From: "Michel Collon"
Subject: After Kosovo, Macedonia
(Article of Michel Collon in English)
Please find here an important article about Macedonia, Kosovo, Nato and their future.
1. Is Macedonia a strategic area?
2. KLA attack: is it a surprise?
3. What is surviving of the official Nato version?
4. Is Washington playing double game?
5. Will KLA provoke a new war?
6. What do the US really want?
7. Will it be possible for Washington to keep playing with all sides?
8. Did they �forge a monster�?
9. What shall be the role of the rivalry between USA and EU?
10. Is Kostunica trapped?
11. Perspectives for Peace.
-- Michel Collon
(For fair use only)
After Kosovo, Macedonia.
What is left of the explanations of NATO ?
A sinister repetition? After the Albanian separatists of the KLA
have attacked the villages of the Presevo valley in Serbia, after
they have killed 11 Serbian civilians of Kosovo by throwing a
bomb in a bus, they are waging now war in neighbouring Macedonia.
And again refugees are on the roads. Is there a new escalation in
the Balkans? In fact, these events allow to better understand
what happened in 1999. In this complex situation (because
everything is done to disorientate the public opinion), let us
answer clearly to the main questions.
Michel Collon
1. Is Macedonia a strategic region ?
Yes, as we have explained in our book Monopoly by citing the
general Jackson, commander of the NATO troops: "We will certainly
stay here for a long time in order to guarantee the safety of the
energy corridors which cross Macedonia". (1)
'Energy corridors' ?
We had presented the maps showing the projects of Europe (a whole
net of oil and gas pipe-lines connecting Europe via the Balkans
to the huge oil and gas resources of the former soviet Caucasus)
and the ones of the US (a pipe-line Bulgaria-Macedonia-Albania-
Adriatic which would give to the US oil multinationals the
control of this road of oil and gas). These projects are in fact
rival. This is why all the great powers attempt for ten years to
control Yugoslavia. The road of oil and gas passes by. We had
also stressed that as soon as 1992 it is in Macedonia - however
very far away from the conflicts zones - and nowhere else that
Washington had decided to send a division. We have to be frank:
even in the left circles, some peoples found exaggerated to
suspect Washington to have so dark projects. But very recently,
the respectable British newspaper Guardian confirmed: "A project
called the Trans-Balkan pipeline has been little-reported in any
British, European or American newspaper.
The line will run from the Black sea port of Burgas to the
Adriatic at Vlore, passing through Bulgaria, Macedonia and
Albania. It is likely become the main route to the west for the
oil and gas now being extracted in central Asia. It will carry
750,000 barrels a day. The project is necessary, according to a
paper published by the US Trade and Development Agency, because
it will "provide a consistent source of crude oil to American
refineries", "provide American companies with a key role in
developing the vital east-west corridor", and "advance the
privatisation aspirations of the US government in the region"." (2)
Clear, isn't it ?
Moreover, Bill Richardson, the former US energy secretary,
declared in 1998, that is before the war: "This is about
America's energy security". When the US speak about 'energy
security', one must know what it means: to preserve the world
domination and the profits of their oil multinationals. And
Richardson continues: "We would like these newly independent
countries reliant on Western commercial and political interests
rather than going another way. We've made a substantial political
investment in the Caspian, and it's very important to us that
both the pipeline map and the politics come out right." (3) And
The Guardian adds this essential comment: "On December 9, 98
(before the war), the president of Albania attended a meeting on
this subject in Sofia:"According to my personal opinion, no
solution which will stay strictly inside of the Serbian borders
will bring a sustainable peace." The message could hardly be
clearer: if you want the agreement of the Albanians for the Trans-
Balkans pipeline, you have to take the Kosovo away from the
Serbs". (4)
2. Is the offensive of the KLA a surprise?
The US made thus a pact with the devil. Because many US
diplomatic reports testified it: the separatist KLA murdered not
only Serbian policemen or civilians, but also Albanians married
with Serbs or simply accepting to live in the Yugoslav state. And
the special envoy of Washington in the Balkans, Robert Gelbard,
had himself claimed three times in front of the international
press, at the beginning of 1998: "I tell you that these KLA
peoples are terrorists". But three months later, these terrorists
were turned by miracle into 'freedom fighters' and NATO will soon
become their air force. Today the US simulate surprise faced to
the "extremist violence" (5) which attacks Macedonia. It is
hypocrisy! As soon as June 98, the KLA distributed among its
European sympathisers a map of 'Great Albania'. In our book
Monopoly (p.69), we reproduced this map and made the following
comment: "In addition to Kosovo, which is part of Serbia, this
great Albania would remove large territories in Macedonia,
Montenegro and Greece. Wars are unavoidable if the KLA is allowed
to realize its plans". This Greater Albania implies not only
expansionism but also ethnic cleansing. Today, under the eyes and
with the tacit agreement of NATO, 350,000 not-Albanians have
already been expelled from Kosovo: Serbs but also Gypsies,
Gorani, Turks etc.. Kosovo is almost 'clean'.
A surprise? Not really, since, on July 12, 1982 already, the New
York Times interviewed a Yugoslav official in Kosovo, a man of
Albanian ancestry, who aid: "'The [Albanian] nationalists have a
two-point platform...first to establish what they call an
ethnically clean Albanian republic and then the
merger with Albania to form a greater Albania." Besides, during
the anti-Yugoslav insurgency of 1981, the Albanian nationalists
had already established a close collaboration between their units
in Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro. All this didn't prevent the
influential US Senator Joseph Lieberman to declare in April 99:
"[The] United States of America and the Kosovo Liberation Army
stand for the same human values and principles... Fighting for
the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values."(6).
In other words, the US and the KLA share the same fight. Besides,
anybody who travels through Kosovo can see everywhere, for
example in the petrol stations, the Albanian and US flags closely
associated.
3. Does the version of NATO still make any sense ?
What did NATO tell us to justify its murderous bombings?
1. That its war was humanitarian. Wrong: it was for oil and to
break an economy which resisted to the Western multinationals and
to the IMF.
2. That it had tried everything to find a negotiated solution.
Also wrong: we now know that there was never any negotiation;
Rambouillet was only a comedy to justify a war which had already
been decided.
3. That it was a clean war. Wrong again: 2.000 Yugoslav civilians
killed, a huge number of factories and infrastructures destroyed,
the use of forbidden and criminal weapons: cluster bombs,
depleted uranium. General Mangum just wote in the very official
journal of the Army War College: " The high-altitude bombing did
very little damage to the Serb military. It was only after NATO
began deliberately attacking civilian targets that the Serbs sued
for peace." (7)
Now what was left of the official version also collapses.
We were told: `The problems of Kosovo are caused by Milosevic'.
The situation is not better with Kostunica and a government which
is subjected to the West ! By the way, the Time confess:
"Remember Kosovo? According to Clinton administration spin during
the 1999 bombing campaign, NATO was rallying to the defense of
helpless ethnic Albanians and their brave champions in the Kosovo
Liberation Army who were fighting a David-vs.-Goliath struggle
against Belgrade's genocidal army.
Well, guess what? Not only has NATO now declared armed Albanian
nationalists of the KLA stripe to be the primary security problem
in the region, the Western alliance is also considering asking
the selfsame Yugoslav army to help NATO troops police the border
between Kosovo and the neighboring former Yugoslavian republic of
Macedonia.
Once Yugoslavia had elected a president with whom the West could
do business, prospects for winning NATO support for formal
independence for Kosovo dimmed even further." (8)
So, you may say white today, and black tomorrow if this useful
for "business". Who will dare to come and speak to us about a
humanitarian war, newt time?
We were told that the intervention was necessary to stop a
Serbian genocide and to establish a multi-ethnic Kosovo. But the
German general Heinz Loquai has demonstrated that the so-called
'horse-shoe plan' document presented by the German minister
Scharping was fake, that the genocide was a lie of the media and
he just qualified the war as 'unjustified', and accused NATO to
have caused two humanitarian catastrophes: a massive exodus of
the Albanians and then another exodus of the Serbs. And the
general Michael Rose, who commanded the UN forces in Bosnia,
reproaches NATO "to have introduced a culture of violence". (9)
Finally, in order to find some excuse for the current ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo, the supporters of NATO and KLA have
pretended that it was 'revenge acts for what the Serbs had done'.
