Архива за категорију ‘Politics’

@GreekForGodsGift

септембар 21, 2007

Excellent post. But read my previous post and this one slowly and carefully.

First, I haven’t mentioned a religious state – though majority of it would be Orthodox Christians.

Second, discrimination of minority Muslims, Jews and Gypsies can’t be the policy of it. Of course, there ought to be measures of protection against disloyalty, but not against any religion. So disloyal should be suppressed on the basis of disloyalty, not on the basis of their Gypsyness, Jewishness or Muslimness. BTW, I know some good Gypsies, Muslims and Jews. (I don’t deny there are some not so good – though I’ve never seen a really harmful Gypsy, they are easy to handle.)

Third, in case all mentioned joined, the state couldn’t be referred as Slavic – we’d be a minority ethnic group.

Fourth, history. Late 19th and early 20th century in the Balkans should be carefully studied from the perspective of each of our nations. You’d see the influence of „YoungTurks“ and their religious syncretism (masonic? read also about a false Jewsih Messiah Shabatay Zvi). Bad blood against Serbs and Bulgars and Bulgars and Greeks has been carefully crafted – Bulgarian priests educated in Constantinopolis, in the very Patriarchy in late 19th century were inducing Bulgars in second Balkan war and WW1 to digg eyes of the frescoes in Serbian Churches. I know Serbia did attack Bulgaria once somewhere in the late 19th century (probably 1885), and we were rightfully defeated. Bulgaria did attack Greece in the Second Balkan war, aiming Thesalonica, and was rightfully defeated. I’ll get back to Macedonia later.

The consequence of the First Serbian uprising 1804 – 1815 was the independence of Greece 1824 (or 1832?). Ottoman Empire was needed by West to survive, so new independences were to be managed carefully. Autocephalia of Church of Greece was accompanied with modern nationalism and very bad relations towards the Patriarch of Constantinopolis.

Adrianopolis was liberated – by the Bulgars AND SERBS – the first Serbian Army under the command of (than) Gen. Stepa Stepanovic was on Adrianopolis. After the success, hysteria against Serbs was instigated, so they were even the proposals to capture Serbian Army as war prisoners, which didn’t happen. Head of Bulgarian military resigned for such a behavior (Alas, I don’t know his name). Serbian First Army returned in Serbia. Adrianopolis was returned to Turkey – control of Bosphorus and Dardanelles by Western powers was defended.

That time, Bulgars were ruled by kings of German origin – Koburg (sp?), and were under the strong influence of Germans. Greeks were consicutivelly ruled by two Anglo – German dinasties of kings. Serbs were ruled first by Austrian influenced Obrenovic, than by France influenced Karadjordjevic. Name of British FM during that time was Benjamin Disraeli. Greece did not participate in WW1. They alone had their war with Turkey in 1922-1924 – read about it, and about how they were trapped first to attempt a foolish aim and than left alone to be crushed by Turks, whom expelled and killed 1,5 million Greeks from Asia Minor in 1924, after they already killed 1,5 million and expelled 1,5 Armenians in 1917 (during the revolution in Russia). See how that’s connected with pro-Russian alliance in Russo-Turskish war in 1878 (even Georgians and Armenians joined Russ, not to mention Bulgars and Romanians). In 1924 Greeks were alone, while they made a fundamental error – Turks had nowhere to go, so they had to stand against the vigorous attacks of Greeks.

The first genocide was that one against the Assyrians in British mandated part of Ottoman Empire back in 1903.

All of these were crafted before, it all does have ideological foundation. These three nations were directed exactly in the opposite directions – ideologically, economically, militarily. That’s what’s called BALKANIZATION. Now read those verses from Old Testament about fall of a divided a home and tying a strong to robb his home.

The point is – the elites of Greeks, Serbians and Bulgars were each directed towards a different western power. Most of it was achieved by education, by scholarship, by so called “culture” than by commerce. So each of us become alienated from each other and we became pathetic servants fascinated by the west, but waiting pathetically help from Russia during the hard times. The elites also alienated themselves from their own people.

Since there is strong Serbophilia among the common Greeks (peasants, labor class), not among the elite, and having in mind the character of Greeks (their Imperial past, their wars with Turkey, their war against Italians, their resistance to Hitler, their wars in Cyprus) I see Greeko-Serbian alliance the easiest to achieve, just by taking the soul searching in mind. Having in mind precaucosness and carefulness of Bulgars, they (you) won’t invest in it hard before it’s already visible and at hand. Once they see brothers are waiting for them to be part of equal and strong, they’ll rush to join, but not before. We need elites being willing and aware of that, and that’s the most difficult part. And to avoid covert operations as already happened before regarding Adrianopolis and else.

 

Macedonia was actually the apple of quarrel. Yes, its’ artificial. Most of them were Bulgars, with Serbian and Greek population as well. Late Pres Kiro Gligorov also mentioned the influence of strong Ottoman military there in the late 18th and 19th century to their ethnic composition. But we shouldn’t wonder what are we to do with them. Let us be careful. Let FYROM exist as it’s now. Let them dragged in step-by-step. Once Greeko-Serbian (but not anti-FYROM or anti-Bulgar) alliance exist, they’ll rush to join, too, along with Bulgars, maybe even earlier, but not later.

