* Yugoslav 'Opposition' Negotiates Sale of Yugoslavia!
by Michel Chossudovsky and Jared Israel
* Joseph Biden (US congressman): "We, the Congress, are saying to the
people of Serbia that they are our friends, not our enemies. It is their
Government, it is Slobodan Milosevic that is the problem, not the
Serbian people... Should our West European allies choose to embrace a
post-Milosevic, democratically elected, but ultra-nationalistic Serbia,
then I would say to them `good luck'..."
* Washington Votes to Finance Yugoslav Runoff Election
by Michel Chossudovsky
* Blatant U.S. intervention in Yugoslav elections protested; Group calls
for investigation (IAC)
* Are Washingtonians Helping Milosevic Survive?
by Srdja Trifkovic
---
URL for this article is http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/11.htm
Yugoslav 'Opposition' Negotiates Sale of Yugoslavia!
by Michel Chossudovsky and Jared Israel
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
>People may not be aware that two prominent members of the Democratic
>Opposition of Serbia (DOS) just made a very important trip to Bulgaria.
They
>met with representatives of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the
World
>Bank and the NATO governments at a so-called "donor conference." The
purpose
>was to set the stage for NATO governments to takeover Yugoslavia.
>
>The trip was announced the day after the Yugoslav elections. Mladjan
Dinkic,
>the most likely Finance Minister in an opposition government, "said that
>representatives of his G-17 Plus will travel to Bulgaria this week for a
>donor conference on Yugoslavia with representatives of the International
>Monetary Fund." (United Press International, 27 September 2000)
>
>Dinkic was accompanied by Dr. Dragoslav Avramovic, an economist in Zoran
>Djindjic's 'Alliance for Change'. These so-called "democratic opposition"
>groups have been paid huge sums by US government agencies.
>
>Dinkic told United Press International that "Dragoslav Avramovic had
drafted
>a letter of intent with a request to the IMF and World Bank. Dinkic said he
>expected that this would be followed by negotiations with creditor
countries,
>the so-called Paris Club..." These are the NATO countries.
>
>A "Letter of Intent" includes a "Memorandum on Economic and Financial
>Policies". This establishes the conditions under which all of Yugoslavia
>would be put under the control of Western donors and creditors. Only a
>Yugoslav Finance Minister, selected by Parliament, has a legal right to
draft
>a "Letter of Intent." But Dinkic and Avramovic represent only the so-called
>"democratic" opposition. In what country is it legal for opposition
elements
>to "negotiate" with enemy countries who finance their movement? This is an
>extreme act of interference by the NATO countries.
>
>What measures do the NATO countries want to impose?
>
>* End of all government price controls;
>
>* Introduction of "free markets" without any protection for farmers or
>businesses from dumping of foreign goods;
>
>* End to all social protection. No government help with medical care,
>transportation , food or heating;
>
>* A freeze on credit to businesses
>
>* Massive layoffs of workers and drastic pay cuts for workers and farmers;
>
>* Forced liquidation of important businesses and industries, public and
>private
>
>* Any future reconstruction work to correct bombing damage be entrusted to
>companies from the NATO countries. They would be paid with money Yugoslavia
>would be forced to borrow from international lenders.
>
>The result of these policies would be: food prices would go fly high;
>enterprises would be driven into bankruptcy and liquidation; foreign
capital
>would seize the entire economy.
>
>The "Letter of Intent" would require the acceptance of Washington's
political
>demands. These were just laid out in the so-called "Serbian Democratization
>Act," # HR1064. It was passed by the US House of Representatives on
September
>25, the day Dinkic announced his trip to Bulgaria. Good timing. This law
>states that for Yugoslavia to be free of sanctions, and for it to be
>"allowed" into the IMF it would have to:
>
>1) Negotiate independence (meaning secession) for Kosovo and probably
>Vojvodina
>
>2) Completely "democratize" the country. "Democratize" is a code word for
>carrying out all US government orders;
>
>3) Settle "all succession issues with the other republics". This would
>include the 50 billion (US) that the Croatian government and the
Izetbegovic
>government in Bosnia are demanding as war reparations. The money would go
>right to these countries' creditors, which are NATO governments and Western
>Banks;
>
>4) Fully cooperate "with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
>Yugoslavia, including the transfer to The Hague of all individuals in
>Yugoslavia indicted by the Tribunal." This means the Yugoslav Army would
have
>to hunt down any person the Hague tribunal said was a war criminal. Any
>leader of resistance could be put on the Hague's secret list of phony war
>criminals..
>
>All this makes perfectly clear that Mr. Kostunica's promise to work with
the
>International Monetary Fund but at the same time "safeguard Yugoslavia" is
>hollow words: they sound good but mean nothing. In agreeing to draft a
Letter
>of Intent, Kostunica's coalition has already deserted national sovereignty.
>They have sold Yugoslavia, its economy, its institutions and its people.
>
>Meanwhile, the US law, HR 1064, authorizes the US government to immediately
>transfer another $105 million to the so-called "democratic" opposition and
>the secessionist government in Montenegro. American money -- together with
>funds transferred from other sources -- will not only pay for campaign
>expenses, it will finance payoffs.
>
>Washington and NATO are openly paying key individuals in the opposition
>parties to do what they are told to do. They are on the NATO bombers'
>payroll.
>
>Further reading:
>
>'The International Monetary Fund And The Yugoslav Elections' by Michel
>Chossudovsky and Jared Israel. Summarizes devestating effects of World
>Bank/IMF intervention in several countries. Discusses link between Western
>financial takeover and social-political destruction.
>http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/1.htm
>
>'How the U.S. has Created a Corrupt Opposition in Serbia'
>By Jared Israel, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Karen Talbot, Nico Varkevisser
>and Prof. Petar Maher.
>http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/scam.htm
>
>''NY Times' Confirms Charge: U.S. Gov't Meddles in Yugoslavia' with
comments
>by Jared Israel. "Suitcases full of cash" says the 'Times.'
>http://emperors-clothes.com/news/erlang.htm
>
>'Emperor's Clothes Interviews Radio B292'
>Revealing interviews by Jared Israel with two staff members at the U.S.
>"independent" radio station in Belgrade.
>http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/emperor.htm
>
>'Criticism of Emperor's Clothes on the Yugoslav Elections, with Reply'
>Prof. Robert Hayden & Jared Israel
>http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/yugoltr.htm
>
>'Will the US Get Their Money's Worth in Yugo Elections?' by George Szamuely
>at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/szamuely/willthe.htm
>
>'U.S. Law Passed by House of Represntatives on Funding Yugo Opposition and
>Harsh Terms for Lifting Sanctions'
>http://emperors-clothes.com/news/1064.htm (If this link gives you a server
>error please try a bit later; it is being set up.)
>
>www.tenc.net
>[Emperor's Clothes]
--
AP Worldstream
September 27, 2000; Wednesday 1:59 PM Eastern Time
Croatia's president said Wednesday that the West should maintain
sanctions
against Yugoslavia until Belgrade starts cooperating with the U.N.
tribunal
in The Hague and extradites suspected war criminals.
Following are comments by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) on the Senate floor
on
9/26/00 re the elections in Serbia. They fully illustrate why action on
HR
1064, a bill purportedly aimed at supporting democracy in Serbia, would
be
counterproductive. Once again, this bill would help save the Clinton
policy (and possibly save Milosevic too), not help get Milosevic out of
power.
Senator Biden says that "We, the Congress, are saying to the people of
Serbia that they are our friends, not our enemies. It is their
Government,
it is Slobodan Milosevic that is the problem, not the Serbian people."
But
a simple reading of the balance of his comments show that that is
clearly
not the case: under HR 1064 sanctions punishing Serbia -- not Milosevic
and
his black-market gang -- will be codified and kept in place (with some
unspecified "flexibility" generously promised by Sec. Albright) until
Kostunica complies with every demand from Washington, including sending
all
indicted war criminals to The Hague. Kostunica has stated that he will
not
do so, and as a patriot is he is no less
willing to send any of his countrymen to The Hague than any real
American
would be to send any U.S. citizen, however criminal he might be, to be
tried by a United Nations court.