And now, in Macedonia, where nothing happened, under which
pretext should one justify the aggression of the KLA? It is time
to acknowledge the only possible explanation: the KLA aims to
establish an ethnically clean state and can only realise this
program by the escalation of hatred and by terrorism.
4. Does Washington play a double game?
The United States make as if they were indignant at the current
violences of the KLA. But we must point out several things:
1. They didn't move a finger when the KLA went out from Kosovo to
attack the region of Presevo in Central Serbia. Worse: the
infiltration occurred from the US occupation zone in Kosovo.
2. Washington and the NATO pretend today "to try to stop the flux
of weapons and fighters towards southern Serbia and
Macedonia".(10)
But anybody who goes to Kosovo can observe roadblocks and check-
points of the KFOR every five kilometers. But the same KFOR is
working with interprets and other collaborators coming from the
KLA, which besides was transformed by KFOR into the very official
'Kosovo Protection Corps'. So, the ones who don't look for the
weapons of the KLA will not find them. Moreover, the major Jim
Marshall, spokesman of the US KFOR, declared on March, 6: "We
have identified between 75 and 150 rebels in Tanusevci
(Macedonia), we saw them enter and go out from Kosovo, and get
rid of their equipments and weapons before to cross the border."
A little stupid question: what did prevent you to arrest them?
45,000 NATO soldiers are occupying Kosovo and can not arrest 150
terrorists? Can not or don't want to?
On March, 11, in the British newspaper Observer, several European
high officers of KFOR and also several Macedonian officials
accused explicitly the CIA to have encouraged the KLA to start
its summer offensive in the South of Serbia in order to undermine
the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic. Today, who
could guarantee that these encouragements have stopped?
5. Will the KLA start a new war ?
What will happen?
The current fights around Tanusevce could well be the prelude of
more important clashes. For example, to take control of Tetovo,
five kilometers away from the Kosovo border. In any case, one
thing is clear: the KLA, which lost the elections last year, -
because the large majority of the Albanians in Kosovo don't want
to live in a permanent state of war - can only regain ground by
using violence. Including in Macedonia where it pretends to
defend the rights of the Albanian minority, but one often forgets
to remind that, for years, every government of this country has
been made of a coalition with Albanian parties. To take power,
and thus increase the range of its maffia - like traffics,
necessitates war. The tactics of the KLA is thus clear: to cause
an escalation by provoking the Macedonian and the Yugoslavian
armies. Hoping that the later will attack Albanian civilians as
was done by some Serbian forces during the first days of the NATO
bombings.
That will allow to reach two goals:
1. To internationalise the conflict (we will come back to it
later).
2. To enrol new recruits in an Albanian youth which has been
fanatised by nationalism. In spite of the development of many
little traffics more or less legal, the Albanian community of
Macedonia has an unemployment rate of 60%; it is a potential
where to recruit.
To get this escalation, the KLA will probably use again a method
which has already been put in practice. As a French observer of
the OSCE explained it in Kosovo in 1998: "Inside the OSCE,
everybody knew that NATO, in particular the US, didn't want our
mission (of pacification) to succeed. The massacres have been
encouraged to justify a military intervention.
One day we got a message. We were told that Albanian fighters had
been trained by American instructors. They were explained that it
was more strategic to kill Serbian policemen to provoke important
retaliations against the Albanian community." (11) As in Bosnia
and in Kosovo there can be some time before that this tactics
ends up in more important clashes. An important step would be
done by provoking the equivalent of the 'Racak massacre'. In
January 99, in this village of Kosovo that it had fortified, the
KLA had provoked, and lost, a fight between the two armies. But
it made believe that the victims were civilians coldly massacred
by the Yugoslav army. With the help of the CIA, one made believe
this media-lie in the international media and this allow to
condition the Western public opinion to make it accept a war
decided for a long time by the US. Each war of today is preceded
by such a big media-lie, with shocking pictures.
6. What are the US really looking for?
But to do again the 'Racak trick' would necessitate a complicity
of the US to lead the Western media. If this would happen, that
would certainly be the sign that the US superpower would be
preparing a new intervention.
One can oppose two objections to this hypothesis: First the US
are qualifying today the KLA as 'extremist forces' and condemn
their actions, at least in words. Answer: at the beginning of 98
also, they qualified the KLA as 'terrorists', as we have seen,
but that didn't prevent them to support unconditionally the KLA a
few months later. If there is one principle to remember in the
action of the US for ten years, it is that there are no
principles! One can also ask why would the US intervene although
they seem to control the region and have installed there their
military bases ? Of course one doesn't know yet all the aspects
of their current tactics. It may be that behind the scene they
push the KLA to create again some tension in order to help the US
troops to occupy the whole region. As soon as the first incidents
in the Presevo valley occurred, Washington had generously
proposed to station US troops in Serbia proper. One must also
remind that during the so-called 'negotiations' in Rambouillet
before the war, Madeleine Albright had required that NATO will be
allowed to occupy militarily the whole Yugoslavia. It may also be
that new Bush administration has not yet decided which is the
best tactic to protect the US interests in the Balkans, that it
prefers to play for some time with both sides and that the tactic
of the KLA was precisely to force it to take a decision or to act
quicker. In both cases, one thing is sure: the US are not there
to defend peace or protect any people of the Balkans. They are
there to reign. And to reign you have to divide, as we know,
and to divide the best solution is a war, or at least a so-called
'low intensity' war, a situation of 'neither war nor peace' with
irregular clashes.
Isn't it the best way to justify the installation of US military
bases in the Balkans ? Of course, the candidate George Bush had
said that he wanted to move the US troops out of Kosovo. But the
president George Bush rapidly forgot these electoral promises.
Lets remind that in 1995 the candidate Bill Clinton had promised
that the US troops would have left Bosnia by Christmas.
Immediately afterwards, the commander of the UN troops in Bosnia,
the general MacKenzie, answered to a parliamentary commission:
"If I were you, I'd start training your grandchildren as Bosnia
peacekeepers." (12)
Wether it wants to force Bush to intervene or acts in
collaboration with him, the goal of the KLA is in any case to
internationalise again the conflict, as did the Muslims of
Izetbegovic in Bosnia from 1992 and the KLA itself in Kosovo in
1998. By attacking almost at the same time Macedonia and the
South of Serbia, by denouncing in racist terms any Slav presence
on their territories, the leaders of the KLA aim at provoking a
reaction of Macedonia and Yugoslavia, but also of Greece, close
to the Serbs. And, as an indirect result, a retaliation of their
own allies: Albania and Turkey. That is an internationalisation
of the conflict which would force Washington to choose between
its allies and, as the KLA hopes, to definitely choose the
Albanian side.
7. Will Washington still be able to play on both sides?
To understand the situation of the US, it is important to
understand that they systematically play on several sides at the
same time. To support and to manipulate discretely two
adversaries - and even train them militarily - does not embarrass
them at all.
For example, we can read in the British Daily Telegraph of March 3:
"The private company of security which is the most appreciated by
the US government has trained both sides of the last ethnic
conflict in the Balkans. Only two years ago the Albanian rebels
of Kosovo were trained by the society 'Military Professional
Resources' based in Virginia... One of the recent task of this
society was the training of the Macedonian army which is now
shooting on the Albanian guerrilla."
One should not underestimate the role in the US military system
of the private companies and militia, led by former high
officers. Already in Bosnia, they had trained and led the Muslim
militia of the president Izetbegovic before that the US could
openly intervene. And in Croatia they helped the president
Tudjman to realise the bloody ethnic cleansing of the Serbian
Krajina in august 95 (13). History repeats itself.
Having played in several sides, the US can be for a moment in a
difficult situation. From one side, they continue to use the KLA
to get more concessions from Serbia: the complete privatisation
and the elimination of the main opposition party, the SPS (by
sending its president Milosevic to the Court of the Hague). But
on the other hand, if they let the KLA going too far, they will
have troubles with precious allies:
1. The Macedonian government
2. Greece (also threatened by the demands of the KLA)
3. The Yugoslav president Kostunica.
The Macedonian government has not much autonomy and one says that
Washington could impose it what it wants, including a federal
state, prelude to a splitting. Moreover, the Macedonian leaders
are very weakened by various scandals, which have revealed their
links with the US. The left opposition claims to be more
independent, but its main candidate was put aside by terror
during the last elections. Macedonia, a too weak and unstable
ally for Washington ?