We first need to see it in our minds. We first need to see how obvious and logical it is. All of us. Operationalization, help of Russia, time, that’s all of secondary importance. It’s the idea that is important first.

I’m also not sure how much time do we have. The events are happening fast.

We wont renounce Kosovo, but the West will recognize it outside U.N. We’ll take the northen part of it in a limited war and we’ll get one frozen conflict. It would have the impact to Bosnia, Macedonia, Greece, Montenegro and Bulgaria (you mentioned Deli Orman). So all will see how logical our alliance is. Or Bulgars will stand alone if Turkey is up against them to help Muslims in Deli Orman? Just like Cyprus did it, alone, with “help” of Britain and U.S.?

19/08: Bilderberg 2007 – Towards a One World Empire?

август 23, 2007

http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/corridors.php

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Discussions at the 2007 Bilderberg Group meetings covered concerns over the World Bank presidency, Russia’s muscle-flexing on energy issues and the failure of US-led NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 14, Number 5 (August – September 2007)
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor@nexusmagazine.com
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com

by Daniel Estulin
Email: daniel@danielestulin.com
http://www.danielestulin.com

The Sun has set on Bilderberg 2007 in Istanbul, Turkey. After a sumptuous lunch on this warm and sunny 3rd June, most Bilderbergers returned to their countries of choice, freshly armed with precise instructions from the Steering Committee on how to proceed in covertly expanding the powers of One World Government. Amongst this year’s luminaries in attendance were: Henry Kissinger; Henry Kravis of KKR; Marie-Josée Kravis of Hudson Institute; Vernon Jordan; Etienne Davignon, Bilderberg Group President; Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands, daughter of one of the founders, Prince Bernhard; and the King and Queen of Spain.

As a rhetorical question, can someone please explain to me how it is that progressive liberals such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton as well as do-gooder humanitarians with multiple social projects on the go, such as David Rockefeller and every Royal House in Europe, can perennially attend Bilderberg meetings knowing that the final objective of this despicable group of hoodlums is a fascist One World Empire? How could it be orchestrated?

The idea is to give to each country a political constitution and an appropriate national economic structure, organised for the following purposes: (1) to place political power into the hands of chosen people and eliminate all intermediaries; (2) to establish a maximum concentration of industries and suppress all unwarranted competition; (3) to establish absolute control of prices of all goods and raw materials (Bilderbergers make it possible through their iron-grip control of The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization); and (4) to create judicial and social institutions that would prevent all extremes of action.

NOT PRIVATE, BUT SECRET

Although participants emphatically attest that they attend the Club’s annual meeting as private citizens and not in their official government capacity, that affirmation is dubious-particularly when you compare the Chatham House Rule with the Logan Act in the United States, where it is absolutely illegal for elected officials to meet in private with influential business executives to debate and design public policy.

Bilderberg meetings follow a traditional protocol founded in 1919, in the wake of the Paris Peace Conference held at Versailles, by the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) based at Chatham House in London. While the name Chatham House is commonly used to refer to the Institute itself, the Royal Institute of International Affairs is the foreign policy executive arm of the British monarchy.

According to RIIA procedures: „When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed; nor may it be mentioned that the information was received at a meeting of the Institute.“

The Logan Act was intended to prohibit United States citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. However, there have been a number of judicial references to the Act, and it is not uncommon for it to be used as a political weapon.

Those who have attended Bilderberg Group meetings over the years and flouted the Logan Act include: Allen Dulles (CIA); Senator William J. Fulbright (from Arkansas, a Rhodes Scholar); Dean Acheson (Secretary of State under President Truman); Nelson Rockefeller and Laurance Rockefeller; former President Gerald Ford; Henry J. Heinz II (former CEO, H. J. Heinz Co.); Thomas L. Hughes (former President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); Robert S. McNamara (President Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense and former President of the World Bank); William P. Bundy (former President of the Ford Foundation, and former editor of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs journal); John J. McCloy (former President of Chase Manhattan Bank); George F. Kennan (former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union); Paul H. Nitze (former representative of Schroeder Bank; Nitze played a very prominent role in matters of arms control agreements, which have always been under the direction of the RIIA); Robert O. Anderson (former Chairman, Atlantic Richfield Co., and Chairman, Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies); John D. Rockefeller IV (former Governor of West Virginia, now US Senator); Cyrus Vance (Secretary of State under President Carter); Eugene Black (former President of the World Bank); Joseph Johnson (former President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster (former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and later Superintendent of West Point Academy); Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Adviser to President Carter, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission); General Alexander Haig (once European NATO Commander, former assistant to Henry Kissinger, and later Secretary of State under President Reagan); James S. Rockefeller (former President and Chairman, First National City Bank, now Citibank).

BILDERBERG 2007 CONCLUSIONS

Thanks to our inside sources at the conference, we have compiled what we believe to be an accurate and a credible model of the Bilderberg 2007 conclusions. Following is a summary of some key points with some additional commentary added. Other subjects discussed were climate change and global warming, Turkey’s role in the new European Union, World Bank reforms, Middle East geopolitics, the conflict in Iraq, Iran’s potential nuclear threat, and the future of democracy and populism.