The fact that this bill is a weapon aimed not at Milosevic but at
Kostunica
or any other democratic successor -- and that Kostunica has been
condemned
in advance as an "ultra-nationalist" if he does not agree to become
exactly
the quisling Milosevic accuses him of being -- is betrayed by the
following
comments near the end:
" To be blunt: respect for Dayton and cooperation with The Hague
Tribunal
must be litmus tests for any democratic government in Serbia. I
fervently
hope that Mr. Kostunica emerges victorious in the Yugoslav elections. If
he
does, the United States should immediately extend to him a sincere hand
of
friendship, with the assistance outlined in the pending legislation. .
. .
If, on the other hand, Mr. Kostunica comes to power and thinks that his
undeniable and praiseworthy democratic credentials will enable him to
pursue an aggressive Serbian nationalist policy with a kinder face, then
we
must disabuse him of this notion. Should our West European allies
choose
to embrace a post-Milosevic , democratically elected, but
ultra-nationalistic Serbia, then I would say to them `good luck; we'll
concentrate our policy in the former Yugoslavia on preparing democratic
and
prosperous Slovenia for the next round of NATO enlargement, on
continuing
to help reconstruct Bosnia and Kosovo, and on supporting the democratic
governments in Macedonia, Croatia, and Montenegro."
SUPPORTING DEMOCRACY IN SERBIA (Senate - September 26, 2000)
[Page: S9251] GPO's PDF
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on another matter which relates to another
form
of human rights, I wish to speak to the legislation we are going to
bring
up tomorrow, the Serbian Democratization Act of 2000. I am an original
cosponsor of this legislation. I am told that tomorrow we are going to
get
a chance to deal with this issue.
As everyone knows, Slobodan Milosevic is on the ropes. Despite
Milosevic's
massive systematic effort to steal Sunday's Yugoslav Presidential
election,
his state election commission had to admit that the opposition candidate
Vojislav Kostunica won at least the plurality of the votes already
counted;
48.22 percent to be exact.
According to opposition poll watchers, Kostunica in all probability
actually won about 55 percent of the vote, which would have obviated the
need for a two-candidate second-round runoff with Milosevic , which now
seems likely.
It is still unclear whether the democratic opposition will go along with
this semi-rigged, desperation plan of Milosevic's to hang on by rigging
the
runoff. Even if Milosevic loses the runoff and is forced to recognize
the
results of the election, he may still attempt to hold on to the levers
of
power through his control of the federal parliament and of the Socialist
Party with its network of political cronies
and corrupt businessmen.
He may use the classic tactic of provoking a foreign crisis by trying to
unseat the democratically elected, pro-Western government in Montenegro,
a
move I warned against on this floor several months ago.
We will have to wait and see for a few days before knowing exactly how
the
situation in Yugoslavia is going to develop, but there is no doubt
whatsoever as to who the primary villain in this drama is. It was, it
is,
and it continues to be Slobodan Milosevic , one of the most despicable
men
I have personally met, and, as everyone in this Chamber knows, a man who
has been indicted by The Hague Tribunal for war crimes and is the chief
obstacle to peace and stability in the Balkans.
Therefore, it should be--and has been--a primary goal of U.S. foreign
policy to isolate Milosevic and his cronies, and to assist the Serbian
democratic opposition in toppling him.
Earlier this year, with this goal in mind, the Serbian Democratization
Act
of 2000 was drafted in a bipartisan effort. It is particularly timely
that
the Senate consider this legislation tomorrow, precisely at the moment
when the Serbian people have courageously voted against Milosevic's
tyranny
that has so thoroughly ruined their country during the last decade.
I would like to review the main provisions of the legislation we will be
voting on tomorrow and then propose alternative strategies for our
relations with Serbia, depending upon the outcome of the elections.
The act supports the democratic opposition by authorizing $50 million
for
fiscal year 2001 to promote democracy and civil society in Serbia and
$55
million to assist the Government of Montenegro in its ongoing political
and economic reform efforts. It also authorizes increasing Voice of
America and Radio Free Europe broadcasting to Yugoslavia in both the
Serbo-Croatian and Albanian languages.
Second, the act prescribes assistance to the victims of Serbian
oppression
by authorizing the President of the United States to use authorities in
the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to
individuals living in Kosovo for relief, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction, and to refugees and persons displaced by the conflict.
Third, the act we will vote on tomorrow codifies the so-called `outer
wall'
of sanctions by multilateral organizations, including the international
financial institutions.
I talked about this with Senator Voinovich of Ohio, and we agreed that
we
have to give the President more flexibility in this area.
Fourth, it authorizes other measures against Yugoslavia, including
blocking
Yugoslavia's assets in the United States; prohibits the issuance of
visas
and admission into the United States of any alien who holds a position
in
the senior leadership of the Government of Yugoslavia of Slobodan
Milosevic
or the
Government of Serbia and to members of their families; and prohibits
strategic exports to Yugoslavia, on private loans and investments and on
military-to-military cooperation.
The act also grants exceptions on export restrictions for humanitarian
assistance to Kosovo and on visa prohibitions to senior officials of the
Government of Montenegro, unless that Government changes its current
policy
of respect forinternational norms.
The act contains a national interest waiver for the President. The
President may also waive the act's provision if he certifies that
`significant progress has been made in Yugoslavia in establishing a
government based upon democratic principles and the rule of law, and
that
respects internationally recognized human rights.'
Clearly, if the democratic opposition triumphs in the current elections,
the chances will increase dramatically that the President will exercise
this waiver option.
We, the Congress, are saying to the people of Serbia that they are our
friends, not our enemies. It is their Government, it is Slobodan
Milosevic
that is the problem, not the Serbian people.
Today in the Committee on Foreign Relations, we discussed at length with
Madeleine Albright what we should be doing about Serbia. I have
discussed
it as well with Senator Voinovich.
I see the Senator from Iowa is on the floor. He may be here for other
reasons, but I know his keen interest in Serbia, the Serbian people, and
the need for us to render assistance if they, in fact, move in the
direction of democracy.
The act calls for Serbia to cooperate with the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
It also contains two important Sense of the Congress provisions. The
first
is that the President should condemn the harassment, threats, and
intimidation against any ethnic group in Yugoslavia, but in particular
against such persecution of the ethnic Hungarian minority in the Serbian
province of Vojvodina.
The second voices support for a fair and equitable disposition of the
ownership and use of the former Yugoslavia's diplomatic and consular
properties in the United States.
Finally, in a move to facilitate the transition to democracy in the
Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, Congress authorizes the President to furnish
assistance to Yugoslavia if he determines and certifies to the
appropriate
congressional committees that a post-Milosevic Government of Yugoslavia
is
`committed to democratic principles and the rule of law, and that
respects
internationally recognized human rights.'
Mr. President, the Serbia Democratization Act offers the President ample
flexibility in dealing with Serbia. If Milosevic should succeed in
frustrating the will of the Serbian people by stealing this election,
the
act will give the President of the United States a complete kit of
peaceful
tools to continue to try to undermine his oppressive regime.
If, on the other hand, the democratic opposition led by Mr. Kostunica
manages to make its electoral victory stick, then the final provision of
the act becomes the operative one in which we open up the spigot of
increased assistance to a democratic Serbia. Obviously, this would be
the
preferred option.
Unfortunately, however, foreign policy is rarely so black and white. The
apparent winner of the election, Mr. Kostunica, is vastly preferable to
Milosevic, but this may be a case of damning by faint praise. As many of
my
colleagues have heard me say on other occasions, I met Milosevic in
Belgrade during the Bosnian war and called him a war criminal to his
face.
Not only is he a war criminal, but he is thoroughly corrupt and
anti-democratic.
Mr. Kostunica, by all accounts, is honest and democratic, a dissident in
Communist times and a man with a reputation for probity. He seems,
however,
to represent a democratic, honest variant of a rather extreme Serbian
nationalism.
His language describing NATO's Operation Allied Force has been strident.