On the other hand, the Greek leaders are important pawns in the
NATO strategy of Washington. But the Greek people is strongly
against NATO, the influence of the communist party is important
and very recently one third of the Greek soldiers have required
and obtained to be moved out from Kosovo to escape the dangers of
depleted uranium.
Finally by playing too openly with the card of the KLA, the US
would strongly endangered the president Kostunica, who was
elected with an ambiguous profile - anti-NATO and pro-West - and
who can not present to his opinion any positive result about
Kosovo, to the contrary. To allow him to make come again some
Yugoslav troops to watch the border is maybe a small concession
to give some more credit to Kostunica and to somehow balance the
two 'friends' of the US. But the reason can also be simply to
avoid that US soldiers would be in first line and risk to come
back to the US in body-bags, which is always embarrassing for the
US opinion. And, in a more machiavellian way, that would start
again clashes between Serbs and Albanians.
What if Washington drops the KLA and reverses its alliance? Then
it could be that its German 'ally' -but also rival- supports
again secretly the KLA as it did at the beginning 98 (14). Which
also explains that the KLA has interest to make even more
provocations. The rivalry between Western great powers is thus
another factor which increases the risks of war.
Many European politicians had already accused the US to be guilty
of having uselessly prolonged the war in Bosnia in order to
eliminate their German competitor which had got a too good
position. (15) Reverse the alliance? One has already seen
everything in this respect from the US, for example between Iran,
Iraq and Syria. But their goal is to establish in the Balkans a
'plane-carrier' state, like Israel in the Middle-East. For this,
an obvious choice is still an Albanian state which would owe
everything to Washington. However, the European powers refuse a
change of the borders in the Balkans. This would cause new wars
and destabilise the projects of 'corridors' described above.
One thing is sure: the intervention of NATO for some hidden
interests didn't bring and will not bring peace.
8. Do they really ask themselves if they have created a monster?
It is again in The Guardian that one could read, on March 12, a
surprising question: 'Did we create a monster ?'.
Their special correspondent in Pristina reports:
"The West is stunned. Balkan nightmares were supposed to have
ended with the fall of Slobodan Milosevic. But now Albanian
nationalist militants are stirring ethnic rivalries in a quest
for a greater Kosovo. The liberated victims have become the
villains. In Washington and London, and in the offices of NATO
and UN in Pristina, a question is dominating: did we create a
monster?"
The correspondent of the Guardian led a quite vast investigation
with the staff of UN and KFOR and concludes:
"The failure of KFOR to disarm the KLA, protect the Serb minority
and build a multi-ethnic society has created a climate in which
extremists flourish. For almost a year it ignored intellectuals
who urged a crackdown on KLA members who seized assets and set up
criminal networks. "Now it's too late, the moderates won the
election, but those who smuggle and run the rackets have the real
power," one officer serving there admits."
Disastrous result, and one understands that the former governor
of Kosovo, Bernard Kouchner, had quickly left the ship before
that his self-satisfied TV statements have been refuted. Because
what The Guardian reports is true.
I was myself in Kosovo last December to make there a documentary
movie "The damned of Kosovo" (which will be ready next May). I
discovered there a hell for the Serbs and all non - Albanian
minorities. Most of them have been expelled from Kosovo: ethnic
cleansing. The ones who have stayed live in terror. To speak its
own language in public constitutes a mortal danger. Also to go on
highways in non-Serbian zones. But the terror strikes also a
number of Albanians. KLA maffiosi kill Albanians also. To take
houses, companies or women. And many of the Albanian with who I
was talking, predicted a civil war - between Albanians - in two
or three years time.
Quickly The Guardian mentions the theory of 'the mistake': The
West would 'have misunderstood the danger of Albanian
nationalism'.
Of which 'West' are we talking here? If it is the public, it is
indeed true that it didn't understand because one hided to it
carefully the truth. When some analysts explained that the
program of the KLA was the ethnic cleansing, they were almost
excluded of the media or even considered as evils. But if one
speaks about the leaders of this 'West' - the White House, Tony
Blair, Solana and Robertson, the CIA - they knew of course for a
long time because their own reports considered the KLA as
'terrorists'.
In Kosovo, we have also seen that one has to distinguish between
a number of honest Western aid workers and militaries, and their
high-level officials. The former went to Kosovo with prejudices
but also with good will. The later have
been sent to Kosovo to hide this truth, to hide the secret goals
of the US and their allies and to lie. It is certainly in the
first category that one must put Eric Torch, a UN aid worker
cited by The Guardian:
"Albanians trace their lineage to the Illyrans who controlled the
territory in the 11th century BC. Underground schools during
Milosevic's rule inculcated ethnic hatred into generations."
Yes, you have read correctly: 'during Milosevic's rule'. This
confirms what have said some unconventional analysts: these
parallel Albanian schools, organized by the party of Rugova and
financed by the US taught racist anti-Serbian conceptions. It was
wrong to say that the responsibility of the conflict was entirely
on the side of the Serbs. Pushed by the US, the Albanian leaders
of Kosovo refused to negotiate seriously, they wanted only
independence and taught the hatred to achieve it.
9. Which role will play the rivalry US -EU?
One can not understand the attitude of the US in these events
without replacing it in the context of their world strategy. One
of the key-men of the new Bush administration is called
Wolfowitz.
In our book Liar's Poker we made comments about his shock-report
of March 92:
"The status of unique super-power of the US must be preserved by
a constructive behaviour and a sufficient military force to
dissuade any nation or group of nations to challenge the
supremacy of the US. We must act in order to prevent the
appearance of a security system exclusively European which could
destabilise NATO" (16).
The US military budget began to blow up under Clinton and this
will continue under Bush. Three potential rivals at more or less
long term are today the potential targets of this dangerous
strategy: the European Union, Russia, China. The embassy of the
later was bombed as a warning. It is considered by the CIA as
risking to overtake around 2015-2030 the power of the US.
Concerning Russia, the new US State secretary, Colin Powell,
declared that the objections of Moscow would not prevent the
expansion of NATO to the East or the militarisation of space by
the so-called 'anti-missiles shield' (NMD). His colleague
Condoleezza Rice declared that she sincerely "believes that
Russia is a threat for the West" (17). And the Defence secretary
Rumsfeld attacked Russia for "its 'active proliferation of
missiles' to countries like Iran, Korea or India". (18)
Concerning Europe, Rumsfeld warned against any autonomous
European intervention force which would perturb the transatlantic
relation during the conference of Munich about global safety,
beginning of February. Answer of the German minister Joskha
Fisher: the new Bush administration wants to restart a new arms
race. His colleague Scharping expressed sympathy for the Russian
views about NMD. Germany has, like France, condemned the US
bombings against Iraq. Moreover, the ambition of the US to
dictate their will to the whole world is currently braked by
several points of resistance that they don't succeed to
eliminate. Iraq still resists, as well as the Palestinians. The
US intervention in Colombia could transform itself into a new
Vietnam. The communist guerrilla in Nepal worries the American
experts. Some of them think that it is time to find a solution in
the Balkans and to focus on other operations. All this on a
background of growing commercial rivalries and crisis which could
only worsen the tension USA-Europe.
The game that these powers are playing in the Balkans for ten
years, each of them trying to get the biggest part of the cake,
this game will continue to cause damages to the peoples of the
region. When the elephants fight each other, it is the grass
which is smashed. And after all the gifts that the US have given
to reward the terrorism of the KLA, one can expect that this
example will be contagious for some fractions of the Albanian
community in Macedonia and Montenegro or for other secessionist
movements in the world. One will use provocations and terrorism
to try to present oneself as 'victims'. The mistrust between US
and Europe about Kosovo increased when the candidate Bush
threatened to move out the US troops from the Balkans, letting
the Europeans alone in what one is forced to call a mess. Since
then, many European officials criticize -privately- the support
of the US to the terrorists of KLA.