Robert Zoellick and The World Bank

The United States delegation is standing unanimously behind Robert Zoellick’s candidacy as the next President of The World Bank. Zoellick is a 53-year-old Wall Street executive, a former official in two Bush administrations and a free-market fundamentalist. During the meeting, he pledged „to work to restore confidence in the bank“. „We need to put our differences aside and focus on the future together. I believe that the World Bank’s best days are still to come,“ Zoellick said. The chances of Zoellick not being approved for the presidency are slim to none. The final decision is to be made in late June by the bank’s 24-member board of directors.

The United States and Europe have a tacit agreement between them that the World Bank’s President should always be a US national, while its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), should always be headed by a European. Nevertheless, according to our sources at the conference, European Bilderbergers are not at all pleased with continuing the status quo, in which the US nominates a single candidate after informal consultations with World Bank members.

The Zoellick nomination also appears to short-circuit burgeoning calls for reform of this selection process at the World Bank, one of the cornerstones of the global financial architecture as designed by the victors of World War II. One Belgian Bilderberger proposed „a merit-based selection process, without regard to nationality“, something which will obviously be discarded by the inept Bush administration. What is quite remarkable is that on several occasions European Bilderbergers openly rejected the current model, saying „the nomination reeks of double standards“, especially because both the USA and the World Bank preach accountability and transparency to developing countries-the main clients of the bank.

But with the IMF under the control of a Spaniard, Rodrigo Rato, and the European Central Bank headed by a Frenchman, Jean-Claude Trichet, it was difficult to imagine that the USA would give up control of the World Bank. Only the US Federal Reserve would remain in the hands of the Americans.

„Replacing one Bush appointee with another will not resolve the fundamental governance problems of the World Bank,“ said one Scandinavian. „Member governments should reject a back-door deal that leaves the bank’s governance structure intact, and should press for an open, merit-based selection process,“ he said.

Zoellick’s name also raised eyebrows among development groups for his close ties to the US establishment and corporate interests.

One of the attendees (I have not been able to confirm this individual’s identity) asked Zoellick how he was planning to patch up relationships with Third and Fourth World nations when he is best remembered during his tenure as US Trade Representative for arm-twisting poor nations’ governments to adhere to US-imposed intellectual-property laws that make medicines, for example, unaffordable in the developing world. Zoellick has been a close friend to the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, and the bilateral trade agreements he has negotiated effectively block access to generic medications for millions of people.

However, what has really riled both the American and European delegates is the fact that the World Bank’s dirty linen is being washed in public, thanks in great part to Paul Wolfowitz and his ineptness, which incidentally he has blamed on the press.

[Postscript: On 25 June, Robert Zoellick was unanimously elected President of The World Bank for a five-year term, taking over from Paul Wolfowitz on 1 July. In a statement posted at www.worldbank.org, he said: "Once I start at the World Bank, I will be eager to meet the people who drive the agenda of overcoming poverty in all regions, with particular attention to Africa, advancing social and economic development, investing in growth, and encouraging hope, opportunity and dignity."]

Relations with Russia

Another issue of great concern to both American and European Bilderbergers is Russia’s current muscle-flexing on the issue of energy. The controversy over the TNK-BP licence, BP’s Russian venture, is just one of many circumstances causing anger amongst the globalist elite.

One American Bilderberger said that after years of economic stagnation, „Russia is acting against unipolarity’s accommodating ideologies and politics, against its recently resurgent manifestations and machinations, and against the instruments of its perpetuation, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation [NATO]„.

Bilderberg 2007 served as a consensus-building exercise to decide on a common policy and strategy to deal with Russia’s resurgence. In particular, Bilderberg is not at all happy with Russia’s current strategy of actively dismantling what remains of „the atmosphere of acquiescence to America’s will“, in the words of one Bilderberger, which arose in the post-Soviet period and was absolutely crucial to the thriving of US-led unipolarity.

That was in the beginning of the 1990s, the early stages of the Yeltsin reign. With the wholesale looting of Russia in the 1990s through shock therapy and the loans-for-shares scheme, engineered by the socialist theoreticians at Harvard such as Jeffrey Sachs, Andrei Schliefer, David Lipton and Jonathan Hay, the country was brought into the dawn of the 21st century capitalist economy. As a result, Russia eventually toppled into anarchy, its population rendered desperate; its ability to support a world-class military establishment was smashed, which then made it inevitable that colonial behaviour would occur. That is exactly what George Ball was proposing during the Bilderberg 1968 meeting in Canada. I’ll get back to Ball later in this section.

Incidentally, the term „shock therapy“ refers to the sudden release of price and currency controls combined with the withdrawal of state subsidies and immediate trade liberalisation within a country-all the necessary ingredients for impoverishment of the society…in this case, Russia.

In Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book The Grand Chessboard,1 „Russia“ and „vital energy reserves“, as it turns out, are mentioned more frequently than any other country and subject in the book. Brzezinski is President Carter’s former National Security Advisor, a co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Club and a close associate of David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger. He is the proverbial insider’s insider. According to Brzezinski, global US and thus Bilderberg hegemony depended on having complete control of Russia’s vital energy reserves in Central Asia. As long as Russia remained strong, it remained a threat-a potential block to the complete imposition of Bilderberg-led economic and military will.

Bilderberg energy imperatives and geopolitical control are once again coming to play a key role in the lives of hundreds of millions of unsuspecting people.