Like Milosevic --and most other Serbian politicians--he calls for the
return of Kosovo to Belgrade's rule. But I am prepared to have an open
mind
on what he said. I can understand why, in running for President, being
labeled by Mr. Milosevic as the `dupe of the West' and `a puppet of the
United States,' he would feel the need to openly condemn the United
States.
I also do not have a problem with the fact that he may have used tough
language with regard to Kosovo. There is a difference between words and
his
actions. So I will have great problems with him if, in fact, he tries to
again suppress the Kosovars, who, if he comes to power will probably
increase their agitation for independence.
Moreover, Kostunica has repeatedly said that if he is elected he would
refuse to hand over The Hague those Serbs indicted by the International
War
Crimes Tribunal.
To a large extent Kostunica's criticism of Milosevic's policies toward
non-Serbs in the old Yugoslavia--Slovenes, Croats, Bosniaks, and
Kosovars--is that those policies resulted in four failed wars. There is
no
indication, for example, that Kostunica would cut off Belgrade's support
for the radical Bosnian Serbs who on a daily basis are trying to
undermine
the Dayton Agreement.
Of course, as I have indicated earlier, Kostunica's policies must be
seen
in the context of an electoral campaign. Nonetheless, they do reflect
what
the traffic will bear. In other words, they reflect his view of
contemporary Serbian society.
During the Bosnian war and after it, I often stated publicly that in my
opinion Croatian President Franjo Tudjman was cut from the same cloth as
Milosevic --an aggressive, anti-democratic leader. The only reason I
advocated helping to rebuild his army was because, unlike Serbia,
Croatia
did not represent a major threat to the region. In fact, in the summer
of
1995 the reorganized Croatian Army provided the
Bosnian Army and the Bosnian Croat militia the support necessary to rout
the Bosnian Serbs and bring all parties to the negotiating table.
Since Tudjman's death, Croatia has proven that beneath the surface of
Tudjman's authoritarianism a genuine, Western-style democratic body
politic
survived. The newly elected government of President Stipe Mesic and
Prime
Minister Ivica Racan has utilized this mandate not only to enact
domestic
democratic reforms, but also to cut off support for the radical
Herzegovina
Croats who have done everything in their power to undo Dayton. The
government has also taken the much less popular step of handing over to
The
Hague Tribunal several high-ranking Croats who were indicted for alleged
war crimes.
The United States has a great deal invested in a democratic, multiethnic
Bosnia, and if Serbia and the rest of the world is lucky enough to be
rid
of Slobodan Milosevic , we should not give him an ex post facto victory
by
applying a looser standard of behavior on his successor than we have to
Tudjman's successors in Croatia. To be blunt: respect for Dayton and
cooperation with The Hague Tribunal must
be litmus tests for any democratic government in Serbia.
I fervently hope that Mr. Kostunica emerges victorious in the Yugoslav
elections. If he does, the United States should immediately extend to
him a
sincere hand of friendship, with the assistance outlined in the pending
legislation.
We should make clear to him that if he chooses to cooperate with us, a
`win-win' situation would result, with tangible benefits for the
long-suffering and isolated Serbian people who, we should never forget,
were this country's allies in two world wars during the twentieth
century.
If, on the other hand, Mr. Kostunica comes to power and thinks that his
undeniable and praiseworthy democratic credentials will enable him to
pursue an aggressive Serbian nationalist policy with a kinder face, then
we
must disabuse him of this notion.
Should our West European allies choose to embrace a post-Milosevic ,
democratically elected, but ultra-nationalistic Serbia, then I would say
to
them `good luck; we'll concentrate our policy in the former Yugoslavia
on
preparing democratic and prosperous Slovenia for the next round of NATO
enlargement, on continuing to help reconstruct Bosnia and Kosovo, and on
supporting the democratic
governments in Macedonia, Croatia, and Montenegro.'
Mr. President, the long-frozen, icy situation in Serbia appears finally
to
be breaking up. I genuinely hope that Serbia is on the verge of
democracy.
I urge my colleagues to support the Serbia Democratization Act of 2000
in
order to enable ourgovernment peacefully to deal with any eventuality in
that country.
---
Washington Votes to Finance Yugoslav Runoff Election
by Professor Michel Chossudovsky (9-27-2000)
Washington is preparing for the run-off election in Yugoslavia. More
money is scheduled to be wired to opposition groups to their bank
accounts
in Budapest with fresh and "clean" dollar bills to be transported in
suitcases across the border. And this time it's big bucks: 500 million
US
dollars...
Perfect timing. On the day after the Presidential election, the US
House
of Representatives approved a bill:
"authorizing financial aid for opposition groups in Serbia. The
bill
authorizes $500
million to help finance democratic forces in Serbia and
Montenegro,
including $ 50 million
to fund the activities of pro-democracy and dissident groups.".
('Los Angeles Times,' September 26, 2000).
In an ironic twist, while the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS)
receives big bucks from the
bombers, it has committed itself in its electoral platform to adopting
"new laws" on the financing of
political parties. These laws are to be:
"in accordance with the generally accepted standards of democratic
societies.
Republican parliaments will be advised to adjust their legislation
according
to these principles."
(Election manifesto of "Democratic Opposition of Serbia", 5
September
2000).
With opposition political parties on the enemy's payroll, the Western
media has casually accused the
Yugoslav authorities of electoral fraud. In any other country,
receiving
cash from a foreign government would lead to the immediate indictment of
the political parties concerned. Their bank
accounts would be frozen. This has not happened yet in Yugoslavia.
Yet the media accuses the Yugoslav government of mistreating the
"democratic" opposition. In the
US, taking money from an unfriendly foreign power, especially a hostile
one, to finance campaign
expenses would quite understandably be considered "un-American". But in
Belgrade opposition forces say that they are patriotic. For them it is
not
"un-Yugoslav" to accept 500 million dollars from the bombers of their
country...
Michel Chossudovsky
---
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, #206
New York, NY 10011
212-633-6646
212-633-2889 fax
iacenter@...
www.iacenter.org
International Action Center statement--
September 28, 2000; For immediate release:
Blatant U.S. intervention in Yugoslav elections protested; Group calls
for
investigation
In response to the emergency situation in Yugoslavia caused by the open
and extensive intervention in that nation’s election process by the U.S.
and
West European governments, the International Action Center is calling
for
the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate U.S.
manipulation of elections and other interference in the internal affairs
of
sovereign countries.
This intervention has taken the form of military pressure, with NATO
naval
maneuvers in the Adriatic and Mediterranean Seas and threats of resumed
bombings, economic pressure that a 9-year-long embargo would be relieved
only if the vote went against President Slobodan Milosevic, and direct
financing of organizations and parties that oppose the Milosevic-lead
coalition.
The IAC, founded in 1992 by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark
and
other anti-war activists, has played a leading role in the anti-war
struggle in
the United States and in the fight to end sanctions against Iraq,
Yugoslavia,
Cuba and other countries.
In calling for the creation of the Commission of Inquiry Ramsey Clark
drew
attention to past U.S. manipulations of elections, giving the examples
of
Nicaragua, where the popular Sandinista government was voted out in 1990
and where Washington injected $54 million into that poor country. He
also
spoke of countries where the U.S. overrode the electoral process and
organized violent coups to put in their own person, as with Mobutu in
Zaire
(now Congo), or in Chile, Haiti and Iran.
“In all cases where the U.S. put ‘its man’ in office,” said Clark, “the
people
wound up worse off than before. Think of what Mobutu did to the Congo,
what Pinochet did to Chile, and that under the U.S.-backed governments
after
the Sandinistas in Nicaragua that country was reduced to one of the
poorest
on the earth. After the election in each country, U.S. money stopped
coming
in.”
The U.S. never kept its promises of aid to develop Nicaragua. Currently
Taiwanese bankers and industrialists are the major exploiters of
low-paid
Nicaraguan labor in the “free-trade zones,” where conditions of work in
the
sweatshops are about the worst in the world. The money Washington put
into the country was not a promise of things to come but an investment
expected to earn a quick return.