An expert of the French Institute of International Relations
(IFRI) has just declared:
"The Dayton process is dead. The whole system needs to be
renegotiated. But no-one wants to open the Pandora's box by
calling it into question, risking poisoning the situation on the
ground. If for example, the Kosovo Albanians were appeased with a
state of their own, it would trigger a domino effect that would
see Serbia's junior partner in the rump Yugoslavia, Montenegro,
as well as Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats all renewing their
own independence claims. For some time it appeared the Americans
were prepared to look at changing borders. I think that cannot
happen now, and if they did try it they would be opposed by
Europe." (19)
What will be the outcome?
In fact, Bush has four options:
1. to redraw his troops. That would have strongly embarrassed the
Europeans. It is now not possible anymore, especially with the
depleted uranium scandal.
2. to reverse the alliance and to support the Serbia of
Kostunica. But the US troops could become the targets of the KLA.
And one is not sure that Serbia will be a reliable partner for
the long term. The spirit of popular resistance is still alive
there.
3. to support both sides by using a strategy of tension.
4. to maintain the support to the KLA to create an Albanian
'Israel-like' state while hiding its game as long as possible.
No one of the options is moral, we have seen that this criteria
is never relevant. But to realize their strategic long-term
goals, the US can well resort to changing and contradictory
tactics.
For now a combination of the options 3 and 4 seems the most
likely to us. But maybe the US have not decided yet and they are
waiting to see the most favourable according to the reactions of
their 'friends'?
In any case, the tactics being changing, some docile media would
have some trouble to explain to the peoples that the good guys
are not good anymore and that the bad guys are on the other side.
Let's hope that these troubles will cause a deep reflexion. If
one doesn't understand the economic interests at stake, and
first, the ones of the multinationals looking for new markets,
working forces and raw materials, it is impossible to understand
all these wars.
10. Is Kostunica in a trap ?
The president Kostunica has been elected by defending an
ambiguous position: on one hand, he denounces the war of NATO,
the occupation of Kosovo and the interference of the US; on the
other hand, he promises the reconciliation with this very same
West and an economic improvement thanks to Western aid.
Till now the least one can say is that he wasn't rewarded
concerning Kosovo. On March 6, he declared:
"The representatives of the international community in Kosovo are
facing failure, because they did not provide stability and peace,
and the crisis spilled over into Macedonia. Kfor is dealing with
its own security, and not with the security of those because of
whom it is here." (20)
Kostunica also accused KFOR of "stimulating instead of curbing
the aspirations of a Greater Albania. KFOR is abandoning
protection of the border and is inviting our army to be in the
crossfire" (21) He also expressed hope that the policy of the new
U.S. administration would be marked by "a high level of non-
interference in the problems of other states". (22)
The paradox is that two days after having warned so clearly
against NATO and the interference of the US , the same Kostunica
added that "he did not rule out Yugoslavia becoming a formal
alliance partner one day."(23) A NATO which is however the most
obvious tool of the interference spirit of the US!
In the same declaration, the Yugoslav president declared himself
disappointed:
"When I came to office, I did not expect the situation in the
country to be quite so difficult; it is discouraging," citing
security and constitutional problems as well as 40 percent
unemployment and 800,000 refugees. Surprising declaration as the
800,000 refugees (expelled from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo) are
living in Serbia for years. Concerning the unemployed, did he
lead his electoral campaign by ignoring that the Western embargo
and the state of the economy had such consequences? And by not
reading the program of the economists of his own electoral
coalition which foresaw privatisations and massive dismissals ?
How to interpret these contradictory statements?
In fact, as expected, the material situation of the Serbian
population has still worsened with the Djindjic government. If
the salaries of the university professors have been doubled, the
ones of the workers have only increased by 25% to 50%, and it is
completely insufficient to face the huge increases of the prices.
The cubic meter of gas has gone from three up to twelve dinars,
the kilo of sausages from 150 up to 300 dinars, the electricity
bill of a household has increased from 150 or 200 dinars a month
to 500 dinars! The electricity company of Belgrade indicates that
130,000 households of the city have a very important debt: more
than 30,000 dinars! And the price of petrol also increases, all
the more that the new government took control of all the oil
sector in order to eliminate the black market of petrol (cheaper).
As expected, the honeymoon didn't last. If the president
Kostunica is not considered as personally responsible for all
this, the rate of discontent towards the new government of Zoran
Djindjic on the other hand has already gone up to 60%: "He
doesn't do anything for the people. Even during the war, we had
always had electricity, but with the 'great democracy', the cuts
last for four hours during the day, three hours at night" is it
told everywhere. And many judge that elections are unavoidable in
12 or 18 months time. The heterogeneous coalition of 18 parties
should split quite soon. It is why one must dismiss Milosevic and
eliminate the risk of a come back of the socialist party, even if
this party has not yet gone up in the polls.
Which evolution is to foresee inside Yugoslavia?
The professors that are not from the universities are on a
prolonged strike. Many strikes occur also in the industry, only
broken by threats of collective dismissals. This didn't prevent
the new left trade-union 'Solidarity' to get at the car factory
Zastava an additional increase of salary of 25%. On the other
hand, the minority trade-union of government tendency had refused
to join the strike. 'Solidarity' has announced the publication of
a monthly newspaper and the next months should see it increasing
its influence.
Did Kostunica fall in a trap of the West? Was he expecting to get
more support in the question of Kosovo and for the economy?
Till now he just got alms and the US make the other credits
depend on the extradition of Milosevic. What Kostunica can not do
otherwise he would contradict himself and commit a political
suicide. Thus, the US finance a new campaign of OTPOR to
criminalize Milosevic. The US, which, for fifty years, have
supported, financed and armed all the far-right and military
dictatorships in the world, these US which have protected the
crimes of Pinochet, Mobutu, Franco, Salazar, the Greek colonels
and the Turkish fascist generals, these US pretend to judge just
one former head of state, precisely one who has resisted to them?
The US deserve the Oscar of hypocrisy.
11. Perspectives.
In a world marked by a looming economic crisis, by an increase
of the wars and a frightening increase of the military budgets,
it is important to fully draw the lessons of Kosovo and of the
current situation.
1. There are no 'humanitarian' wars, only economic and strategic
wars.
2. The US and NATO are not searching to solve the problems but to
dominate the world. Thus they create or excite the problems when
it is useful for them
3. The military intervention against Yugoslavia and in favour of
the KLA has worsened everything.
4. It is not 'by mistake' that Washington supported the KLA, but
consciously. It is urgent to reinforce or to recreate a powerful
peace movement on a grass-root level. The only way to get there
is to work with patience in establishing the dialog between the
peoples, who are all victims of this strategy of 'dividing to
conquer'. And for this, to debate of the results of this war and
of the real strategies of the great powers is the fundamental
condition.
The struggle for peace begins with a lucid analysis.
12th of March 2001
Notes
(1) Michel Collon, Monopoly - L'Otan � la Conqu�te du monde, EPO,
march 2000, p. 96. (English edition prepared)
(2) The Guardian, February 15, 2001.
(3) Idem.
(4) Idem.
(5) AFP-Skopje, March 6, 2001.
(6) Washington Post, April 28, 1999.
(7) Pittsburgh Gazette, March 11, 2001.
(8) Time, 8 mars 2001
(9) Both cited in Kan Anders-Vredeskoerier (Holland), march 2001.
(10) Declaration of Robertson (NATO), AP, March 6.
(11) L'Humanit�, November 18, 1999
(12) Pittsburgh Gazette, March 11, 2001
(13) Michel Collon, Poker menteur, EPO, 1998, p. 191. (Soon
published in English version)
(14) See Monopoly, pp. 70-71.
(15) The European mediator in Bosnia, David Owen, cited in Michel
Collon, Poker menteur, EPO, 1998, p. 182.
(16) Michel Collon, Poker menteur, p. 116.
(17) Le Figaro, February 10, 2001.
(18) PBS, February 14, 2001.
(19) AFP - Paris, March 8, 2001.
(20) BBC, March 6.
(21) Reuters - Skopje, March 8, 2001.
(22) BBC, March 6.
(23) Reuters - London, March 8, 2001
---------------------------------------END
------
Bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"
Sito WEB : http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only")
Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid'979
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Una newsletter personale,
un forum web personale,
una mailing list personale, ...?
Gratis sotto
http://www.domeus.it/ad1223640/www.domeus.it
Se vuoi cancellarti da questo gruppo, clicca qui: http://www.domeus.it/info/unsubscribe
Subject: After Kosovo, Macedonia
(Article of Michel Collon in English)
Please find here an important article about Macedonia, Kosovo, Nato and their future.
