KIM, I DONT NEED ANY CRITICISM OF HOW I AM TRYING TO HELP YOU. PLEASE. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS KEEP SPEAKING TO MARIE IN THE OPEN-MINDED WAY FOR A WHILE AND SHE WILL GET THE POINT. I WILL TALK TO HE ABOUT DOING THE SAME.

Okay! Thank you.

What is this idiot Kouchner in another world?It is time for him to ggo,he doemn't have a clue. Monday, October 23 12:58 AM SGT

Kouchner's UN Kosovo mission under fire as poll approaches
PRISTINA, Yugoslavia, Oct 22 (AFP) -
Bernard Kouchner's UN mission in Kosovo on Sunday entered the last week before the province's first post-war election, defending itself after a series of high profile reports criticised its rights record.

A damning report on election preparations from the US-based group Human Rights Watch was released Friday, following a broadside Wednesday by Kosovo's OSCE legal monitors and an earlier rebuke from Medecins Sans Frontieres over protection for minorities.

Taken together, the reports from three prominent groups add up to an attack on Kouchner's progress on the three main planks of his mission -- the establishment of representative government, protection for minorities and the rule of law.

But each report has been strongly contested by the mission, which has predicted that the October 28 municipal poll will mark a successful first stage of the transfer of authority to elected bodies.

The Human Rights Watch report said: "Basic requirements for a free and fair vote in Kosovo include adequate protection for ethnic minorities, freedom of movement, a free media and an environment free of political violence that can ensure freedom of assembly, association, and expression. These conditions are lacking in Kosovo today."

But the report was dismissed as "unsubstantiated" by Roland Bless, a spokesman for the the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) which is organising the poll on behalf of the UN mission.

"We appreciate the need for outside scrutiny and welcome it, but the conclusions of this report are not supported by the facts," he said, "We would reject the idea that we are not ready to hold free and fair elections."

The report catalogues a number of attacks including four murders and a bomb attack it said were politically motivated, but Bless denied that the list amounted to proof of widespread intimidation or a brake on free speech.

"There has been violence, and there is some intimidation, but we have seen no proof that the murders were directly linked to the campaigns," he said, adding: "In recent weeks the campaign has been extremely peaceful."

The report also that that the decision by Kosovo's Serb minority to boycott the poll was "predictable" given the violence they have suffered since the end of Kosovo's 1998-1999 war between ethnic Albanian separatists and Yugoslav forces.

But Bless said minorities had been strongly urged to register to vote and security measures had been taken to try and ensure they were free to do so.

In August, Medecins Sans Frontieres, the Nobel Prize-winning medical humanitarian organisation which Kouchner helped found, denounced what it described as the UN mission's continuing failure to end violence against members of the Serb and Roma minorities.

They withdrew their medical teams from Kosovo's minority areas refusing "to remain silent in face of the lack of effective action from the international community."

On Wednesday an OSCE monitoring team that carried out a six-month review of his administration's justice system concluded it failed to live up to international standards, accused it of anti-Serb bias and reported a series of rights abuses and illegal detentions.

"In certain circumstances, the authorities in Kosovo are not complying with the applicable law, including international human rights laws," a summary of the report noted.

The head of the UN mission's justice department, Sylvie Pantz, promised to set up a working group to look at the report's recommendations, but said it was "unrealistic" and ignored the reality of life in Kosovo.

BUSH, THE BALKANS, AND THE BIPARTISAN "DIVISION OF LABOR"
Is George W. Bush a secret non-interventionist, or, as the title of George Szamuely's recent column put it, is Dubya a "closet Buchananite"? That such a question can be raised, these days, even in a half-serious manner, only underscores the disorienting effect of our seasonal fever, presidential election year politics. I suggest that purveyors of this theory take a deep breath, two aspirin – and a look at the facts.




A SHRILL AND WOMANISH RESPONSE
This comes up because of a recent New York Times news article, with the traditional triple-decker Times-style headline: first on deck was "Bush Would Stop US Peacekeeping in Balkan Fights"; second was the laconic "Europe to Bear Burden"; and the third headline, in a burst of verbosity, declared unequivocally that this was "A Plan for the Most Important Shift in NATO Duties Since the End of the Cold War" – thus providing Al Gore with the theme of his own overstated critique of recent statements by Bush advisor Condolezza Rice. Gore's shrill and womanish response – "I can't believe anyone who understands the importance of NATO could make such a proposal!" – was typically exaggerated: "I believe it demonstrates a lack of judgment and a complete misunderstanding of history to think that America can simply walk away from security challenges on the European continent, which is, after all, a core American interest in the world." If US troops should leave Bosnia and/or Kosovo, it "would lead to the collapse of NATO and eventually threaten the peace in Europe," he said. But this addresses a proposal the Bush camp never made: no one is saying that, in belated recognition of the end of World War II (not to mention the end of the cold war), we should bring our troops home from Europe – no one, that is, but Pat Buchanan and (when asked) Ralph Nader. What the Bushies are up to is quite different, and has nothing to do with their sudden conversion to "isolationism" and the cause of peace: indeed, quite the opposite.