“We need,” said Clark, “to expose the way the U.S. government takes
advantage of elections to put in a regime of their choice, and how this
has
always been harmful to the people of that country.”
The U.S. government has boasted that it injected $77 million into
Yugoslavia
to build up the opposition to President Slobodan Milosevic and his
governing coalition. Another $105 million has been authorized on
September
26th by the U.S. House of Representatives for similar use.
“To put this amount in perspective,” said IAC co-director Sara
Flounders,
“The U.S. has voted more money to subvert an election in little
Yugoslavia
than the total funds both major U.S. Presidential candidates have
raised. This
year Al Gore has reported $47 million in contributions and George W.
Bush
$87 million. And that’s for a rich country with almost 300 million
people.
“This money goes a long way in Yugoslavia—a much poorer country with
only 11 million people. It’s as if some foreign country recently a U.S.
enemy
put tens of billions of dollars behind a candidate in the U.S. And this
is only
hard money. What about the millions of dollars in soft money from the
Soros
Foundation and the NGOs?”
“You can only imagine,” continued Flounders, “the hysteria it would
arouse
if that happened here. Those taking the money would be labeled as
traitors,
refused the right to run and probably charged with crimes.”
Flounders said the Commission of Inquiry was calling on others who have
the detailed information to show just what methods were used to
influence
the Yugoslav elections as well as other elections in the past. Others
may
want to illustrate how the U.S. government tried to buy elections in
their
countries. She also suggested that organizations in the other NATO
countries might want to investigate what the governments there have done
to manipulate the Yugoslav elections.
“The Yugoslav people heroically faced NATO bombing for 78 days last
year,” she said. “Now they are facing an equally heavy barrage of
high-tech
propaganda beamed in from the most powerful lie machine the human race
ever saw. We plan to reveal the insides of that machine and expose its
dangers to the world.”
For more information, call 212-633-6646 or look at the IAC web site at
www.iacenter.org.
---
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/NewsST092800.htm
CHRONICLES ONLINE, Thursday, September 28, 2000
Are Washingtonians Helping Milosevic Survive?
by Srdja Trifkovic
Facts never speak for themselves, but people do.Those who still
doubt that there are powerful forces in Washington that are scared stiff
of Milosevics defeat are well advised to read some comments made by
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) on the Senate floor on Tuesday, September 26,
regarding the elections in Serbia.
Senator Biden was speaking in support of HR 1064.This bill is
ostensibly aimed at supporting democracy in Serbia, but in terms of its
assumptions and practical consequences it could be called Saving
Slobos Skin. Biden opened by saying that Slobodan Milosevic is the
problem, not the Serbian people, but then he explained that under HR
1064 the array of sanctions punishing Serbia -- not Milosevic and his
cronies --will be re-codified and kept in place until Vojislav
Kostunica (or any other successor to Milosevic) complies with every
demand from Washington, including the delivery of all indicted war
criminals to The Hague tribunal. Dr. Kostunica has repeatedly stated
that this he will not do.Even if this tribunal wasnt a purely
political construct devoid of legal basis -- which it is -- Kostunica
would be right to loath sending any of his countrymen to The Hague, just
as any real American should shudder at the thought of sending any U.S.
citizen, however culpable, to be tried by a United Nations court.
Throwing the challenge of HR 1064 at Kostunica and doing so at the
very moment when he is locked in a life-and-death struggle with
Milosevic is either utterly insane, or deeply devious.Bad, or mad,
or both, Biden is very much in charge of Senate foreign relations, and
the context of his remarks makes it evident that this bill enjoys full
Administration support. It is not promoting democracy in Serbia but
preventing it.To Milosevics infinite delight Biden has condemned
Kostunica in advance as an ultra-nationalist if he does not agree to
become exactly the kind of NATO-friendly quisling the Belgrade regime
accuses him of being.The spirit and true intent of the bill is fully
betrayed by the following comments at the end of Bidens address:
To be blunt: respect for Dayton and cooperation with The Hague
Tribunal must be litmus tests for any democratic government in Serbia.I
fervently hope that Mr. Kostunica emerges victorious in the Yugoslav
elections.If he does, the United States should immediately extend to him
a
sincere hand of friendship, with the assistance outlined in the pending
legislation.If, on the other hand, Mr. Kostunica comes to power and
thinks
that his undeniable and praiseworthy democratic credentials will enable
him to
pursue an aggressive Serbian nationalist policy with a kinder face, then
we
must disabuse him of this notion.
In summary, to lay prostrate merits a friendly hand.The refusal to
submit is aggressive nationalism. Plus ca change: in June 1992 I
attended a meeting in Washington with then-assistant to the National
Security Advisor for European affairs, Jenone Walker.Referring to the
sanctions against Serbia -- in the context of Milosevics offer to
resign if they were lifted -- she stated that (quite apart from
Milosevic) they would stay in force until all current and potential
sources of conflict in the former Yugoslavia were removed, agreements
signed and sealed, and respected by the Serbs to the satisfaction of the
U.S. government.Eight years later HR 1064 proves that, on some issues
at least, there IS remarkable continuity and consistency in Washington.
But back to Biden. His concluding remarks had a threatening air: Should
our West European allies choose to embrace a post-Milosevic,
democratically elected, but ultra-nationalistic Serbia, then I would say
to them good luck; well concentrate our policy in the former Yugoslavia
on preparing democratic and prosperous Slovenia for the next round of
NATO enlargement, on continuing to help reconstruct Bosnia and Kosovo,
and on supporting the democratic governments in Macedonia, Croatia, and
Montenegro.
This is the kind of challenge Americas European partners may well
accept this time.Some are keen to lift all sanctions against Serbia
regardless of who prevails in Belgrade.Theyve had enough of this kind
of neoimperial arrogance French planes are landing in Baghdad these
days - and they could easily turn the policy towards Belgrade after
Milosevic into a litmus test of their ability to say no to
Washington.The writing has been on the wall ever since the EU foreign
ministers had announced that all sanctions against Serbia would be
unconditionally lifted if Milosevic were to fall, and the country itself
welcomed with open arms into Europe, and helped financially.
This prospect is anathema to Joseph Biden and his like-minded friends
and colleagues in Washington.They dont want a democratic Serbia
reintegrated into the community of European nations, but a
Gauleiter-ruled colony in which any attempt to assert ones dignity, let
alone pride in ones identity, would be equated with aggressive
ultra-nationalism.That much has become clear in their attempt to
sabotage Milosevics opponents while he is struggling for survival.As
a UPI report noted last Monday, from Washingtons point of view a
Kostunica victory would derail U.S. hopes of negotiating a broad
settlement to Yugoslav issues on Washingtons terms.Those terms
entail acceptance of the loss of sovereignty (The Hague) and loss of
territory (Kosovo), plus whatever else is ordered from Washington.Last
Monday night Kostunica replied when he said that Yugoslavia must not
become anybodys protectorate.In the eyes of Biden & Co. this merely
confirms that he is an ultra-nationalist, which proves that we need HR
1064 enacted before Milosevic falls.
As Serbias true democrats struggle against that misshapen despot whose
strongest trump card is to accuse them of being pro-NATO traitors, a
concerted attempt is under way in Washington to impose humiliating
conditions on them that no democratically elected leaders of any nation
could ever accept.The participants in that endeavor know not what is
shame.The rest of us do, living as we do in the eighth year of the
Clinton-Gore presidency.
P.S.: From our We Told You So department:
It hardly needs stating that Americas support to the democratic
opposition in Belgrade has nothing to do with the alleged democratic
credentials of the specific parties, and everything to do with the
degree of its leaders professed readiness to act in accordance with the
diktat from Washington.[They need to be] submissive to the West,
a-national to the point of self-hatred, brazenly materialistic,
antitraditionalist and secular.With such an opposition, it is
unsurprising that the popular discontent with Milosevic could not have
been channeled into a victory for his enemies.Even thoroughly moderate
patriots with impeccable democratic credentials such as Dr. Kostunica
were simply not kosher enough for the U.S. State Department.