1. Is Macedonia a strategic area?
2. KLA attack: is it a surprise?
3. What is surviving of the official Nato version?
4. Is Washington playing double game?
5. Will KLA provoke a new war?
6. What do the US really want?
7. Will it be possible for Washington to keep playing with all sides?
8. Did they �forge a monster�?
9. What shall be the role of the rivalry between USA and EU?
10. Is Kostunica trapped?
11. Perspectives for Peace.
-- Michel Collon
(For fair use only)
After Kosovo, Macedonia.
What is left of the explanations of NATO ?
A sinister repetition? After the Albanian separatists of the KLA
have attacked the villages of the Presevo valley in Serbia, after
they have killed 11 Serbian civilians of Kosovo by throwing a
bomb in a bus, they are waging now war in neighbouring Macedonia.
And again refugees are on the roads. Is there a new escalation in
the Balkans? In fact, these events allow to better understand
what happened in 1999. In this complex situation (because
everything is done to disorientate the public opinion), let us
answer clearly to the main questions.
Michel Collon
1. Is Macedonia a strategic region ?
Yes, as we have explained in our book Monopoly by citing the
general Jackson, commander of the NATO troops: "We will certainly
stay here for a long time in order to guarantee the safety of the
energy corridors which cross Macedonia". (1)
'Energy corridors' ?
We had presented the maps showing the projects of Europe (a whole
net of oil and gas pipe-lines connecting Europe via the Balkans
to the huge oil and gas resources of the former soviet Caucasus)
and the ones of the US (a pipe-line Bulgaria-Macedonia-Albania-
Adriatic which would give to the US oil multinationals the
control of this road of oil and gas). These projects are in fact
rival. This is why all the great powers attempt for ten years to
control Yugoslavia. The road of oil and gas passes by. We had
also stressed that as soon as 1992 it is in Macedonia - however
very far away from the conflicts zones - and nowhere else that
Washington had decided to send a division. We have to be frank:
even in the left circles, some peoples found exaggerated to
suspect Washington to have so dark projects. But very recently,
the respectable British newspaper Guardian confirmed: "A project
called the Trans-Balkan pipeline has been little-reported in any
British, European or American newspaper.
The line will run from the Black sea port of Burgas to the
Adriatic at Vlore, passing through Bulgaria, Macedonia and
Albania. It is likely become the main route to the west for the
oil and gas now being extracted in central Asia. It will carry
750,000 barrels a day. The project is necessary, according to a
paper published by the US Trade and Development Agency, because
it will "provide a consistent source of crude oil to American
refineries", "provide American companies with a key role in
developing the vital east-west corridor", and "advance the
privatisation aspirations of the US government in the region"." (2)
Clear, isn't it ?
Moreover, Bill Richardson, the former US energy secretary,
declared in 1998, that is before the war: "This is about
America's energy security". When the US speak about 'energy
security', one must know what it means: to preserve the world
domination and the profits of their oil multinationals. And
Richardson continues: "We would like these newly independent
countries reliant on Western commercial and political interests
rather than going another way. We've made a substantial political
investment in the Caspian, and it's very important to us that
both the pipeline map and the politics come out right." (3) And
The Guardian adds this essential comment: "On December 9, 98
(before the war), the president of Albania attended a meeting on
this subject in Sofia:"According to my personal opinion, no
solution which will stay strictly inside of the Serbian borders
will bring a sustainable peace." The message could hardly be
clearer: if you want the agreement of the Albanians for the Trans-
Balkans pipeline, you have to take the Kosovo away from the
Serbs". (4)
2. Is the offensive of the KLA a surprise?
The US made thus a pact with the devil. Because many US
diplomatic reports testified it: the separatist KLA murdered not
only Serbian policemen or civilians, but also Albanians married
with Serbs or simply accepting to live in the Yugoslav state. And
the special envoy of Washington in the Balkans, Robert Gelbard,
had himself claimed three times in front of the international
press, at the beginning of 1998: "I tell you that these KLA
peoples are terrorists". But three months later, these terrorists
were turned by miracle into 'freedom fighters' and NATO will soon
become their air force. Today the US simulate surprise faced to
the "extremist violence" (5) which attacks Macedonia. It is
hypocrisy! As soon as June 98, the KLA distributed among its
European sympathisers a map of 'Great Albania'. In our book
Monopoly (p.69), we reproduced this map and made the following
comment: "In addition to Kosovo, which is part of Serbia, this
great Albania would remove large territories in Macedonia,
Montenegro and Greece. Wars are unavoidable if the KLA is allowed
to realize its plans". This Greater Albania implies not only
expansionism but also ethnic cleansing. Today, under the eyes and
with the tacit agreement of NATO, 350,000 not-Albanians have
already been expelled from Kosovo: Serbs but also Gypsies,
Gorani, Turks etc.. Kosovo is almost 'clean'.
A surprise? Not really, since, on July 12, 1982 already, the New
York Times interviewed a Yugoslav official in Kosovo, a man of
Albanian ancestry, who aid: "'The [Albanian] nationalists have a
two-point platform...first to establish what they call an
ethnically clean Albanian republic and then the
merger with Albania to form a greater Albania." Besides, during
the anti-Yugoslav insurgency of 1981, the Albanian nationalists
had already established a close collaboration between their units
in Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro. All this didn't prevent the
influential US Senator Joseph Lieberman to declare in April 99:
"[The] United States of America and the Kosovo Liberation Army
stand for the same human values and principles... Fighting for
the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values."(6).
In other words, the US and the KLA share the same fight. Besides,
anybody who travels through Kosovo can see everywhere, for
example in the petrol stations, the Albanian and US flags closely
associated.
3. Does the version of NATO still make any sense ?
What did NATO tell us to justify its murderous bombings?
1. That its war was humanitarian. Wrong: it was for oil and to
break an economy which resisted to the Western multinationals and
to the IMF.
2. That it had tried everything to find a negotiated solution.
Also wrong: we now know that there was never any negotiation;
Rambouillet was only a comedy to justify a war which had already
been decided.
3. That it was a clean war. Wrong again: 2.000 Yugoslav civilians
killed, a huge number of factories and infrastructures destroyed,
the use of forbidden and criminal weapons: cluster bombs,
depleted uranium. General Mangum just wote in the very official
journal of the Army War College: " The high-altitude bombing did
very little damage to the Serb military. It was only after NATO
began deliberately attacking civilian targets that the Serbs sued
for peace." (7)
Now what was left of the official version also collapses.
We were told: `The problems of Kosovo are caused by Milosevic'.
The situation is not better with Kostunica and a government which
is subjected to the West ! By the way, the Time confess:
"Remember Kosovo? According to Clinton administration spin during
the 1999 bombing campaign, NATO was rallying to the defense of
helpless ethnic Albanians and their brave champions in the Kosovo
Liberation Army who were fighting a David-vs.-Goliath struggle
against Belgrade's genocidal army.
Well, guess what? Not only has NATO now declared armed Albanian
nationalists of the KLA stripe to be the primary security problem
in the region, the Western alliance is also considering asking
the selfsame Yugoslav army to help NATO troops police the border
between Kosovo and the neighboring former Yugoslavian republic of
Macedonia.
Once Yugoslavia had elected a president with whom the West could
do business, prospects for winning NATO support for formal
independence for Kosovo dimmed even further." (8)
So, you may say white today, and black tomorrow if this useful
for "business". Who will dare to come and speak to us about a
humanitarian war, newt time?
We were told that the intervention was necessary to stop a
Serbian genocide and to establish a multi-ethnic Kosovo. But the
German general Heinz Loquai has demonstrated that the so-called
'horse-shoe plan' document presented by the German minister
Scharping was fake, that the genocide was a lie of the media and
he just qualified the war as 'unjustified', and accused NATO to
have caused two humanitarian catastrophes: a massive exodus of
the Albanians and then another exodus of the Serbs. And the
general Michael Rose, who commanded the UN forces in Bosnia,
reproaches NATO "to have introduced a culture of violence". (9)
Finally, in order to find some excuse for the current ethnic
cleansing in Kosovo, the supporters of NATO and KLA have
pretended that it was 'revenge acts for what the Serbs had done'.