Brzezinski spelled out in The Grand Chessboard the compelling energy issue driving American policy: „A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 percent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprise and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 percent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.“

The history of mankind has always shown that controlling the heart of Eurasia was the key to controlling the entire known world. Azerbaijan, containing the riches of the Caspian Sea Basin and Central Asia, is a case in point. From the US perspective, the independence of the Central Asian states will be rendered nearly meaningless if Azerbaijan becomes fully subordinated to Moscow’s control. To the Bilderbergers, energy imperatives are the end game.

The energy theme appears again later in Brzezinski’s book, written four years before 9/11: „The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the US Department of Energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy.“

Clearly, to the Bilderbergers, Russia was the beginning of the end game.

During a presentation titled „Internationalisation of Business“ to the 26-28 April 1968 Bilderberg meeting at Mont Tremblant, Canada, George Ball provided a far more truthful and insightful glimpse into the group’s economic orientation. Ball, who was Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs under JFK and Lyndon Johnson, a Steering Committee member of the Bilderberg Group as well as a Senior Managing Director for Lehman Brothers and Kuhn Loeb Inc., defined the Bilderberg’s new policy of globalisation and how it would shape the New World Order.

As Pierre Beaudry noted in Synarchy Movement of Empire, „…Ball presented an outline of the advantages of a new-colonial world economic order based on the concept of a ‘world company’, and described some of the obstacles that needed to be eliminated for its success. According to Ball, the first and most important thing that had to be eliminated was ‘the archaic political structure of the nation state’.“

In other words, Ball was calling for a return to the old colonialism system, but this time built on the concept of a „world company“.

„Ball wrote: ‘To be productive, we must begin our inquiry by explicitly recognizing the lack of phasing between development of the world company-a concept responding to modern needs-and the continued existence of an archaic political structure of nation states, mostly small or of only medium size, which is evolving only at glacier pace in response to new world requirements of scope and scale.’“

Beaudry concluded: „It was clear for Ball that the very structure of the nation state, and the idea of the commonwealth, or of a general welfare of a people, represented the main obstacle against any attempt of freely looting the planet, especially the weak and poor nations of the world, and represented the most important impediment to the creation of a neo-colonial world empire. The priority of the world company is obviously based on international free trade without restraint, that is, trade measured by the British standard of profit of buying cheap and selling dear. The problem is that national governments have priorities, which are different than and contrary to those of a looting company…“

On page 39 of a Bilderberg transcript from the 1968 meeting at Mont Tremblant, Ball self-assuredly stated the following: „Where does one find a legitimate base for the power of corporate managements to make decisions that can profoundly affect the economic life of nations to whose governments they have only limited responsibility?“

In other words, Messrs Rockefeller and Davignon, what Mr Ball would like to know is: how does one establish a Halliburton type of world company, which would greatly surpass in authority any government on the planet? Isn’t that what „world company“, run by the ruling class, stands for?

Not according to Bilderberg President and Belgian multimillionaire Etienne Davignon. During his 2005 BBC interview, Mr Davignon said: „I don’t think a global ruling class exists. Business influences society, and politics influences society-that’s purely common sense. It’s not that business contests the right of democratically elected leaders to lead.“

Is that so, Mr Davignon? Current parliamentary democracy works on the basis of an „elected“ head of state and a parliament, which can be dumped any time you decide to orchestrate a crisis and put a third branch of government in charge of its financial system, called an „independent central banking system“.

In the United States, this „independent“ banking system is known as the Federal Reserve, a privately owned bank interlocked with the Bilderberg Group. In Europe, the independent banking system is run through the European Central Bank, whose monetary policies are put together by the leading members of the Bilderberger elite, such as Jean-Claude Trichet. In Britain, this independent system is run by the Bank of England, whose members are also full-time members of the Bilderberg Group’s inner circle. The independent central banking system controls the emission of currency, controls national credit and interest rates, and, any time the government displeases it, uses its power to orchestrate the overthrow of the government. The British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was overthrown because she opposed the wilful handover of British sovereignty to the global world company superstate designed by the Bilderbergers. This is what Kuhn, Loeb and Lehman Brothers have been building worldwide, by way of mergers and acquisitions, from the 1960s until today. In the past decades, the entire deregulation policy of US industries and banking was precisely set up in response to this blueprint scenario for creating giant corporations for a new empire whose intention is nothing short of perpetual war.

Could the eventual dismemberment and weakening of Russia-to the point that it could not oppose US military operations that have now successfully secured control of the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia-been part of a multi-decade plan for global domination? Most credible senior analysts definitely believe so.