(Slobodan Milosevic, Our S.O.B. Chronicles, June 1997)
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
by Michel Chossudovsky and Jared Israel
* Joseph Biden (US congressman): "We, the Congress, are saying to the
people of Serbia that they are our friends, not our enemies. It is their
Government, it is Slobodan Milosevic that is the problem, not the
Serbian people... Should our West European allies choose to embrace a
post-Milosevic, democratically elected, but ultra-nationalistic Serbia,
then I would say to them `good luck'..."
* Washington Votes to Finance Yugoslav Runoff Election
by Michel Chossudovsky
* Blatant U.S. intervention in Yugoslav elections protested; Group calls
for investigation (IAC)
* Are Washingtonians Helping Milosevic Survive?
by Srdja Trifkovic
---
URL for this article is http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/11.htm
Yugoslav 'Opposition' Negotiates Sale of Yugoslavia!
by Michel Chossudovsky and Jared Israel
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
>People may not be aware that two prominent members of the Democratic
>Opposition of Serbia (DOS) just made a very important trip to Bulgaria.
They
>met with representatives of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the
World
>Bank and the NATO governments at a so-called "donor conference." The
purpose
>was to set the stage for NATO governments to takeover Yugoslavia.
>
>The trip was announced the day after the Yugoslav elections. Mladjan
Dinkic,
>the most likely Finance Minister in an opposition government, "said that
>representatives of his G-17 Plus will travel to Bulgaria this week for a
>donor conference on Yugoslavia with representatives of the International
>Monetary Fund." (United Press International, 27 September 2000)
>
>Dinkic was accompanied by Dr. Dragoslav Avramovic, an economist in Zoran
>Djindjic's 'Alliance for Change'. These so-called "democratic opposition"
>groups have been paid huge sums by US government agencies.
>
>Dinkic told United Press International that "Dragoslav Avramovic had
drafted
>a letter of intent with a request to the IMF and World Bank. Dinkic said he
>expected that this would be followed by negotiations with creditor
countries,
>the so-called Paris Club..." These are the NATO countries.
>
>A "Letter of Intent" includes a "Memorandum on Economic and Financial
>Policies". This establishes the conditions under which all of Yugoslavia
>would be put under the control of Western donors and creditors. Only a
>Yugoslav Finance Minister, selected by Parliament, has a legal right to
draft
>a "Letter of Intent." But Dinkic and Avramovic represent only the so-called
>"democratic" opposition. In what country is it legal for opposition
elements
>to "negotiate" with enemy countries who finance their movement? This is an
>extreme act of interference by the NATO countries.
>
>What measures do the NATO countries want to impose?
>
>* End of all government price controls;
>
>* Introduction of "free markets" without any protection for farmers or
>businesses from dumping of foreign goods;
>
>* End to all social protection. No government help with medical care,
>transportation , food or heating;
>
>* A freeze on credit to businesses
>
>* Massive layoffs of workers and drastic pay cuts for workers and farmers;
>
>* Forced liquidation of important businesses and industries, public and
>private
>
>* Any future reconstruction work to correct bombing damage be entrusted to
>companies from the NATO countries. They would be paid with money Yugoslavia
>would be forced to borrow from international lenders.
>
>The result of these policies would be: food prices would go fly high;
>enterprises would be driven into bankruptcy and liquidation; foreign
capital
>would seize the entire economy.
>
>The "Letter of Intent" would require the acceptance of Washington's
political
>demands. These were just laid out in the so-called "Serbian Democratization
>Act," # HR1064. It was passed by the US House of Representatives on
September
>25, the day Dinkic announced his trip to Bulgaria. Good timing. This law
>states that for Yugoslavia to be free of sanctions, and for it to be
>"allowed" into the IMF it would have to:
>
>1) Negotiate independence (meaning secession) for Kosovo and probably
>Vojvodina
>
>2) Completely "democratize" the country. "Democratize" is a code word for
>carrying out all US government orders;
>
>3) Settle "all succession issues with the other republics". This would
>include the 50 billion (US) that the Croatian government and the
Izetbegovic
>government in Bosnia are demanding as war reparations. The money would go
>right to these countries' creditors, which are NATO governments and Western
>Banks;
>
>4) Fully cooperate "with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
>Yugoslavia, including the transfer to The Hague of all individuals in
>Yugoslavia indicted by the Tribunal." This means the Yugoslav Army would
have
>to hunt down any person the Hague tribunal said was a war criminal. Any
>leader of resistance could be put on the Hague's secret list of phony war
>criminals..
>
>All this makes perfectly clear that Mr. Kostunica's promise to work with
the
>International Monetary Fund but at the same time "safeguard Yugoslavia" is
>hollow words: they sound good but mean nothing. In agreeing to draft a
Letter
>of Intent, Kostunica's coalition has already deserted national sovereignty.
>They have sold Yugoslavia, its economy, its institutions and its people.
>
>Meanwhile, the US law, HR 1064, authorizes the US government to immediately
>transfer another $105 million to the so-called "democratic" opposition and
>the secessionist government in Montenegro. American money -- together with
>funds transferred from other sources -- will not only pay for campaign
>expenses, it will finance payoffs.
>
>Washington and NATO are openly paying key individuals in the opposition
>parties to do what they are told to do. They are on the NATO bombers'
>payroll.
>
>Further reading:
>
>'The International Monetary Fund And The Yugoslav Elections' by Michel
>Chossudovsky and Jared Israel. Summarizes devestating effects of World
>Bank/IMF intervention in several countries. Discusses link between Western
>financial takeover and social-political destruction.
>http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/1.htm
>
>'How the U.S. has Created a Corrupt Opposition in Serbia'
>By Jared Israel, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Karen Talbot, Nico Varkevisser
>and Prof. Petar Maher.
>http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/scam.htm
>
>''NY Times' Confirms Charge: U.S. Gov't Meddles in Yugoslavia' with
comments
>by Jared Israel. "Suitcases full of cash" says the 'Times.'
>http://emperors-clothes.com/news/erlang.htm
>
>'Emperor's Clothes Interviews Radio B292'
>Revealing interviews by Jared Israel with two staff members at the U.S.
>"independent" radio station in Belgrade.
>http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/emperor.htm
>
>'Criticism of Emperor's Clothes on the Yugoslav Elections, with Reply'
>Prof. Robert Hayden & Jared Israel
>http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/yugoltr.htm
>
>'Will the US Get Their Money's Worth in Yugo Elections?' by George Szamuely
>at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/szamuely/willthe.htm
>
>'U.S. Law Passed by House of Represntatives on Funding Yugo Opposition and
>Harsh Terms for Lifting Sanctions'
>http://emperors-clothes.com/news/1064.htm (If this link gives you a server
>error please try a bit later; it is being set up.)
>
>www.tenc.net
>[Emperor's Clothes]
--
AP Worldstream
September 27, 2000; Wednesday 1:59 PM Eastern Time
Croatia's president said Wednesday that the West should maintain
sanctions
against Yugoslavia until Belgrade starts cooperating with the U.N.
tribunal
in The Hague and extradites suspected war criminals.
Following are comments by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) on the Senate floor
on
9/26/00 re the elections in Serbia. They fully illustrate why action on
HR
1064, a bill purportedly aimed at supporting democracy in Serbia, would
be
counterproductive. Once again, this bill would help save the Clinton
policy (and possibly save Milosevic too), not help get Milosevic out of
power.
Senator Biden says that "We, the Congress, are saying to the people of
Serbia that they are our friends, not our enemies. It is their
Government,
it is Slobodan Milosevic that is the problem, not the Serbian people."
But
a simple reading of the balance of his comments show that that is
clearly
not the case: under HR 1064 sanctions punishing Serbia -- not Milosevic
and
his black-market gang -- will be codified and kept in place (with some
unspecified "flexibility" generously promised by Sec. Albright) until
Kostunica complies with every demand from Washington, including sending
all
indicted war criminals to The Hague. Kostunica has stated that he will
not
do so, and as a patriot is he is no less
willing to send any of his countrymen to The Hague than any real
American
would be to send any U.S. citizen, however criminal he might be, to be
tried by a United Nations court.