DIVISION OF LABOR
The Times piece starts out trumpeting the sensational news that "If elected president, George W. Bush plans to tell NATO that the United States should no longer participate in peacekeeping in the Balkans, signaling a major new division of labor in the Western alliance, according to Mr. Bush's senior national security aide." What is this division of labor? Since Bush supported and continues to support the initial decision to bomb Yugoslavia, what the Bushian policy comes down to is: we'll do the bombing and you police the ruins. But it's not as simple as that. What Ms. Rice has in mind is something far grander, and far more ominous as far as opponents of US global meddling are concerned.

BIGGER FISH TO FRY
In spite of the rather misleading plethora of headlines that adorned the Times piece, Rice's statements are the clearest evidence yet that war is definitely on the Bushian agenda – just not a war in the Balkans. "The governor is talking about a new division of labor. The United States is the only power that can handle a showdown in the [Persian] gulf, mount the kind of force that is needed to protect Saudi Arabia and deter a crisis in the Taiwan Straits," she said, "and extended peacekeeping detracts from our readiness for these kinds of global missions." Never mind Kosovo, the Bushians are saying, we have bigger fish to fry and we don't need any "distractions." This seems like a pretty straightforward statement that, if Bush is elected President, we will soon be at war in the Middle East – more than likely in another Western crusade against the arch-villain Saddam Hussein, whom we have made (in the eyes of the Arab street) into a twenty-first century Saladin.

HOPE IN VAIN
Nothing must "distract" the incoming Bush administration from Big Oil's goal of seizing effective control of Middle East oil supplies: the biggest discovery of oil in years (as much as 50 billion barrels) in the lands bordering the Caspian Sea has Western corporate and government officials (or do I repeat myself?) slavering at the mere thought of the profits to be had, provided an initial taxpayer "investment" is forthcoming. Iraq is the gateway to the Caucasus, and the breakup of the country as a unitary state will give the West entry. This has been the long-term goal of the Clintonian policy in the region, thus far with little or no success: the Republicans say they can do better, and, if elected, can be fully expected to go about proving it. This is one campaign promise that one can only hope is not kept: unfortunately for the Iraqi people, who have suffered enough, that hope will probably be in vain. . . .



http://128.121.216.19/justin/justincol.html

BIG STORY Monday, October 16, 2000

FOCUS ON MOLDOVA:
NEW ANTI-RUSSIAN NATO MACHINATIONS
by Denis Petrov
On October 2, the U.S. Embassy in Moscow saw fit to deny the existence of a secret plan cooked up by American spooks and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to partition Moldova. Bearing in mind events in the Balkans in recent years, this denial was enough to convince most Russian and Moldovan/Romanian patriots that the plan is already operational.

The State Department was reacting to a September 23 article in the influential Izvestiya daily, claiming that talks between Russia and Moldova on the fate of the breakaway “Dniester Moldovan Republic” had broken down because of a “secret plan” pushed by the West to annex Moldova to Romania and the Dniester region to Ukraine.

(This self-styled Dniester Republic, sometimes referred to as Transdnistria, is a predominately Slavic, Russian-speaking region. In 1940 it was fused with the former Romanian province of Bessarabia to form the Soviet Moldovan Republic in one of Stalin’s notorious land grabs.)

According to Izvestiya, the plan would involve annexation of the Dniester region by a nationalist Ukraine. The paper strongly implied that the West was backing the resurgent Ukrainian nationalist movement in pro-NATO Western Ukraine-as a prelude to further NATO expansion. As in Kosovo, however, the NATO-crats plan on exploiting nationalism only tactically: the real aim is to force the unconditional removal of the Russian 14th army from the Dniester region, making way for an eventual NATO military presence. Meanwhile, a suitably tamed and re-united Romania -- one that would be bound by OSCE guidelines on "human rights" not to enforce recent laws giving the Romanian language legal predominance -- would be absorbed by OSCE/EU structures. The price for eventual integration into the European Union would be the negation of a distinct Romanian identity.

Izvestiya further claimed that a delay in Russian-Moldovan talks was forced on the Russian delegation, led by former Prime Minister Yevgeniy Primakov, as a prelude to scuttling the Russian plan to transform Moldova into a confederation that would leave the Moldovan state intact while granting the Dniester region autonomy. Under the American plan Russia would carry out a phased withdrawal of the 14th Army, which the OSCE would pay for.