And now, in Macedonia, where nothing happened, under which
pretext should one justify the aggression of the KLA? It is time
to acknowledge the only possible explanation: the KLA aims to
establish an ethnically clean state and can only realise this
program by the escalation of hatred and by terrorism.
4. Does Washington play a double game?
The United States make as if they were indignant at the current
violences of the KLA. But we must point out several things:
1. They didn't move a finger when the KLA went out from Kosovo to
attack the region of Presevo in Central Serbia. Worse: the
infiltration occurred from the US occupation zone in Kosovo.
2. Washington and the NATO pretend today "to try to stop the flux
of weapons and fighters towards southern Serbia and
Macedonia".(10)
But anybody who goes to Kosovo can observe roadblocks and check-
points of the KFOR every five kilometers. But the same KFOR is
working with interprets and other collaborators coming from the
KLA, which besides was transformed by KFOR into the very official
'Kosovo Protection Corps'. So, the ones who don't look for the
weapons of the KLA will not find them. Moreover, the major Jim
Marshall, spokesman of the US KFOR, declared on March, 6: "We
have identified between 75 and 150 rebels in Tanusevci
(Macedonia), we saw them enter and go out from Kosovo, and get
rid of their equipments and weapons before to cross the border."
A little stupid question: what did prevent you to arrest them?
45,000 NATO soldiers are occupying Kosovo and can not arrest 150
terrorists? Can not or don't want to?
On March, 11, in the British newspaper Observer, several European
high officers of KFOR and also several Macedonian officials
accused explicitly the CIA to have encouraged the KLA to start
its summer offensive in the South of Serbia in order to undermine
the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic. Today, who
could guarantee that these encouragements have stopped?
5. Will the KLA start a new war ?
What will happen?
The current fights around Tanusevce could well be the prelude of
more important clashes. For example, to take control of Tetovo,
five kilometers away from the Kosovo border. In any case, one
thing is clear: the KLA, which lost the elections last year, -
because the large majority of the Albanians in Kosovo don't want
to live in a permanent state of war - can only regain ground by
using violence. Including in Macedonia where it pretends to
defend the rights of the Albanian minority, but one often forgets
to remind that, for years, every government of this country has
been made of a coalition with Albanian parties. To take power,
and thus increase the range of its maffia - like traffics,
necessitates war. The tactics of the KLA is thus clear: to cause
an escalation by provoking the Macedonian and the Yugoslavian
armies. Hoping that the later will attack Albanian civilians as
was done by some Serbian forces during the first days of the NATO
bombings.
That will allow to reach two goals:
1. To internationalise the conflict (we will come back to it
later).
2. To enrol new recruits in an Albanian youth which has been
fanatised by nationalism. In spite of the development of many
little traffics more or less legal, the Albanian community of
Macedonia has an unemployment rate of 60%; it is a potential
where to recruit.
To get this escalation, the KLA will probably use again a method
which has already been put in practice. As a French observer of
the OSCE explained it in Kosovo in 1998: "Inside the OSCE,
everybody knew that NATO, in particular the US, didn't want our
mission (of pacification) to succeed. The massacres have been
encouraged to justify a military intervention.
One day we got a message. We were told that Albanian fighters had
been trained by American instructors. They were explained that it
was more strategic to kill Serbian policemen to provoke important
retaliations against the Albanian community." (11) As in Bosnia
and in Kosovo there can be some time before that this tactics
ends up in more important clashes. An important step would be
done by provoking the equivalent of the 'Racak massacre'. In
January 99, in this village of Kosovo that it had fortified, the
KLA had provoked, and lost, a fight between the two armies. But
it made believe that the victims were civilians coldly massacred
by the Yugoslav army. With the help of the CIA, one made believe
this media-lie in the international media and this allow to
condition the Western public opinion to make it accept a war
decided for a long time by the US. Each war of today is preceded
by such a big media-lie, with shocking pictures.
6. What are the US really looking for?
But to do again the 'Racak trick' would necessitate a complicity
of the US to lead the Western media. If this would happen, that
would certainly be the sign that the US superpower would be
preparing a new intervention.
One can oppose two objections to this hypothesis: First the US
are qualifying today the KLA as 'extremist forces' and condemn
their actions, at least in words. Answer: at the beginning of 98
also, they qualified the KLA as 'terrorists', as we have seen,
but that didn't prevent them to support unconditionally the KLA a
few months later. If there is one principle to remember in the
action of the US for ten years, it is that there are no
principles! One can also ask why would the US intervene although
they seem to control the region and have installed there their
military bases ? Of course one doesn't know yet all the aspects
of their current tactics. It may be that behind the scene they
push the KLA to create again some tension in order to help the US
troops to occupy the whole region. As soon as the first incidents
in the Presevo valley occurred, Washington had generously
proposed to station US troops in Serbia proper. One must also
remind that during the so-called 'negotiations' in Rambouillet
before the war, Madeleine Albright had required that NATO will be
allowed to occupy militarily the whole Yugoslavia. It may also be
that new Bush administration has not yet decided which is the
best tactic to protect the US interests in the Balkans, that it
prefers to play for some time with both sides and that the tactic
of the KLA was precisely to force it to take a decision or to act
quicker. In both cases, one thing is sure: the US are not there
to defend peace or protect any people of the Balkans. They are
there to reign. And to reign you have to divide, as we know,
and to divide the best solution is a war, or at least a so-called
'low intensity' war, a situation of 'neither war nor peace' with
irregular clashes.
Isn't it the best way to justify the installation of US military
bases in the Balkans ? Of course, the candidate George Bush had
said that he wanted to move the US troops out of Kosovo. But the
president George Bush rapidly forgot these electoral promises.
Lets remind that in 1995 the candidate Bill Clinton had promised
that the US troops would have left Bosnia by Christmas.
Immediately afterwards, the commander of the UN troops in Bosnia,
the general MacKenzie, answered to a parliamentary commission:
"If I were you, I'd start training your grandchildren as Bosnia
peacekeepers." (12)
Wether it wants to force Bush to intervene or acts in
collaboration with him, the goal of the KLA is in any case to
internationalise again the conflict, as did the Muslims of
Izetbegovic in Bosnia from 1992 and the KLA itself in Kosovo in
1998. By attacking almost at the same time Macedonia and the
South of Serbia, by denouncing in racist terms any Slav presence
on their territories, the leaders of the KLA aim at provoking a
reaction of Macedonia and Yugoslavia, but also of Greece, close
to the Serbs. And, as an indirect result, a retaliation of their
own allies: Albania and Turkey. That is an internationalisation
of the conflict which would force Washington to choose between
its allies and, as the KLA hopes, to definitely choose the
Albanian side.
7. Will Washington still be able to play on both sides?
To understand the situation of the US, it is important to
understand that they systematically play on several sides at the
same time. To support and to manipulate discretely two
adversaries - and even train them militarily - does not embarrass
them at all.
For example, we can read in the British Daily Telegraph of March 3:
"The private company of security which is the most appreciated by
the US government has trained both sides of the last ethnic
conflict in the Balkans. Only two years ago the Albanian rebels
of Kosovo were trained by the society 'Military Professional
Resources' based in Virginia... One of the recent task of this
society was the training of the Macedonian army which is now
shooting on the Albanian guerrilla."
One should not underestimate the role in the US military system
of the private companies and militia, led by former high
officers. Already in Bosnia, they had trained and led the Muslim
militia of the president Izetbegovic before that the US could
openly intervene. And in Croatia they helped the president
Tudjman to realise the bloody ethnic cleansing of the Serbian
Krajina in august 95 (13). History repeats itself.
Having played in several sides, the US can be for a moment in a
difficult situation. From one side, they continue to use the KLA
to get more concessions from Serbia: the complete privatisation
and the elimination of the main opposition party, the SPS (by
sending its president Milosevic to the Court of the Hague). But
on the other hand, if they let the KLA going too far, they will
have troubles with precious allies:
1. The Macedonian government
2. Greece (also threatened by the demands of the KLA)
3. The Yugoslav president Kostunica.
The Macedonian government has not much autonomy and one says that
Washington could impose it what it wants, including a federal
state, prelude to a splitting. Moreover, the Macedonian leaders
are very weakened by various scandals, which have revealed their
links with the US. The left opposition claims to be more
independent, but its main candidate was put aside by terror
during the last elections. Macedonia, a too weak and unstable
ally for Washington ?