The fact that this bill is a weapon aimed not at Milosevic but at
Kostunica
or any other democratic successor -- and that Kostunica has been
condemned
in advance as an "ultra-nationalist" if he does not agree to become
exactly
the quisling Milosevic accuses him of being -- is betrayed by the
following
comments near the end:
" To be blunt: respect for Dayton and cooperation with The Hague
Tribunal
must be litmus tests for any democratic government in Serbia. I
fervently
hope that Mr. Kostunica emerges victorious in the Yugoslav elections. If
he
does, the United States should immediately extend to him a sincere hand
of
friendship, with the assistance outlined in the pending legislation. .
. .
If, on the other hand, Mr. Kostunica comes to power and thinks that his
undeniable and praiseworthy democratic credentials will enable him to
pursue an aggressive Serbian nationalist policy with a kinder face, then
we
must disabuse him of this notion. Should our West European allies
choose
to embrace a post-Milosevic , democratically elected, but
ultra-nationalistic Serbia, then I would say to them `good luck; we'll
concentrate our policy in the former Yugoslavia on preparing democratic
and
prosperous Slovenia for the next round of NATO enlargement, on
continuing
to help reconstruct Bosnia and Kosovo, and on supporting the democratic
governments in Macedonia, Croatia, and Montenegro."
SUPPORTING DEMOCRACY IN SERBIA (Senate - September 26, 2000)
[Page: S9251] GPO's PDF
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, on another matter which relates to another
form
of human rights, I wish to speak to the legislation we are going to
bring
up tomorrow, the Serbian Democratization Act of 2000. I am an original
cosponsor of this legislation. I am told that tomorrow we are going to
get
a chance to deal with this issue.
As everyone knows, Slobodan Milosevic is on the ropes. Despite
Milosevic's
massive systematic effort to steal Sunday's Yugoslav Presidential
election,
his state election commission had to admit that the opposition candidate
Vojislav Kostunica won at least the plurality of the votes already
counted;
48.22 percent to be exact.
According to opposition poll watchers, Kostunica in all probability
actually won about 55 percent of the vote, which would have obviated the
need for a two-candidate second-round runoff with Milosevic , which now
seems likely.
It is still unclear whether the democratic opposition will go along with
this semi-rigged, desperation plan of Milosevic's to hang on by rigging
the
runoff. Even if Milosevic loses the runoff and is forced to recognize
the
results of the election, he may still attempt to hold on to the levers
of
power through his control of the federal parliament and of the Socialist
Party with its network of political cronies
and corrupt businessmen.
He may use the classic tactic of provoking a foreign crisis by trying to
unseat the democratically elected, pro-Western government in Montenegro,
a
move I warned against on this floor several months ago.
We will have to wait and see for a few days before knowing exactly how
the
situation in Yugoslavia is going to develop, but there is no doubt
whatsoever as to who the primary villain in this drama is. It was, it
is,
and it continues to be Slobodan Milosevic , one of the most despicable
men
I have personally met, and, as everyone in this Chamber knows, a man who
has been indicted by The Hague Tribunal for war crimes and is the chief
obstacle to peace and stability in the Balkans.
Therefore, it should be--and has been--a primary goal of U.S. foreign
policy to isolate Milosevic and his cronies, and to assist the Serbian
democratic opposition in toppling him.
Earlier this year, with this goal in mind, the Serbian Democratization
Act
of 2000 was drafted in a bipartisan effort. It is particularly timely
that
the Senate consider this legislation tomorrow, precisely at the moment
when the Serbian people have courageously voted against Milosevic's
tyranny
that has so thoroughly ruined their country during the last decade.
I would like to review the main provisions of the legislation we will be
voting on tomorrow and then propose alternative strategies for our
relations with Serbia, depending upon the outcome of the elections.
The act supports the democratic opposition by authorizing $50 million
for
fiscal year 2001 to promote democracy and civil society in Serbia and
$55
million to assist the Government of Montenegro in its ongoing political
and economic reform efforts. It also authorizes increasing Voice of
America and Radio Free Europe broadcasting to Yugoslavia in both the
Serbo-Croatian and Albanian languages.
Second, the act prescribes assistance to the victims of Serbian
oppression
by authorizing the President of the United States to use authorities in
the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide humanitarian assistance to
individuals living in Kosovo for relief, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction, and to refugees and persons displaced by the conflict.
Third, the act we will vote on tomorrow codifies the so-called `outer
wall'
of sanctions by multilateral organizations, including the international
financial institutions.
I talked about this with Senator Voinovich of Ohio, and we agreed that
we
have to give the President more flexibility in this area.
Fourth, it authorizes other measures against Yugoslavia, including
blocking
Yugoslavia's assets in the United States; prohibits the issuance of
visas
and admission into the United States of any alien who holds a position
in
the senior leadership of the Government of Yugoslavia of Slobodan
Milosevic
or the
Government of Serbia and to members of their families; and prohibits
strategic exports to Yugoslavia, on private loans and investments and on
military-to-military cooperation.
The act also grants exceptions on export restrictions for humanitarian
assistance to Kosovo and on visa prohibitions to senior officials of the
Government of Montenegro, unless that Government changes its current
policy
of respect forinternational norms.
The act contains a national interest waiver for the President. The
President may also waive the act's provision if he certifies that
`significant progress has been made in Yugoslavia in establishing a
government based upon democratic principles and the rule of law, and
that
respects internationally recognized human rights.'
Clearly, if the democratic opposition triumphs in the current elections,
the chances will increase dramatically that the President will exercise
this waiver option.
We, the Congress, are saying to the people of Serbia that they are our
friends, not our enemies. It is their Government, it is Slobodan
Milosevic
that is the problem, not the Serbian people.
Today in the Committee on Foreign Relations, we discussed at length with
Madeleine Albright what we should be doing about Serbia. I have
discussed
it as well with Senator Voinovich.
I see the Senator from Iowa is on the floor. He may be here for other
reasons, but I know his keen interest in Serbia, the Serbian people, and
the need for us to render assistance if they, in fact, move in the
direction of democracy.
The act calls for Serbia to cooperate with the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
It also contains two important Sense of the Congress provisions. The
first
is that the President should condemn the harassment, threats, and
intimidation against any ethnic group in Yugoslavia, but in particular
against such persecution of the ethnic Hungarian minority in the Serbian
province of Vojvodina.
The second voices support for a fair and equitable disposition of the
ownership and use of the former Yugoslavia's diplomatic and consular
properties in the United States.
Finally, in a move to facilitate the transition to democracy in the
Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, Congress authorizes the President to furnish
assistance to Yugoslavia if he determines and certifies to the
appropriate
congressional committees that a post-Milosevic Government of Yugoslavia
is
`committed to democratic principles and the rule of law, and that
respects
internationally recognized human rights.'
Mr. President, the Serbia Democratization Act offers the President ample
flexibility in dealing with Serbia. If Milosevic should succeed in
frustrating the will of the Serbian people by stealing this election,
the
act will give the President of the United States a complete kit of
peaceful
tools to continue to try to undermine his oppressive regime.
If, on the other hand, the democratic opposition led by Mr. Kostunica
manages to make its electoral victory stick, then the final provision of
the act becomes the operative one in which we open up the spigot of
increased assistance to a democratic Serbia. Obviously, this would be
the
preferred option.
Unfortunately, however, foreign policy is rarely so black and white. The
apparent winner of the election, Mr. Kostunica, is vastly preferable to
Milosevic, but this may be a case of damning by faint praise. As many of
my
colleagues have heard me say on other occasions, I met Milosevic in
Belgrade during the Bosnian war and called him a war criminal to his
face.
Not only is he a war criminal, but he is thoroughly corrupt and
anti-democratic.
Mr. Kostunica, by all accounts, is honest and democratic, a dissident in
Communist times and a man with a reputation for probity. He seems,
however,
to represent a democratic, honest variant of a rather extreme Serbian
nationalism.
His language describing NATO's Operation Allied Force has been strident.