The Primakov plan, which appears to have suited both the Moldovans and the Russians -- at least for now -- was not enough to satisfy the NATOcrats: Russia would still maintain ties with an autonomous Dniester Republic, ties which would probably include a guarantee of Dniester self-determination should Moldova eventually rejoin Romania. Moreover, the region would probably seek admittance to the Russian-Belarussian Union under such circumstances, thereby maintaining Russian influence in the region. The “secret plan” was devised to pre-empt such eventualities.

On the same day as the Izvestiya article, Kommersant, a business-oriented Russian daily, filled in the missing pieces to the diplomatic puzzle. Kommersant pointed out that the U.S. Congress had recently allocated $45 million for funding "military assistance" to certain former Soviet republics, including Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Moldova. The aim appears to be to weaken Russian influence in those states by undermining the Russian-brokered CIS, a commonwealth of former Soviet republics, and strengthening a Western-influenced GUUAM (Georgia-Ukraine-Uzbekistan-Azerbaijan-Moldova) counterpart.

The net effect of the NATO/OSCE/EU machinations would be to isolate Russia by creating a NATO-dominated buffer zone on the periphery of the former Soviet empire. This buffer zone would also just so happen to include a number of states acting as gas and oil transit lines, states whose importance will only increase as Caspian sea deposits are developed. It is small wonder then that an increasing number of Russians view the West with suspicion and downright hostility: The ultimate objective of NATO’s version of the Anaconda plan would be to weaken, if not dismember, Russia.

Chorny, great posts!!!

I thought so too,very revealing info and quite the insight.They all came from TENC.COM That is the site that was hacked by CIA.Ithink these guys over there are really in tune with what is going on.

Chorny, Kim, please vote for me at the upcoming elections. I have a feeling Toyman is making me run again. Thanks. Chorny, where have you been all this time?

Chorny, so are they finally getting the message, that info is power and there's no need to insert Nazi every other line! Good.

Urn, I already voted!

Where are Dimitri and Russ?

Ultra I am around, just observing the goings on here and there.Not much in the way of discussions lately.Serbian Cafe' Speakers Corner a joke .They say write in English and I see a lot of Serbian there ,no discussion either just bs chat.They can not even follow their own rules and then the one jerk insults me for nothing.

Who Are the G-17 economists? They are the neoliberal planners behind the Yugoslav 'democratic' opposition...

The International Monetary Fund And The Yugoslav Elections

(A shortened version of this article, entitled 'Lethal Medicine', was published by the Swedish newspaper, Aftonbladet.)

by Michel Chossudovsky and Jared Israel (9-28-2000)

www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]

"We want to be open colony and open society." G-17 coordinator VESELIN VUKOTIC interviewed on "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer", US Public Television, July 14, 1999.

How the International Monetary Fund and World Bank operate: "First, they force governments to do away with any social protections - subsidized food or rent, free transportation, free medical care. Second, they force businesses - public and private - into bankruptcy. Then these businesses are taken over by a small clique of leveraged buyout speculators and other powerful foreign economic interests. They purchase the businesses at rock bottom prices. This is called "Privatization through Liquidation" which is standard practice in the Balkans and Eastern Europe." (From the text below)

Recently there's been a lot of interest in the economists in the Yugoslav group G-17. They wrote the Program adopted by the so-called "democratic" opposition and its Presidential candidate, Vojislav Kostunica. (For a discussion of that Program, see "US Arrogance & Yugoslav Elections" at www.emperors-clothes.com/engl.htm )

The G-17 likes to give the impression it is independent and Yugoslav-oriented. In fact it is funded mainly through the Washington-based Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE). CIPE describes itself as "an affiliate of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce." But in fact it is "a core institute" of the National Endowment for Democracy which has nothing to do, as far as we can tell, with Democracy. Rather, the Endowment was created in 1983 to solve a problem of Empire. People knew that the CIA bribed intellectuals and leaders and set up front groups to carry out US policy:

"When these covert activities surfaced (as they inevitably did), the fallout was devastating." ('Washington Post', Sept. 22, 1991).

This is why Congress created the National Endowment for Democracy.

Allen Weinstein, who planned the Endowment, said:

"A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." ('Washington Post', Sept. 21, 1991)

The National Endowment for Democracy (a sort of CIA spin-off) controls and pays for the Center for International Private Enterprise which in turn funds the G-17.

Three of the leading members of G-17 are Washington-based staff members of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. They are, Dusan Vujovic, Zeliko Bogetic and Branko Milanovic. In addition, G-17 coordinator Professor Veselin Vukotic has worked closely with the World Bank. He was in charge of the World Bank "bankruptcy program" in Yugoslavia during 1989-1990, which led to the devastation of the Yugoslav economy and set the stage for the breakup of Yugoslavia. While on IMF/WB payrolls, they are heavily involved in politics in Serbia and Montenegro. Other members of the G-17 consult for the World Bank and attend World Bank-organized meetings.