On the other hand, the Greek leaders are important pawns in the
NATO strategy of Washington. But the Greek people is strongly
against NATO, the influence of the communist party is important
and very recently one third of the Greek soldiers have required
and obtained to be moved out from Kosovo to escape the dangers of
depleted uranium.
Finally by playing too openly with the card of the KLA, the US
would strongly endangered the president Kostunica, who was
elected with an ambiguous profile - anti-NATO and pro-West - and
who can not present to his opinion any positive result about
Kosovo, to the contrary. To allow him to make come again some
Yugoslav troops to watch the border is maybe a small concession
to give some more credit to Kostunica and to somehow balance the
two 'friends' of the US. But the reason can also be simply to
avoid that US soldiers would be in first line and risk to come
back to the US in body-bags, which is always embarrassing for the
US opinion. And, in a more machiavellian way, that would start
again clashes between Serbs and Albanians.
What if Washington drops the KLA and reverses its alliance? Then
it could be that its German 'ally' -but also rival- supports
again secretly the KLA as it did at the beginning 98 (14). Which
also explains that the KLA has interest to make even more
provocations. The rivalry between Western great powers is thus
another factor which increases the risks of war.
Many European politicians had already accused the US to be guilty
of having uselessly prolonged the war in Bosnia in order to
eliminate their German competitor which had got a too good
position. (15) Reverse the alliance? One has already seen
everything in this respect from the US, for example between Iran,
Iraq and Syria. But their goal is to establish in the Balkans a
'plane-carrier' state, like Israel in the Middle-East. For this,
an obvious choice is still an Albanian state which would owe
everything to Washington. However, the European powers refuse a
change of the borders in the Balkans. This would cause new wars
and destabilise the projects of 'corridors' described above.
One thing is sure: the intervention of NATO for some hidden
interests didn't bring and will not bring peace.
8. Do they really ask themselves if they have created a monster?
It is again in The Guardian that one could read, on March 12, a
surprising question: 'Did we create a monster ?'.
Their special correspondent in Pristina reports:
"The West is stunned. Balkan nightmares were supposed to have
ended with the fall of Slobodan Milosevic. But now Albanian
nationalist militants are stirring ethnic rivalries in a quest
for a greater Kosovo. The liberated victims have become the
villains. In Washington and London, and in the offices of NATO
and UN in Pristina, a question is dominating: did we create a
monster?"
The correspondent of the Guardian led a quite vast investigation
with the staff of UN and KFOR and concludes:
"The failure of KFOR to disarm the KLA, protect the Serb minority
and build a multi-ethnic society has created a climate in which
extremists flourish. For almost a year it ignored intellectuals
who urged a crackdown on KLA members who seized assets and set up
criminal networks. "Now it's too late, the moderates won the
election, but those who smuggle and run the rackets have the real
power," one officer serving there admits."
Disastrous result, and one understands that the former governor
of Kosovo, Bernard Kouchner, had quickly left the ship before
that his self-satisfied TV statements have been refuted. Because
what The Guardian reports is true.
I was myself in Kosovo last December to make there a documentary
movie "The damned of Kosovo" (which will be ready next May). I
discovered there a hell for the Serbs and all non - Albanian
minorities. Most of them have been expelled from Kosovo: ethnic
cleansing. The ones who have stayed live in terror. To speak its
own language in public constitutes a mortal danger. Also to go on
highways in non-Serbian zones. But the terror strikes also a
number of Albanians. KLA maffiosi kill Albanians also. To take
houses, companies or women. And many of the Albanian with who I
was talking, predicted a civil war - between Albanians - in two
or three years time.
Quickly The Guardian mentions the theory of 'the mistake': The
West would 'have misunderstood the danger of Albanian
nationalism'.
Of which 'West' are we talking here? If it is the public, it is
indeed true that it didn't understand because one hided to it
carefully the truth. When some analysts explained that the
program of the KLA was the ethnic cleansing, they were almost
excluded of the media or even considered as evils. But if one
speaks about the leaders of this 'West' - the White House, Tony
Blair, Solana and Robertson, the CIA - they knew of course for a
long time because their own reports considered the KLA as
'terrorists'.
In Kosovo, we have also seen that one has to distinguish between
a number of honest Western aid workers and militaries, and their
high-level officials. The former went to Kosovo with prejudices
but also with good will. The later have
been sent to Kosovo to hide this truth, to hide the secret goals
of the US and their allies and to lie. It is certainly in the
first category that one must put Eric Torch, a UN aid worker
cited by The Guardian:
"Albanians trace their lineage to the Illyrans who controlled the
territory in the 11th century BC. Underground schools during
Milosevic's rule inculcated ethnic hatred into generations."
Yes, you have read correctly: 'during Milosevic's rule'. This
confirms what have said some unconventional analysts: these
parallel Albanian schools, organized by the party of Rugova and
financed by the US taught racist anti-Serbian conceptions. It was
wrong to say that the responsibility of the conflict was entirely
on the side of the Serbs. Pushed by the US, the Albanian leaders
of Kosovo refused to negotiate seriously, they wanted only
independence and taught the hatred to achieve it.
9. Which role will play the rivalry US -EU?
One can not understand the attitude of the US in these events
without replacing it in the context of their world strategy. One
of the key-men of the new Bush administration is called
Wolfowitz.
In our book Liar's Poker we made comments about his shock-report
of March 92:
"The status of unique super-power of the US must be preserved by
a constructive behaviour and a sufficient military force to
dissuade any nation or group of nations to challenge the
supremacy of the US. We must act in order to prevent the
appearance of a security system exclusively European which could
destabilise NATO" (16).
The US military budget began to blow up under Clinton and this
will continue under Bush. Three potential rivals at more or less
long term are today the potential targets of this dangerous
strategy: the European Union, Russia, China. The embassy of the
later was bombed as a warning. It is considered by the CIA as
risking to overtake around 2015-2030 the power of the US.
Concerning Russia, the new US State secretary, Colin Powell,
declared that the objections of Moscow would not prevent the
expansion of NATO to the East or the militarisation of space by
the so-called 'anti-missiles shield' (NMD). His colleague
Condoleezza Rice declared that she sincerely "believes that
Russia is a threat for the West" (17). And the Defence secretary
Rumsfeld attacked Russia for "its 'active proliferation of
missiles' to countries like Iran, Korea or India". (18)
Concerning Europe, Rumsfeld warned against any autonomous
European intervention force which would perturb the transatlantic
relation during the conference of Munich about global safety,
beginning of February. Answer of the German minister Joskha
Fisher: the new Bush administration wants to restart a new arms
race. His colleague Scharping expressed sympathy for the Russian
views about NMD. Germany has, like France, condemned the US
bombings against Iraq. Moreover, the ambition of the US to
dictate their will to the whole world is currently braked by
several points of resistance that they don't succeed to
eliminate. Iraq still resists, as well as the Palestinians. The
US intervention in Colombia could transform itself into a new
Vietnam. The communist guerrilla in Nepal worries the American
experts. Some of them think that it is time to find a solution in
the Balkans and to focus on other operations. All this on a
background of growing commercial rivalries and crisis which could
only worsen the tension USA-Europe.
The game that these powers are playing in the Balkans for ten
years, each of them trying to get the biggest part of the cake,
this game will continue to cause damages to the peoples of the
region. When the elephants fight each other, it is the grass
which is smashed. And after all the gifts that the US have given
to reward the terrorism of the KLA, one can expect that this
example will be contagious for some fractions of the Albanian
community in Macedonia and Montenegro or for other secessionist
movements in the world. One will use provocations and terrorism
to try to present oneself as 'victims'. The mistrust between US
and Europe about Kosovo increased when the candidate Bush
threatened to move out the US troops from the Balkans, letting
the Europeans alone in what one is forced to call a mess. Since
then, many European officials criticize -privately- the support
of the US to the terrorists of KLA.