At a 1997 symposium held in Bonn, Germany, Dr Sergei Glazyev, Chairman of the Economic Policy Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, explained: „This colonisation, masked as reforms, destroyed the basic institutions of Russian society along the following basic lines: (1) destruction of the financial system of the state by means of an endless build-up of the state debt pyramid, shrinking of the tax base, deepening of the non-payments crisis, and disorganisation of the monetary system; (2) destruction of the scientific and technological potential of the country, achieved by means of a many-fold reduction in state financing of science, the collapse of technological cooperation and scientific production integration in the course of mass privatisation, and the refusal of the government to have any scientific and technical, industrial or structural policy at all; (3) sale of controlling blocs of shares in the leading and most valuable Russian firms, in industry, electric power and telecommunications, to foreign companies; (4) Transfer of the right to exploit the most valuable Russian raw materials deposits to transnational corporations; (5) establishment of foreign control over the Russian stock exchange; (6) establishment of direct foreign control over the shaping of Russian domestic and foreign economic policy.“

The Bilderberg conclusions are striking in their candidness: „The US can no longer ride roughshod over, nor bully, nor simply ignore resurgent Russia, rising China or the globe’s regimes that supply the vital oil that fuels the US economy. Something must be done, and urgently, in order to cut deeply into Russia’s mounting global energy leverage. The US-Russia strategically deteriorating relations are one victim of this geopolitical struggle for energy supremacy.“

One Finnish delegate’s opinion that „no US-Russia military confrontation is likely, no matter how tense things should get“ is increasingly an unsafe one as a more desperate US pushes back against a much more aggressive Russia. Dr Henry Kissinger added that „aggressive, unilateralist US foreign policy has forced ‘axis of evil’ states to accelerate their pursuit of nuclear weapons to immunise themselves against US military strikes“.

Richard Perle pointed out that in response to aggressive US tactics across the globe, Russia has undertaken asymmetric steps to undermine the ability of the US to project its military power effectively into their neighbourhoods and into those of their partners and allies. When one American Bilderberger tried to object, European delegates brought up China’s recent response to US intentions to weaponise space: a simple and relatively inexpensive demonstration of destruction of its satellite. The example produced snickering in the room, much to the chagrin of the Americans.

Afghanistan and the price of treason

Another subject under discussion dealt with Afghanistan. It was commonly agreed by the attendees that the US-led NATO alliance/mission is in a state of quagmire and that „the situation in the country is getting worse“. The problem can be defined, in the words of one British Bilderberger, as „one of the unreal expectations“. He went on to explain that clamouring for democratic reform while simultaneously propping up Pashtun warlords without delivering serious progress „has managed to discredit a lot of our basic notions in the eyes of the Afghans“.

Bilderbergers, however, aren’t the only ones left scratching their heads as to how Western governments and their carefully chosen Afghan partners have managed to spend billions of dollars in development assistance with little to show for it.

Catastrophe is good for business; always has been. Without suffering, there would be no humanitarian assistance. And without humanitarian assistance, there would be no room for undercover intelligence network operations as part of Western imperatives for geopolitical control.

The worse it looks, the better it sells. While the American people were getting their daily diet of ubiquitous images of repression, suffering and burka-clad Afghani women beamed into every living room in America, a propaganda campaign was surreptitiously launched in the pages of newspapers and glossy magazines. The New York Times and the New Yorker were greasing the gears of the misery machine by urging the US government, the United Nations and anyone who would listen to „do something“-amid the jewellery advertisements. Terror and horror, like expensive jewellery, became commodities.

Today, Afghanistan and its African cousins of Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Congo and Rwanda and the rest of the nations blessed with Western humanitarian help are all basket cases. Bilderbergers seem to be asking: how is it possible that humanitarian missions of such scale and magnitude could have failed so miserably? Is it a case of good-intentioned exercises going bad due to corruption, greed and lack of oversight? Or is it the merciless dismemberment of yet more foreign lands and cultures exercised stealthily through humanitarian aid agencies tied to the larger apparatus of government?

Furthermore, the US government’s support for known Afghani drug warlords adds another vital clue to the puzzle. The amount of profit generated annually by the drug trade, according to the United Nations, is somewhere around $700 billion in tax-free cash flow per year. Seven hundred billion dollars a year is too much money to hide in a sock. You need a lot of experience and expertise to move those kinds of funds stealthily. Does anyone doubt that Afghanistan is about drugs? Does anyone doubt that the CIA is involved?

For example, the CIA financed the Muslim Brotherhood in 1977 and trained the mujahedin in preparation for the campaign of collusion between Washington and right-wing Islam: the Afghan War. The roots to the Afghan conflict can be traced to Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, the centre of the Muslim Brotherhood’s activity. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, alleged airline hijacker Mohammed Atta was identified as a Muslim Brother in several Western publications such as the Washington Post (22 September 2001), the Observer (23 September 2001) and Newsweek (31 December 2001). Other Muslim Brothers involved were Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man, an Egyptian by the name of Ayman al-Zawahiri, is also a lifelong member of the Brotherhood.

Robert Dreyfuss, in his extremely important book Devil’s Game,4 explained it thus: „They returned to Afghanistan and formed a branch of the Brothers, the Islamic Society. Later, these same ‘professors’, as they were known, would form the backbone of the Afghan mujahedin who waged a US-backed, decade-long war against the Soviet occupation. The three leading ‘professors’ were Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, Burhanuddin Rabbani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.“ Sayyaf and Hekmatyar, two big-time Pashtun drug traffickers and CIA assets, were backed by Pakistani Intelligence as well as Pakistan’s own „branch“ of the Brotherhood and funded by Saudi money.

There is yet another link between the Brotherhood and the super-secret Bilderberg Group. In the early 1980s, Bilderberger Michael Ledeen of the ultraconservative American Enterprise Institute and Bilderberger Richard Perle used Hekmatyar as a poster boy of anti-Soviet resistance at the time when Hekmatyar was actively working with Hezb-i-Islami terrorists to undermine America’s influence in Afghanistan. Does anyone reading this doubt that this is hardly a coincidence?