The "democratic" opposition works with the G-17. It has endorsed the G-17 Economic program. If it got into power, the G-17 economists would be in charge of remaking Yugoslavia. This is not a guess. The opposition Program calls for working closely with the International Monetary Fund. The Fund always insists that its men run the show. That is not open for negotiation. And the IMF's men can conveniently be found among the leading members of G-17.

On their Website, the G-17 states that their aim is to establish: "...a network of experts in all Serbian towns able to create and practically implement necessary changes in all fields of social life."

This is not simply a group of economists. It is a network. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank are using this network to impose their policies on Yugoslavia. Meanwhile they tell everyone the fiction that G-17 is a home-grown alternative.

G-17 Coordinator Mladjan Dinkic is right now on his way to Bulgaria to draw up a "Letter Of Intent" with his colleagues at the International Monetary Fund. This will be the first step toward enforcing IMF "economic medicine." "We hope they will accept it," Dinkic said to a Pacifica Radio reporter.

Economic Medicine Worse than Russia and Ukraine

What happens when the IMF takes over a country?

One of the writers of this article, Prof. Chossudovsky, studies the International Monetary Fund and World Bank and what their policies do to countries. The G-17 Economic Program contains the same measures they forced on Russia, the Ukraine, Bulgaria and Peru, and many others. The results: social and economic devastation.

But Yugoslavia has resisted NATO's attack on its national sovereignty. So the IMF will hit Yugoslavia with even harder economic medicine.

Forced Bankruptcies and Mass Misery

G-17 economists like to talk about "free markets" and "privatization." But in fact their International Monetary Fund wrecks countries.

First, they force governments to do away with any social protections - subsidized food or rent, free transportation, free medical care. Out the window.

Second, they use economic manipulation and new laws to force businesses - public and private - into bankruptcy. Then these businesses are taken over by a small clique of leveraged buyout speculators and other powerful foreign economic interests. They purchase the businesses at rock bottom prices. This is called "Privatization through Liquidation" and it is standard practice in the Balkans and Eastern Europe.

A case in point: Yugoslavia, 1989

The elder statesman of the G-17 is Professor Veselin Vukotic. Presently he is one of the economic brains behind Montenegrin secessionism.

But what was he doing before the breakup of Yugoslavia?

In 1989 he was appointed Minister of Privatization under Yugoslav Premier Ante Markovic.

Yugoslavs have bitter memories of 1989-1991. But do they "put a human face" on the nightmare? Perhaps people think the economic disaster resulted from "market mechanisms" or "incompetent government." In fact it resulted from a World Bank plan.

People in Ante Markovic's government pulled the strings. In 1989-90, Professor Vukotic worked with his Cabinet colleagues and an army of Western lawyers and consultants. They imposed the Financial Operations Act. It was a World Bank plan.

Under this law, companies were carefully selected for bankruptcy or liquidation. They were forced to meet impossible conditions. In this way, the World Bank, through the Ministry of Privatization headed by Professor Vukotic orchestrated the breakup of fifty percent of Yugoslav industry. World Bank data confirms that under his direction more than 1100 industrial firms were wiped out from January 1989 to September 1990

And that was only the beginning.

Over 614,000 industrial workers were laid off out of 2.7 million. The areas hardest hit were: Serbia, including Kosovo, and Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia. Real wages did a nose-dive. Social programs collapsed. Unemployment shot up.

And now this same Professor Vukotic, a key man in the G-17, wants to return to power. When the IMF gets its jaws on a country it forces the government to work under people who have already served the IMF and World Bank before. People like Professor Vukotic. Vukotic could finish the job he started in 1989 under the World Bank, a job ironically discontinued when economic sanctions were imposed in 1992. (Bulgaria would probably be better off today if it had been hit with sanctions instead of with the International Monetary Fund!)

Giving Montenegrin Property to Foreign Speculators

While Prof. Vukotic hopes to regain cabinet status in a "democratic" opposition government in Yugoslavia he has also been working closely with the secessionist government of Montenegro. Montenegrin President Milo Djukanovic, his former student, had put him in charge of the privatization program which is auctioning off state property in Montenegro.

Recently we found a US Commerce Department advertisement on the internet. The title is: " Montenegro: Seeks Privatization Fund Managers."

The advertisement explains that these Managers are needed in Montenegro, where US officials are "providing technical support" for so-called privatization. The managers would control "funds" that would take over ownership of what is now public property. The Managers could "restructure" these privatized companies - lay off the workers and sell the most valuable components. The Commerce department promises that this "should be quite profitable." Note how brazenly the U.S. Commerce Department celebrates turning Montenegrin property into foreign profit.