An expert of the French Institute of International Relations
(IFRI) has just declared:
"The Dayton process is dead. The whole system needs to be
renegotiated. But no-one wants to open the Pandora's box by
calling it into question, risking poisoning the situation on the
ground. If for example, the Kosovo Albanians were appeased with a
state of their own, it would trigger a domino effect that would
see Serbia's junior partner in the rump Yugoslavia, Montenegro,
as well as Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats all renewing their
own independence claims. For some time it appeared the Americans
were prepared to look at changing borders. I think that cannot
happen now, and if they did try it they would be opposed by
Europe." (19)
What will be the outcome?
In fact, Bush has four options:
1. to redraw his troops. That would have strongly embarrassed the
Europeans. It is now not possible anymore, especially with the
depleted uranium scandal.
2. to reverse the alliance and to support the Serbia of
Kostunica. But the US troops could become the targets of the KLA.
And one is not sure that Serbia will be a reliable partner for
the long term. The spirit of popular resistance is still alive
there.
3. to support both sides by using a strategy of tension.
4. to maintain the support to the KLA to create an Albanian
'Israel-like' state while hiding its game as long as possible.
No one of the options is moral, we have seen that this criteria
is never relevant. But to realize their strategic long-term
goals, the US can well resort to changing and contradictory
tactics.
For now a combination of the options 3 and 4 seems the most
likely to us. But maybe the US have not decided yet and they are
waiting to see the most favourable according to the reactions of
their 'friends'?
In any case, the tactics being changing, some docile media would
have some trouble to explain to the peoples that the good guys
are not good anymore and that the bad guys are on the other side.
Let's hope that these troubles will cause a deep reflexion. If
one doesn't understand the economic interests at stake, and
first, the ones of the multinationals looking for new markets,
working forces and raw materials, it is impossible to understand
all these wars.
10. Is Kostunica in a trap ?
The president Kostunica has been elected by defending an
ambiguous position: on one hand, he denounces the war of NATO,
the occupation of Kosovo and the interference of the US; on the
other hand, he promises the reconciliation with this very same
West and an economic improvement thanks to Western aid.
Till now the least one can say is that he wasn't rewarded
concerning Kosovo. On March 6, he declared:
"The representatives of the international community in Kosovo are
facing failure, because they did not provide stability and peace,
and the crisis spilled over into Macedonia. Kfor is dealing with
its own security, and not with the security of those because of
whom it is here." (20)
Kostunica also accused KFOR of "stimulating instead of curbing
the aspirations of a Greater Albania. KFOR is abandoning
protection of the border and is inviting our army to be in the
crossfire" (21) He also expressed hope that the policy of the new
U.S. administration would be marked by "a high level of non-
interference in the problems of other states". (22)
The paradox is that two days after having warned so clearly
against NATO and the interference of the US , the same Kostunica
added that "he did not rule out Yugoslavia becoming a formal
alliance partner one day."(23) A NATO which is however the most
obvious tool of the interference spirit of the US!
In the same declaration, the Yugoslav president declared himself
disappointed:
"When I came to office, I did not expect the situation in the
country to be quite so difficult; it is discouraging," citing
security and constitutional problems as well as 40 percent
unemployment and 800,000 refugees. Surprising declaration as the
800,000 refugees (expelled from Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo) are
living in Serbia for years. Concerning the unemployed, did he
lead his electoral campaign by ignoring that the Western embargo
and the state of the economy had such consequences? And by not
reading the program of the economists of his own electoral
coalition which foresaw privatisations and massive dismissals ?
How to interpret these contradictory statements?
In fact, as expected, the material situation of the Serbian
population has still worsened with the Djindjic government. If
the salaries of the university professors have been doubled, the
ones of the workers have only increased by 25% to 50%, and it is
completely insufficient to face the huge increases of the prices.
The cubic meter of gas has gone from three up to twelve dinars,
the kilo of sausages from 150 up to 300 dinars, the electricity
bill of a household has increased from 150 or 200 dinars a month
to 500 dinars! The electricity company of Belgrade indicates that
130,000 households of the city have a very important debt: more
than 30,000 dinars! And the price of petrol also increases, all
the more that the new government took control of all the oil
sector in order to eliminate the black market of petrol (cheaper).
As expected, the honeymoon didn't last. If the president
Kostunica is not considered as personally responsible for all
this, the rate of discontent towards the new government of Zoran
Djindjic on the other hand has already gone up to 60%: "He
doesn't do anything for the people. Even during the war, we had
always had electricity, but with the 'great democracy', the cuts
last for four hours during the day, three hours at night" is it
told everywhere. And many judge that elections are unavoidable in
12 or 18 months time. The heterogeneous coalition of 18 parties
should split quite soon. It is why one must dismiss Milosevic and
eliminate the risk of a come back of the socialist party, even if
this party has not yet gone up in the polls.
Which evolution is to foresee inside Yugoslavia?
The professors that are not from the universities are on a
prolonged strike. Many strikes occur also in the industry, only
broken by threats of collective dismissals. This didn't prevent
the new left trade-union 'Solidarity' to get at the car factory
Zastava an additional increase of salary of 25%. On the other
hand, the minority trade-union of government tendency had refused
to join the strike. 'Solidarity' has announced the publication of
a monthly newspaper and the next months should see it increasing
its influence.
Did Kostunica fall in a trap of the West? Was he expecting to get
more support in the question of Kosovo and for the economy?
Till now he just got alms and the US make the other credits
depend on the extradition of Milosevic. What Kostunica can not do
otherwise he would contradict himself and commit a political
suicide. Thus, the US finance a new campaign of OTPOR to
criminalize Milosevic. The US, which, for fifty years, have
supported, financed and armed all the far-right and military
dictatorships in the world, these US which have protected the
crimes of Pinochet, Mobutu, Franco, Salazar, the Greek colonels
and the Turkish fascist generals, these US pretend to judge just
one former head of state, precisely one who has resisted to them?
The US deserve the Oscar of hypocrisy.
11. Perspectives.
In a world marked by a looming economic crisis, by an increase
of the wars and a frightening increase of the military budgets,
it is important to fully draw the lessons of Kosovo and of the
current situation.
1. There are no 'humanitarian' wars, only economic and strategic
wars.
2. The US and NATO are not searching to solve the problems but to
dominate the world. Thus they create or excite the problems when
it is useful for them
3. The military intervention against Yugoslavia and in favour of
the KLA has worsened everything.
4. It is not 'by mistake' that Washington supported the KLA, but
consciously. It is urgent to reinforce or to recreate a powerful
peace movement on a grass-root level. The only way to get there
is to work with patience in establishing the dialog between the
peoples, who are all victims of this strategy of 'dividing to
conquer'. And for this, to debate of the results of this war and
of the real strategies of the great powers is the fundamental
condition.
The struggle for peace begins with a lucid analysis.
12th of March 2001
Notes
(1) Michel Collon, Monopoly - L'Otan � la Conqu�te du monde, EPO,
march 2000, p. 96. (English edition prepared)
(2) The Guardian, February 15, 2001.
(3) Idem.
(4) Idem.
(5) AFP-Skopje, March 6, 2001.
(6) Washington Post, April 28, 1999.
(7) Pittsburgh Gazette, March 11, 2001.
(8) Time, 8 mars 2001
(9) Both cited in Kan Anders-Vredeskoerier (Holland), march 2001.
(10) Declaration of Robertson (NATO), AP, March 6.
(11) L'Humanit�, November 18, 1999
(12) Pittsburgh Gazette, March 11, 2001
(13) Michel Collon, Poker menteur, EPO, 1998, p. 191. (Soon
published in English version)
(14) See Monopoly, pp. 70-71.
(15) The European mediator in Bosnia, David Owen, cited in Michel
Collon, Poker menteur, EPO, 1998, p. 182.
(16) Michel Collon, Poker menteur, p. 116.
(17) Le Figaro, February 10, 2001.
(18) PBS, February 14, 2001.
(19) AFP - Paris, March 8, 2001.
(20) BBC, March 6.
(21) Reuters - Skopje, March 8, 2001.
(22) BBC, March 6.
(23) Reuters - London, March 8, 2001
---------------------------------------END
------
Bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"
Sito WEB : http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only")
Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid'979
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
------
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Una newsletter personale,
un forum web personale,
una mailing list personale, ...?
Gratis sotto
http://www.domeus.it/ad1223640/www.domeus.it
Se vuoi cancellarti da questo gruppo, clicca qui: http://www.domeus.it/info/unsubscribe