
Silence (Interview : Que se passe-t-il à présent au Kosovo ? Un film
brise le silence).