First came the „humanitarian relief“ through non-government organisations. In short order, this was followed by the US military which came to the rescue out of the goodness of its heart for „purely humanitarian objectives“. Once on the ground, it became an exercise in „nation-building“. In the end, it morphed into the hunt for a terrorist dictator.

During an animated discussion at Bilderberg 2007 in Istanbul, one Italian asked if the US-led NATO forces have „the will to stay the course“. In the wake of the US military siege of Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in December 2001, the commanding general, Tommy Franks, reportedly said it was not his intention to „get embroiled in a Soviet-style long-term engagement as in the 1980s“. Now, however, American Bilderbergers are pressuring NATO allies to provide larger troop contributions to the cause.

Dr Kissinger insisted that „the will“ is lacking and so „we must now begin to acknowledge our limits“. „The choices facing us are very difficult,“ reflected one European Royal, wholeheartedly agreeing with Kissinger’s assessment on the lack of commitment and will. A NATO representative categorically stated that the West has neither the political intelligence nor the understanding to fight a protracted, decade-long counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan.

A MEANS TO AN END?

The Bilderberg Group is not the end but the means to a future One World Government. This organisation has grown beyond its secretive beginnings to become a virtual shadow government which decides in total secrecy at annual meetings how its plans are to be carried out. The ultimate goal of this nightmare future is to transform Earth into a prison planet by bringing about a single globalised marketplace, controlled by a One World Government, policed by a United World Army, financially regulated by a World Bank, and populated by a microchipped population whose life’s needs have been stripped down to materialism and survival-work, buy, procreate, sleep-all connected to a global computer that monitors our every move.

And it is becoming easier because the development of telecommunications technology together with profound advances in present-day knowledge and new methods of behaviour engineering to manipulate individual conduct are converting what, in other epochs of history, were only evil intentions into a disturbing new reality. Each new measure, viewed on its own, may seem an aberration, but a whole host of changes, as part of an ongoing continuum, constitutes a shift towards total enslavement.

But there is hope. In almost every corner of the planet, stress points are beginning to fracture and people are starting to take sides. There is a general awakening taking place as people hold mirrors up to the irrationality that’s being imposed upon them. This awakening is beginning to empower our collective learning and understanding. You see, the powers-that-be have told us that world events are too difficult for the layperson to understand. They lied! We have been told that national secrets must be zealously protected. Indeed, they must! No government wants its citizens to discover that its best and brightest participate in massive collusion, conspiracy and pillaging of the planet.

Now, as the year 2007 unfolds, we find ourselves at the crossroads. The road we take from here will determine the very future of humanity and whether we will become an electronic global police state or remain free human beings. We must always remember that it is not up to God to bring us back from the „New Dark Age“ planned for us. It is up to us. Forewarned is forearmed. We will never find the right answers if we don’t ask the right questions.

Endnotes:

1. Brzezinski, Zbigniew, The Grand Chessboard: American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives, Basic Books, New York, 1997
2. Beaudry, Pierre, Synarchy Movement of Empire, Leesburg, Virginia, USA, 2005, Book IV, chapter 4, pp. 104-05, at
http://www.pehi.eu/organisations/SME/Synarchy_Movement_of_Empire_book_04.pdf
3. Glazyev, Sergei, „From a Five-Year Plan of Destruction to a Five-Year Plan of Colonisation“, EIR Bonn Symposium, 1997
4. Dreyfuss, Robert, Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, Henry Holt & Co., New York, 2005
5. Smucker, Philip, „Missions impossible: NATO’s Afghan dilemma“, Asia Times Online, 1 June 2007
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IF01Df01.html

About the Author:

Based in Spain, Daniel Estulin is an award-winning investigative journalist who has been researching the Bilderberg Group for over 15 years. He is the author of La Verdadera Historia del Club Bilderberg (2005), a bestseller in Spain and now in its 13th printing; it has been translated into 24 languages and sold to over 42 countries. The English-language edition, The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, is to be published by Trine Day, USA in September 2007 (available through Amazon.com). The sequel, Los Secretos del Club Bilderberg (2006), is already in its second printing in Spanish; bidding for international rights is scheduled for (northern) autumn 2007.

Estulin’s previous contribution to NEXUS was in 2005 with „Breaking the Silence: Bilderberg Exposed“ (vol. 12, no. 5). The original text of this 2007 article is at the web page http://www.danielestulin.com/?op=noticias&noticias= ver&id=345&idioma=en.

Daniel Estulin can be contacted by email at daniel@danielestulin.com. For more information, visit his website at http://www.danielestulin.com.

DELEGATES AT BILDERBERG 2007

Istanbul, Turkey, 31 May – 3 June 2007

This year’s delegation included many of the most important politicians, businessmen, central bankers, European commissioners and executives of the Western corporate press. They were joined at the table by leading representatives of European royalty.

According to the Bilderberg Steering Committee list which this author has had access to, the following names have now been confirmed as attendees at the Bilderberg 2007 conference (uncharacteristically, David Rockefeller was not present).