Like Milosevic --and most other Serbian politicians--he calls for the
return of Kosovo to Belgrade's rule. But I am prepared to have an open
mind
on what he said. I can understand why, in running for President, being
labeled by Mr. Milosevic as the `dupe of the West' and `a puppet of the
United States,' he would feel the need to openly condemn the United
States.
I also do not have a problem with the fact that he may have used tough
language with regard to Kosovo. There is a difference between words and
his
actions. So I will have great problems with him if, in fact, he tries to
again suppress the Kosovars, who, if he comes to power will probably
increase their agitation for independence.
Moreover, Kostunica has repeatedly said that if he is elected he would
refuse to hand over The Hague those Serbs indicted by the International
War
Crimes Tribunal.
To a large extent Kostunica's criticism of Milosevic's policies toward
non-Serbs in the old Yugoslavia--Slovenes, Croats, Bosniaks, and
Kosovars--is that those policies resulted in four failed wars. There is
no
indication, for example, that Kostunica would cut off Belgrade's support
for the radical Bosnian Serbs who on a daily basis are trying to
undermine
the Dayton Agreement.
Of course, as I have indicated earlier, Kostunica's policies must be
seen
in the context of an electoral campaign. Nonetheless, they do reflect
what
the traffic will bear. In other words, they reflect his view of
contemporary Serbian society.
During the Bosnian war and after it, I often stated publicly that in my
opinion Croatian President Franjo Tudjman was cut from the same cloth as
Milosevic --an aggressive, anti-democratic leader. The only reason I
advocated helping to rebuild his army was because, unlike Serbia,
Croatia
did not represent a major threat to the region. In fact, in the summer
of
1995 the reorganized Croatian Army provided the
Bosnian Army and the Bosnian Croat militia the support necessary to rout
the Bosnian Serbs and bring all parties to the negotiating table.
Since Tudjman's death, Croatia has proven that beneath the surface of
Tudjman's authoritarianism a genuine, Western-style democratic body
politic
survived. The newly elected government of President Stipe Mesic and
Prime
Minister Ivica Racan has utilized this mandate not only to enact
domestic
democratic reforms, but also to cut off support for the radical
Herzegovina
Croats who have done everything in their power to undo Dayton. The
government has also taken the much less popular step of handing over to
The
Hague Tribunal several high-ranking Croats who were indicted for alleged
war crimes.
The United States has a great deal invested in a democratic, multiethnic
Bosnia, and if Serbia and the rest of the world is lucky enough to be
rid
of Slobodan Milosevic , we should not give him an ex post facto victory
by
applying a looser standard of behavior on his successor than we have to
Tudjman's successors in Croatia. To be blunt: respect for Dayton and
cooperation with The Hague Tribunal must
be litmus tests for any democratic government in Serbia.
I fervently hope that Mr. Kostunica emerges victorious in the Yugoslav
elections. If he does, the United States should immediately extend to
him a
sincere hand of friendship, with the assistance outlined in the pending
legislation.
We should make clear to him that if he chooses to cooperate with us, a
`win-win' situation would result, with tangible benefits for the
long-suffering and isolated Serbian people who, we should never forget,
were this country's allies in two world wars during the twentieth
century.
If, on the other hand, Mr. Kostunica comes to power and thinks that his
undeniable and praiseworthy democratic credentials will enable him to
pursue an aggressive Serbian nationalist policy with a kinder face, then
we
must disabuse him of this notion.
Should our West European allies choose to embrace a post-Milosevic ,
democratically elected, but ultra-nationalistic Serbia, then I would say
to
them `good luck; we'll concentrate our policy in the former Yugoslavia
on
preparing democratic and prosperous Slovenia for the next round of NATO
enlargement, on continuing to help reconstruct Bosnia and Kosovo, and on
supporting the democratic
governments in Macedonia, Croatia, and Montenegro.'
Mr. President, the long-frozen, icy situation in Serbia appears finally
to
be breaking up. I genuinely hope that Serbia is on the verge of
democracy.
I urge my colleagues to support the Serbia Democratization Act of 2000
in
order to enable ourgovernment peacefully to deal with any eventuality in
that country.
---
Washington Votes to Finance Yugoslav Runoff Election
by Professor Michel Chossudovsky (9-27-2000)
Washington is preparing for the run-off election in Yugoslavia. More
money is scheduled to be wired to opposition groups to their bank
accounts
in Budapest with fresh and "clean" dollar bills to be transported in
suitcases across the border. And this time it's big bucks: 500 million
US
dollars...
Perfect timing. On the day after the Presidential election, the US
House
of Representatives approved a bill:
"authorizing financial aid for opposition groups in Serbia. The
bill
authorizes $500
million to help finance democratic forces in Serbia and
Montenegro,
including $ 50 million
to fund the activities of pro-democracy and dissident groups.".
('Los Angeles Times,' September 26, 2000).
In an ironic twist, while the Democratic Opposition of Serbia (DOS)
receives big bucks from the
bombers, it has committed itself in its electoral platform to adopting
"new laws" on the financing of
political parties. These laws are to be:
"in accordance with the generally accepted standards of democratic
societies.
Republican parliaments will be advised to adjust their legislation
according
to these principles."
(Election manifesto of "Democratic Opposition of Serbia", 5
September
2000).
With opposition political parties on the enemy's payroll, the Western
media has casually accused the
Yugoslav authorities of electoral fraud. In any other country,
receiving
cash from a foreign government would lead to the immediate indictment of
the political parties concerned. Their bank
accounts would be frozen. This has not happened yet in Yugoslavia.
Yet the media accuses the Yugoslav government of mistreating the
"democratic" opposition. In the
US, taking money from an unfriendly foreign power, especially a hostile
one, to finance campaign
expenses would quite understandably be considered "un-American". But in
Belgrade opposition forces say that they are patriotic. For them it is
not
"un-Yugoslav" to accept 500 million dollars from the bombers of their
country...
Michel Chossudovsky
---
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, #206
New York, NY 10011
212-633-6646
212-633-2889 fax
iacenter@...
www.iacenter.org
International Action Center statement--
September 28, 2000; For immediate release:
Blatant U.S. intervention in Yugoslav elections protested; Group calls
for
investigation
In response to the emergency situation in Yugoslavia caused by the open
and extensive intervention in that nation’s election process by the U.S.
and
West European governments, the International Action Center is calling
for
the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate U.S.
manipulation of elections and other interference in the internal affairs
of
sovereign countries.
This intervention has taken the form of military pressure, with NATO
naval
maneuvers in the Adriatic and Mediterranean Seas and threats of resumed
bombings, economic pressure that a 9-year-long embargo would be relieved
only if the vote went against President Slobodan Milosevic, and direct
financing of organizations and parties that oppose the Milosevic-lead
coalition.
The IAC, founded in 1992 by former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark
and
other anti-war activists, has played a leading role in the anti-war
struggle in
the United States and in the fight to end sanctions against Iraq,
Yugoslavia,
Cuba and other countries.
In calling for the creation of the Commission of Inquiry Ramsey Clark
drew
attention to past U.S. manipulations of elections, giving the examples
of
Nicaragua, where the popular Sandinista government was voted out in 1990
and where Washington injected $54 million into that poor country. He
also
spoke of countries where the U.S. overrode the electoral process and
organized violent coups to put in their own person, as with Mobutu in
Zaire
(now Congo), or in Chile, Haiti and Iran.
“In all cases where the U.S. put ‘its man’ in office,” said Clark, “the
people
wound up worse off than before. Think of what Mobutu did to the Congo,
what Pinochet did to Chile, and that under the U.S.-backed governments
after
the Sandinistas in Nicaragua that country was reduced to one of the
poorest
on the earth. After the election in each country, U.S. money stopped
coming
in.”
The U.S. never kept its promises of aid to develop Nicaragua. Currently
Taiwanese bankers and industrialists are the major exploiters of
low-paid
Nicaraguan labor in the “free-trade zones,” where conditions of work in
the
sweatshops are about the worst in the world. The money Washington put
into the country was not a promise of things to come but an investment
expected to earn a quick return.
