After Kosovo, Macedonia (Article of Michel Collon in English)

["glr" <glr.y@iol.it>]

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 à la Conquête 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'Humanité, 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


----- 
Giorgio Ellero 
<glr.y@iol.it> 
http://digilander.iol.it/glry 
-----