Graham Allison, Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University (USA); George Alogoskoufis, Minister for Economy and Finance (Greece); Ali Babacan, Minister for Economic Affairs (Turkey); Francisco Pinto Balsemo, Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA SGPS, former Prime Minister (Portugal); Michel Barnier, Vice President, Merieux Alliance; former Minister for Foreign Affairs (France); Michael Barone, Senior Writer, US News & World Report (USA); Martin Bartenstein, Federal Minister of Economics and Labour (Austria); Nicolas Baverez, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (France); Her Majesty Queen Beatrix, Queen of The Netherlands (The Netherlands); Leonor Beleza, President, Champalimaud Foundation (Portugal); Franco Bernabe, Vice Chairman, Rothschild Europe (Italy); Rosina M. Bierbaum, Professor and Dean, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan (USA); Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs, former Prime Minister (Sweden); Mehmet A. Birand, Columnist (Turkey); Lloyd C. Blankfein, Chairman and CEO, Goldman Sachs & Co. (USA); Anders Borg, Minister for Finance (Sweden); Charles G. Boyd, President and CEO, Business Executives for National Security (USA); Umit N. Boyner, Member, Executive Board, Boyner Holding (Turkey); Vendeline A. H. von Bredow, Business Correspondent, The Economist; Rapporteur (Germany); Ian Bremmer, President, Eurasia Group (USA); Oscar Bronner, Publisher and Editor, Der Standard (Austria); Hubert Burda, Publisher and CEO, Hubert Burda Media Holding (Belgium); Gerald Butts, Principal Secretary, Office of the Prime Minister of Ontario (Canada); Cengiz Candar, Journalist, Referans (Turkey); Henri de Castries, Chairman of Management Board and CEO, AXA (France); Juan Luis Cebrian, CEO, Grupo PRISA media group (Spain); Hikmet Cetin, Former Minister for Foreign Affairs and former NATO Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan (Turkey); Kenneth Clarke, Member of Parliament (UK); Timothy C. Collins, Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holding, LLC (USA); Frans van Daele, Permanent Representative of Belgium to NATO (Belgium); George A. David, Chairman, Coca-Cola HBC SA (Greece); Etienne Davignon, Vice-Chairman, Suez-Tractebel, Honorary Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings (Belgium); Richard Dearlove, Master, Pembroke College, Cambridge (UK); Kemal Dervis, Administrator, UNDP (Turkey); Anna Diamantopoulou, Member of Parliament (Greece); Thomas E. Donilon, Partner, O’Melveny & Myers LLP (USA); Mathias Dopfner, Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer AG (Germany); Cem Duna, Former Ambassador to the European Union (Turkey); Esther Dyson, Chairman, EDventure Holdings, Inc. (USA); Anders Eldrup, President, DONG AS (Denmark); John Elkann, Vice Chairman, Fiat SpA (Italy); Ulrik Federspiel, Permanent Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Denmark); Martin S. Feldstein, President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research (USA); Timothy F. Geithner, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (USA); Paul A. Gigot, Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal (USA); Eival Gilady, CEO, The Portland Trust, Israel (Israel); Dermot Gleeson, Chairman, AIB Group (Ireland); Emre Gonensay, Professor of Economics, Isik University, and former Minister for Foreign Affairs (Turkey); Marc Grossman, Vice Chairman, The Cohen Group (USA); Alfred Gusenbauer, Federal Chancellor (Austria); Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations (USA); Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Economics, Leiden University, former Honorary Secretary-General of Bilderberg Meetings (The Netherlands); Peter D. Hart, Chairman, Peter D. Hart Research Associates (USA); Frank Heemskerk, Minister for Foreign Trade (The Netherlands); Paul Hermelin, CEO, Cap Gemini SA (France); Richard C. Holbrooke, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA); Jan H. M. Hommen, Chairman, Reed Elsevier NV (The Netherlands); Jaap G. de Hoop Scheffer,* Secretary-General, NATO (The Netherlands/International); Atte Jaaskelainen, Director of News, Sports and Regional Programmes, YLE (Finland); Kenneth Jacobs, Deputy Chairman, Head of Lazard USA, Lazard Freres & Co. LLC (USA); James A. Johnson, Vice Chairman, Perseus LLC (USA); Vernon E. Jordan, Jr, Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frres & Co. LLC (USA); His Majesty, King Juan Carlos I,* King of Spain (Spain); Jyrki Katainen, Minister of Finance (Finland); Jason Kenney, Member of Parliament (Canada); Muhtar Kent, President and Chief Operating Officer, The Coca-Cola Company (USA); John Kerr (Lord Kerr of Kinlochard), Member, House of Lords, Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (UK); Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates (USA); Eckart von Klaeden, Foreign Policy Spokesman, CDU/CSU (Germany); Klaus Kleinfeld, President and CEO, Siemens AG (Germany); Mustafa V. Koc, Chairman, Ko Holding AS (Turkey); Bruce Kovner, Chairman, Caxto Associates LLC (USA); Henry R. Kravis, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (USA); Marie-Josée Kravis, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc. (USA); Idar Kreutzer, CEO, Storebrand ASA (The Netherlands); Neelie Kroes, Commissioner, European Commission (The Netherlands/ International); Bernardino Leon Gross, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Spain); Mogens Lykketoft, Member of Parliament (Denmark); William J. Luti, Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and Strategy, National Security Council (USA); Jessica T. Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (USA); Michael McDowell, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Ireland); John R. Micklethwait, Editor, The Economist (UK); Mario Monti, President, University Commerciale Luigi Bocconi (Italy); Craig J. Mundie, Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation (USA); Egil Myklebust, Chairman, SAS and Norsk Hydro ASA (Norway); Matthias Nass, Deputy Editor, Die Zeit (Germany); Ewald Nowotny, CEO, BAWAG PSK (Austria); Christine Ockrent, Editor-in-Chief, France Television (France); Jorma Ollila, Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Chairman and CEO, Nokia Corporation (Finland); George Osborne, MP, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK); Laurence Parisot, President, MEDEF (Mouvement des Entreprises de France) (France); Christopher Patten, Member, House of Lords (UK); Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (USA); Rick Perry, Governor of Texas (USA); Volker Perthes, Director, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (Germany); HRH Prince Philippe of Belgium (Belgium); Rodrigo de Rato y Figaredo, Managing Director, IMF (International); Olli Rehn, Commissioner, European Commission (International); Heather Reisman, Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. (Canada); Mat’as Rodriguez Inciarte, Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander, Ciudad Grupo (Spain); Olivier Roy, Senior Researcher, CNRS (France); Paolo Scaroni, CEO, Eni SpA (Italy); Eric Schmidt, Chairman of the Executive Committee and CEO, Google (USA); Rudolf Scholten, Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG (Austria); Jorgen E. Schrempp, former Chairman of the Board of Management, DaimlerChrysler AG (Germany); Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum (Switzerland); Robert W. Scully, Co-President, Morgan Stanley (USA); Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas (USA); Josette Sheeran, Executive Director, UN World Food Programme (USA); Kristen Silverberg, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Interational Organization Affairs (USA); Domenico Siniscalco, Managing Director and Vice Chairman, Morgan Stanley (Italy); Javier Solana,* High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union and the Western European Union (International); Her Majesty Queen Sophia, Queen of Spain (Spain); Ayse Soysal, Rector, Bosphorus University (Turkey); Lawrence H. Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University (USA); Peter D. Sutherland, Chairman, BP PLC, and Chairman, Goldman Sachs International (Ireland); Carl-Henric Svanberg, President and CEO, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Sweden); Paul A. Taggart, Professor of Politics, University of Sussex (UK); Sidney Taurel, Chairman and CEO, Eli Lilly and Company (USA); J. Martin Taylor, Chairman, Syngenta International AG (UK); Peter A. Thiel, President, Clarium Capital Management, LLC (USA); Teija Tiilikainen, State Secretary, Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Finland); Michel Tilmant, Chairman, ING NV (The Netherlands); Jean-Claude Trichet, Governor, European Central Bank (France/International); Jens Ulltveit-Moe, CEO, Umoe AS (Norway); Daniel L. Vasella, Chairman and CEO, Novartis AG (Switzerland); Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (The Netherlands); Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman, Investor AB (Sweden); Vin (J.V.) Weber, Partner, Clark & Weinstock (USA); Guido Westerwelle, Chairman, Free Democratic Party (Germany); Ross Wilson, Ambassador to Turkey (USA); James D. Wolfensohn, Chairman, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC (USA); Paul Wolfowitz, President, The World Bank (International); Joseph R. Wood, Deputy Assistant to the Vice President, National Security Affairs (USA); Adrian D. Wooldridge, Foreign Correspondent, The Economist; Rapporteur (UK); Arzuhan Dogan Yalindag, President, TUSIAD (Turkey); Erkut Yucaoglu, Chairman of the Board, MAP, former President, TUSIAD (Turkey); Philip D. Zelikow, White Burkett Miller Professor of History, University of Virginia (USA); Robert B. Zoellick,* former US Trade Representative, former Deputy Secretary of State, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs (USA).