Kosovo

Professor Vukotic has also been vocal on the political and economic status of Kosovo. Last June NATO marched into Kosovo, and the UCK (or Kosovo Liberation Army) along with them. Wherever they went, they drove loyal Yugoslav citizens from their homes, stole or destroyed their property and threatened them with death. By June 26, the expulsions were at a peak.

While Kosovo was devastated, Professor Vukotic said: "Kosovo should also have its own currency." That's virtually the same as saying Kosovo should be a separate country. ('Associated Press,' June 26, 1999)

The Deutschmark was adopted as legal tender and almost the entire banking system in Kosovo was handed over to Germany’s Commerzbank A.G. And the G-17 economists applaud…

The G-17 on the IMF-World Bank Payroll

One of the most prominent members of the G-17 is Dr. Dusan Vujovic, a senior economist at the World Bank. He acts as a link between the G-17 and Washington. He has been very active overseeing "reforms" in so-called "transition countries". In August 2000, Vujovic was put in charge of negotiating one of the World Bank's most deadly economic packages. It was imposed on the Ukraine, already devastated by earlier IMF-World Bank reforms.

What happened to the Ukraine? The Ukraine disaster started in the fall of 1994. Prime Minister Vitali Masol signed an agreement with the International Monetary Fund. In exchange for accepting "economic shock treatment" Ukraine got a 360 million dollar loan. That's a very small amount for a country. "Reforms" began in mid-October, 1994. The IMF ordered the Ukrainian authorities to end State controls over the currency exchange rate. This led to the collapse of the currency. The price of bread shot up overnight - 300%. Electricity - up 600%. Public transportation - up 900%.

The population was forced to buy necessities based on "dollarized" prices. Meanwhile people were earning less than ten dollars a month. Credit was frozen. With electricity prices sky high and no credit, public and private industries were destroyed. The international speculators moved in like sharks in a frenzy.

Then in November 1994, World Bank negotiators were sent in to further "advise" the government. This time they overhauled Ukraine's agriculture. The grain market was deregulated. This allowed the US to dump grain surpluses on the Ukraine market. Ukraine went from being a grain exporter to begging for Food Aid from the European Union and the U.S. Thanks to the International Monetary Fund, Ukraine is now a starving political protectorate of the US and Germany. And remember, Ukraine never did anything to offend the U.S. It didn't rebel for 10 years, like Yugoslavia.

The Case of Bulgaria

Another key member of the G-17 is Dr. Zeliko Bogetic who holds a senior position at the International Monetary Fund. The International Monetary Fund has been the doctor in many economic cures. The patient always dies. In 1994-96, Bogetic participated on behalf of the IMF in forcing a structural adjustment program (SAP) on Bulgaria. All social defenses - price controls, subsidized food, housing and medical care - were stripped away.

The program led to mass poverty and terrible suffering. By 1997, old age pensions (according to World Bank sources) had collapsed to two dollars a month. The World Bank admits that 90 percent of Bulgarians now live below the poverty line but, they announce, much economic progress is being made. Perhaps when all the Bulgarians are dead they will announce the achievement of perfection.

In early 2000, Bogetic was dispatched by the International Monetary Fund to Podgorica, Montenegro to advise the pro-secessionist government of President Milo Djukanovic. Bogetic was to help set up a currency board modeled on that of Bosnia under the Dayton Accord. Bogetic's advice was to stop using the Dinar, the Yugoslav currency. He said that under no circumstances should Montenegro establish a Central Bank. Now remember, the Djukanovic government in Montenegro says it wants "independence" from Yugoslavia. But a Central Bank is the requirement for real independence. No, said Bogetic, that is the "worst possible solution". So this "independence" really means "colony"!

Bogetic would be the likely candidate for Yugoslav Central Bank Governor if the "democratic" opposition were to win. He'd do the same thing he's doing in Montenegro. He'd establish a colonial style currency board linked to the Deutschmark. Then monetary policy would be controlled by the country's creditors. This would be excellent for the creditors but very bad for the common people including local businessmen and farmers. It would make it impossible to finance economic reconstruction through the mobilization of Yugoslavia's own domestic resources. The country would be in a straightjacket.

If the "democratic opposition" were to come to power they have said they would introduce International Monetary Fund economic medicine. That's what they say in their Program. But would this be the same medicine that the IMF has prescribed for Russia, Bulgaria and Ukraine?