“We need,” said Clark, “to expose the way the U.S. government takes
advantage of elections to put in a regime of their choice, and how this
has
always been harmful to the people of that country.”
The U.S. government has boasted that it injected $77 million into
Yugoslavia
to build up the opposition to President Slobodan Milosevic and his
governing coalition. Another $105 million has been authorized on
September
26th by the U.S. House of Representatives for similar use.
“To put this amount in perspective,” said IAC co-director Sara
Flounders,
“The U.S. has voted more money to subvert an election in little
Yugoslavia
than the total funds both major U.S. Presidential candidates have
raised. This
year Al Gore has reported $47 million in contributions and George W.
Bush
$87 million. And that’s for a rich country with almost 300 million
people.
“This money goes a long way in Yugoslavia—a much poorer country with
only 11 million people. It’s as if some foreign country recently a U.S.
enemy
put tens of billions of dollars behind a candidate in the U.S. And this
is only
hard money. What about the millions of dollars in soft money from the
Soros
Foundation and the NGOs?”
“You can only imagine,” continued Flounders, “the hysteria it would
arouse
if that happened here. Those taking the money would be labeled as
traitors,
refused the right to run and probably charged with crimes.”
Flounders said the Commission of Inquiry was calling on others who have
the detailed information to show just what methods were used to
influence
the Yugoslav elections as well as other elections in the past. Others
may
want to illustrate how the U.S. government tried to buy elections in
their
countries. She also suggested that organizations in the other NATO
countries might want to investigate what the governments there have done
to manipulate the Yugoslav elections.
“The Yugoslav people heroically faced NATO bombing for 78 days last
year,” she said. “Now they are facing an equally heavy barrage of
high-tech
propaganda beamed in from the most powerful lie machine the human race
ever saw. We plan to reveal the insides of that machine and expose its
dangers to the world.”
For more information, call 212-633-6646 or look at the IAC web site at
www.iacenter.org.
---
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/NewsST092800.htm
CHRONICLES ONLINE, Thursday, September 28, 2000
Are Washingtonians Helping Milosevic Survive?
by Srdja Trifkovic
Facts never speak for themselves, but people do.Those who still
doubt that there are powerful forces in Washington that are scared stiff
of Milosevics defeat are well advised to read some comments made by
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) on the Senate floor on Tuesday, September 26,
regarding the elections in Serbia.
Senator Biden was speaking in support of HR 1064.This bill is
ostensibly aimed at supporting democracy in Serbia, but in terms of its
assumptions and practical consequences it could be called Saving
Slobos Skin. Biden opened by saying that Slobodan Milosevic is the
problem, not the Serbian people, but then he explained that under HR
1064 the array of sanctions punishing Serbia -- not Milosevic and his
cronies --will be re-codified and kept in place until Vojislav
Kostunica (or any other successor to Milosevic) complies with every
demand from Washington, including the delivery of all indicted war
criminals to The Hague tribunal. Dr. Kostunica has repeatedly stated
that this he will not do.Even if this tribunal wasnt a purely
political construct devoid of legal basis -- which it is -- Kostunica
would be right to loath sending any of his countrymen to The Hague, just
as any real American should shudder at the thought of sending any U.S.
citizen, however culpable, to be tried by a United Nations court.
Throwing the challenge of HR 1064 at Kostunica and doing so at the
very moment when he is locked in a life-and-death struggle with
Milosevic is either utterly insane, or deeply devious.Bad, or mad,
or both, Biden is very much in charge of Senate foreign relations, and
the context of his remarks makes it evident that this bill enjoys full
Administration support. It is not promoting democracy in Serbia but
preventing it.To Milosevics infinite delight Biden has condemned
Kostunica in advance as an ultra-nationalist if he does not agree to
become exactly the kind of NATO-friendly quisling the Belgrade regime
accuses him of being.The spirit and true intent of the bill is fully
betrayed by the following comments at the end of Bidens address:
To be blunt: respect for Dayton and cooperation with The Hague
Tribunal must be litmus tests for any democratic government in Serbia.I
fervently hope that Mr. Kostunica emerges victorious in the Yugoslav
elections.If he does, the United States should immediately extend to him
a
sincere hand of friendship, with the assistance outlined in the pending
legislation.If, on the other hand, Mr. Kostunica comes to power and
thinks
that his undeniable and praiseworthy democratic credentials will enable
him to
pursue an aggressive Serbian nationalist policy with a kinder face, then
we
must disabuse him of this notion.
In summary, to lay prostrate merits a friendly hand.The refusal to
submit is aggressive nationalism. Plus ca change: in June 1992 I
attended a meeting in Washington with then-assistant to the National
Security Advisor for European affairs, Jenone Walker.Referring to the
sanctions against Serbia -- in the context of Milosevics offer to
resign if they were lifted -- she stated that (quite apart from
Milosevic) they would stay in force until all current and potential
sources of conflict in the former Yugoslavia were removed, agreements
signed and sealed, and respected by the Serbs to the satisfaction of the
U.S. government.Eight years later HR 1064 proves that, on some issues
at least, there IS remarkable continuity and consistency in Washington.
But back to Biden. His concluding remarks had a threatening air: Should
our West European allies choose to embrace a post-Milosevic,
democratically elected, but ultra-nationalistic Serbia, then I would say
to them good luck; well concentrate our policy in the former Yugoslavia
on preparing democratic and prosperous Slovenia for the next round of
NATO enlargement, on continuing to help reconstruct Bosnia and Kosovo,
and on supporting the democratic governments in Macedonia, Croatia, and
Montenegro.
This is the kind of challenge Americas European partners may well
accept this time.Some are keen to lift all sanctions against Serbia
regardless of who prevails in Belgrade.Theyve had enough of this kind
of neoimperial arrogance French planes are landing in Baghdad these
days - and they could easily turn the policy towards Belgrade after
Milosevic into a litmus test of their ability to say no to
Washington.The writing has been on the wall ever since the EU foreign
ministers had announced that all sanctions against Serbia would be
unconditionally lifted if Milosevic were to fall, and the country itself
welcomed with open arms into Europe, and helped financially.
This prospect is anathema to Joseph Biden and his like-minded friends
and colleagues in Washington.They dont want a democratic Serbia
reintegrated into the community of European nations, but a
Gauleiter-ruled colony in which any attempt to assert ones dignity, let
alone pride in ones identity, would be equated with aggressive
ultra-nationalism.That much has become clear in their attempt to
sabotage Milosevics opponents while he is struggling for survival.As
a UPI report noted last Monday, from Washingtons point of view a
Kostunica victory would derail U.S. hopes of negotiating a broad
settlement to Yugoslav issues on Washingtons terms.Those terms
entail acceptance of the loss of sovereignty (The Hague) and loss of
territory (Kosovo), plus whatever else is ordered from Washington.Last
Monday night Kostunica replied when he said that Yugoslavia must not
become anybodys protectorate.In the eyes of Biden & Co. this merely
confirms that he is an ultra-nationalist, which proves that we need HR
1064 enacted before Milosevic falls.
As Serbias true democrats struggle against that misshapen despot whose
strongest trump card is to accuse them of being pro-NATO traitors, a
concerted attempt is under way in Washington to impose humiliating
conditions on them that no democratically elected leaders of any nation
could ever accept.The participants in that endeavor know not what is
shame.The rest of us do, living as we do in the eighth year of the
Clinton-Gore presidency.
P.S.: From our We Told You So department:
It hardly needs stating that Americas support to the democratic
opposition in Belgrade has nothing to do with the alleged democratic
credentials of the specific parties, and everything to do with the
degree of its leaders professed readiness to act in accordance with the
diktat from Washington.[They need to be] submissive to the West,
a-national to the point of self-hatred, brazenly materialistic,
antitraditionalist and secular.With such an opposition, it is
unsurprising that the popular discontent with Milosevic could not have
been channeled into a victory for his enemies.Even thoroughly moderate
patriots with impeccable democratic credentials such as Dr. Kostunica
were simply not kosher enough for the U.S. State Department.
(Slobodan Milosevic, Our S.O.B. Chronicles, June 1997)
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------