Russia, Bulgaria and Ukraine cooperated fully with Washington. As nations, they never resisted being turned into colonies. Was the West merciful? Consider Russia. During the first year that the reforms were applied, which was 1992, wages collapsed by 86 percent. And in many of the countries of the Balkans and Eastern Europe, economic activity has been cut in half. And these are cooperative countries. As everyone knows, the U.S. is very annoyed with Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia has not been a good slave. It has not kissed the hand of the bombers.

History shows that if the International Monetary Fund gets hold of a country that has been rebellious the treatment is vicious. And we are not talking about major rebels, like Yugoslavia. We are talking about very moderate rebels, like Peru.

In Peru, the government of President Alan Garcia (1985-1990) refused to do some of what the International Monetary Fund ordered. In 1985, it decided to pay international debts at a reduced rate. It instituted an economic program that would help (instead of destroying) the economy.

The International Monetary Fund Responds

The country was immediately put on a black list by the IMF. This disrupted Peru's foreign trade. It damaged the economy. It produced discontent.

Enter Professor Alberto Fujimori.

It was the 1990 elections. With help from Washington, Peru was having economic problems. Many people wanted change. Professor Fujimori was unknown. People felt he was "honest" and "promising". He led a tiny party that had never held power. He was the winner in the 1990 elections.

Once in office, Fujimori caved in to the International Monetary Fund's demands. What followed was the most deadly economic "reform" in Latin American history. From one day to the next, the price of bread increased more than twelve times (1,150 per cent). The price of fuel increased by 31 times (2,968 per cent) with the result that people could no longer afford to boil water. A cholera epidemic broke out.

The social consequences were devastating. An agricultural worker in August 1990 was paid $7.50 a month (US). That was enough to buy two hamburgers and a drink at McDonalds. Consumer prices in Lima were higher than New York. Real earnings dropped by 60 per cent. By mid-1991 the standard of living had declined by 85 per cent compared to the levels in the 1970s. And this was the just beginning of ten years of deadly reforms under Fujimori.

And remember, Peru didn't really do anything. Just resisted a few International Monetary Fund Measures. But Yugoslavia? Yugoslavia resisted colonial domination by Germany during World War II and now by the U.S.A.

Washington and Berlin would like nothing more than to make Yugoslavia an example of what happens when you resist. That is, they would like to make it a "model" protectorate.

Haven't the U.S. and Germany made this perfectly clear in Kosovo? A gangster-fascist regime with links to the drug trade has been installed. And Western leaders are fully aware of the horror they have wrought in Kosovo. UN Secretary-general Kofi Annan received a special report about this. The report was discussed by the British newspaper, The Observer':

"Murder, torture and extortion: these are the extraordinary charges made against the UN's own Kosovo Protection Corps in a confidential United Nations report written for Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

"The KPC stands accused in the document, drawn up on 29 February, of 'criminal activities - killings, ill-treatment/torture, illegal policing, abuse of authority, intimidation, breaches of political neutrality and hate-speech'. " (quoted in "How Will You Plead at your Trial, Mr. Annan?" at http://emperors-clothes.com/news/howwill.htm )

What would Washington do if it's G-17 employees got hold of Yugoslavia? They would institute the most extreme economic "reforms". Prices would go sky high. Farmers would lose their land. Businesses would be bought up and closed down.

This kind of suffering produces ethnic tension. Washington would whip this up by sending in their UCK (KLA) terrorists. Why does Washington keep the UCK in power in Kosovo? Because they want to use them again. For what? They are incapable of fighting a real army. What are they good for?

They are good for driving 350,000 unarmed civilians from their homes, kidnapping hundreds of people, killing hundreds or perhaps thousands. They can be used again in Serbia north of Kosovo - if the US gives them the nod.

A Washington-controlled government would bring in NATO troops to "help keep order." The troops would never leave. The hunt for imaginary war criminals would go on, a thousand times worse than it is in the Bosnian Serb Republic. Croatians, Bosnian Muslims and ethnic Albanians who fled to Serbia to escape fascist persecution would be put on the list of phony war criminals. All loyal Yugoslavs would have to pay for their (imaginary) crimes so that "healing can begin."

Every effort would be made to humiliate the people, to break their spirit, and to eliminate potential leaders of resistance.

The example of postwar relations between the US and Vietnam is informative. When the Vietnam War ended, the US government ordered an embargo which seriously hurt Vietnam, socially and economically. A few years ago, Washington agreed to lift the embargo following a secret agreement under the Paris Club of official creditors. Vietnam agreed to pay the debts of the former South Vietnamese government. This was a puppet regime set up by Washington. It had gone into debt borrowing money from the US, money which was mainly used to buy weapons from the US to kill Vietnamese. And now Vietnam must repay Washington this odious debt.

While Kostunica presents himself as a nationalist critical of NATO, he also wants to "normalize" Yugoslavia's relationship to the IMF and the OSCE. But these are "sister institutions", they work together in one big family. NATO is the "military arm" of Western financial interests. It does not operate independently but works in close consultation with Wall Street and the IMF. In Bosnia and Kosovo, NATO military repression is coordinated with actions of the IMF and the World Bank.

Under the IMF, the country would be transformed into a protectorate. "Economic warfare" would devastate the society. The Yugoslav people have done remarkable work rebuilding what was destroyed by the NATO bombing last year. But the IMF working through G-17 economists would work to liquidate national industry. (We have seen a sample of this in Kosovo with the Trepca mining complex. It was handed over on a silver platter to the powerful "Washington Group", a US based construction, mining and defence contractor. The local employees have been discharged.)

This economic assault would tend to increase ethnic tensions, providing opportunities for provocateurs. NATO could use the excuse of "age old ethnic hatreds" to bring troops into the country. Meanwhile, as indicated in the G-17 Program, the IMF would order cuts in military spending. With a weakened army it would be much more difficult to deal with the influx of Kosovo Liberation Army terrorists.

Of course, the Yugoslav people could and undoubtedly would organize to oppose these measures. But people should be aware that this can be the result of letting the International Monetary Fund get a grip on Yugoslavia.

A Criticism of the European Union and Vojislav Kostunica

by William Spring (10-17-2000)

This Biarritz gathering of loathed leaders of the new Europe, got a much needed boost by the appearance in their midst of the representative of the country they had most recently bombed.

If there is a place for reconciliation, this wasn't it.

It was insensitive to the highest degree for Dr Kostunica to field questions about the possibility of handing over Mr Milosevic to Carla del Ponte's so called Court at The Hague, without at the same time referring to indictments issued by the Serbian Public Prosecutor's Office of 29th August 2000 (ref: KT - 420/99) against NATO leaders, nor to the application made by the Yugoslav Government to the International Court at The Hague for condemnation of the NATO aggression, nor to the proceedings of the Association for Legal Theory and Practice at Novi Sad last year, where NATO was condemned by internationally eminent lawyers, and to the many other initiatives aimed at getting NATO into the dock.

NATO and the EU want the discussion dominated by Milosevic: but this is not the question Dr Kostunica should address. NATO has no locus standi to ask for Mr Milosevic to be handed over to US lawyers; NATO itself is a criminal organization.

"Confronted with the enemies of Yugoslavia gathered in conclave he should not have given them absolution quite so readily.

The ball should be on the other foot. It shouldn't be the Yugoslav President (or Serbia-Montenegro, as Dr Kostunica suggests we call the FRY) being pursued by journalists but Dr. Kostunica should instead be demanding NATO war criminals be handed over to the FRY.

Why do the Yugoslavs let themselves be pushed around? Kostunica should turn on the media pack, suggest they go after Albright instead.

But perhaps he had to go to Biarritz and say what he said, and the paymasters wanted their reward; the German Government has admitted in the last few days that it channeled £6 million to the Serbian Opposition, a large proportion through the International Red Cross, and other NGOs (which makes me wonder what happens to charitable donations these days. Next time the Red Cross shake their can ask where the money's going. The International Red Cross in Geneva must address this point, otherwise face a complete loss of confidence by donors. Money given to the Red Cross shouldn't go to Zoran Djindjic. Is he a cripple?)

It's sad indeed to see the desperate straits to which EU sanctions and bombing and the subversion of the electoral process has reduced the Yugoslav state, the last independent country in Europe. That may also be an explanation for the Biarritz visit; the desperate need to get foreign investment.

But it gives a bad impression, for Dr Kostunica to be so pally with the EU. Couldn't he have insisted at least upon one expression of regret by someone at the Conference, as a pre-condition for attending?

One understands the need for normalization of relations between Yugoslavia and the rest of the world, but this behaviour is negative in terms of Serbia's image: it makes people think that the Serbs who couldn't be bombed into acquiescence can be bought instead. Perhaps they have already been, but they should have held out for a higher price.

As for EU leaders they must answer this question: if, all along, as it now appears, bribes could have had the same effect as bombing, then why was the bombing necessary?

Couldn't the UK Government have used the £1 billion spent on the NATO bombing on less destructive activities? If the EU had dispersed its funds earlier, most people in Belgrade by now would be driving Mercedes, and casualties and deaths avoided. "

Can one assume all this is perfectly legal: is it legal for Tony Blair to take taxpayers money to subsidize opposition parties in Serbia. Or, did he use the National Lottery instead?

end

Arrest of Hubert Vedrine! French Foreign Minister and EU envoy due in Belgrade today

Tuesday 10th October

To the Yugoslav Government

The CANA hereby issues an urgent appeal to the Yugoslav Government for the arrest of Hubert Vedrine, French Foreign Minister and EU envoy due in Belgrade today, to begin talks about normalizing relations between Belgrade and Paris.

CANA also asks for the arrest of Paddy Ashdown MP, former leader of the Liberal Democrats [travelling in Montenegro] and Prime Mover and Architect of the Kosovo War.

This is not an unserious idea. I am amazed how supposedly liberal politicians, like Messers Blair and Ashdown, while 'meaning well' nevertheless create such mayhem and suffering in Europe. The political legacy of Mr Ashdown and Mr Blair is a half life of 4.5 billion years of DU and innumerable cripples.

Regarding the arrest of Mr. Vedrine, he is after all mentioned in the indictment prepared by the Serbian Public Prosecutor's Office. Vedrine failed to attend the Court to answer the indictment of August 29th.

The NATO leaders prepared and executed aggressive war, the supreme war crime.

As for the demand the EU and US make that Dr Kostunica hands over Mr Milosevic over to the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, this is quite impertinent. As the NATO leaders are themselves war criminals they can hardly sit in judgement on Mr Milosevic.

To quote scripture (King James version), it's a case of 'beams and motes'.

In any case Dr Kostunica gave election pledges to the Yugoslav people that he would not hand over Mr Milosevic to a foreign Court.

Messers Blair and Cook may regard their election pledges with levity - to be torn up at will- but they should not seek to impose their contorted New Labour morality on others.

William Spring

Director, CANA

for further information telephone 0208 802 2144 cana@cana.worldonline.co.uk

CANA is an ecumenical group of Christians who came together during the NATO air war against Yugoslavia.

Although we have differences on matters of Christian doctrine, being from different denominations, (some of us Orthodox, some Catholic, others Evangelical, Unitarian, Baptist, Quaker and Pentecostal etc), we are united in a conviction that the attack on Yugoslavia by NATO was and is morally and legally indefensible.

The war on Yugoslavia and NATO's frantic efforts to blame Mr Milosevic for it, must be seen only as another indication of the almost terminal illness afflicting western society, which involves the end of thought.

How the International Monetary Fund and World Bank operate: "First, they force governments to do
away with any social protections - subsidized food or rent, free transportation, free medical care.
Second, they force businesses - public and private - into bankruptcy. Then these businesses are taken
over by a small clique of leveraged buyout speculators and other powerful foreign economic interests.
They purchase the businesses at rock bottom prices. This is called "Privatization through Liquidation"
which is standard practice in the Balkans and Eastern Europe." (From the text below)

Interesting discription of Monetarist policy!
not quite the Textbook approach- Wink!
Farking Nazi's!

---

The London-based international Institute for Strategic Research believes that Russia's actions in Chechnya are a legitimate anti-terrorist operation. Our observer Anatoly Potapov comments.


The Institute for Strategic Research is a serious international analytical organisation. It has conducted a detailed analysis of developments in Chechnya. According to its experienced experts, what takes place there is considerable armed resistance to the state in a part of its territory involving one or several terrorist factions. The world is facing completely undisguised terrorism. Therefore, taking into account resolutions issued by the U.N. and by many international forums, Russia acts quite lawfully on the basis of international law when carrying out its anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya. Such is the conclusion made by the Institute for Strategic Research.


Its experts compare the activity of Chechen terrorists with the terrorism waged by the Basques in Spain, by extremists and nationalists in Ulster, Corsica, Kashmir, Ecuador. When you read this analysis you cannot help recalling the attacks on Russia by some Western politicians who defend Chechen terrorists with reference to the need to observe human rights. The French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine even allowed himself to use the term "colonial war" with reference to Russia's anti-terrorist actions. The head of French diplomacy simply got into a temper, or perhaps he used his attacks on Russia to make the public forget about the French authorities' reprisals against Corsican extremists and nationalists in New Caledonia.


Maybe the conclusion of the authoritative Institute for Strategic Research will make those European delegates to the U.N. Economic and Social Council who voted down Russia's proposals think twice. Moscow had called for depriving the so-called Transnational Radical Party with affiliates in various European countries of its membership in the Council for its links with Chechen terrorists and for its obvious support for aggressive separatism. On behalf of that party an emissary of Chechen terrorists, Ahyad Idigov, was even allowed to speak from the rostrum of the U. N. organisation. Nonetheless the leading members of the European Union voted down Russia's draft resolution. Evidently these delegates view the calls for universal actions in combating international terrorism as idle words.


However the conclusion made by the Institute for Strategic Research testifies to the fact that the obvious realities will gradually overcome the false political juggling and unjustified sentiments. And the realities are such: Russia is working to conclude its anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya to free the civilian population from terrorists' oppression, to secure a peaceful life for it, to rebuild the economy of the republic which is a member of the Russian Federation.