* Known to have attended Bilderberg 2007, although not included on the official list of attendees distributed by the Bilderberg Meetings office.

19/08: Bilderberg 2007 – Towards a One World Empire?

август 23, 2007

http://malaysia-today.net/blog2006/corridors.php

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Discussions at the 2007 Bilderberg Group meetings covered concerns over the World Bank presidency, Russia’s muscle-flexing on energy issues and the failure of US-led NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Extracted from Nexus Magazine, Volume 14, Number 5 (August – September 2007)
PO Box 30, Mapleton Qld 4560 Australia. editor@nexusmagazine.com
Telephone: +61 (0)7 5442 9280; Fax: +61 (0)7 5442 9381
From our web page at: www.nexusmagazine.com

by Daniel Estulin
Email: daniel@danielestulin.com
http://www.danielestulin.com

The Sun has set on Bilderberg 2007 in Istanbul, Turkey. After a sumptuous lunch on this warm and sunny 3rd June, most Bilderbergers returned to their countries of choice, freshly armed with precise instructions from the Steering Committee on how to proceed in covertly expanding the powers of One World Government. Amongst this year’s luminaries in attendance were: Henry Kissinger; Henry Kravis of KKR; Marie-Josée Kravis of Hudson Institute; Vernon Jordan; Etienne Davignon, Bilderberg Group President; Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands, daughter of one of the founders, Prince Bernhard; and the King and Queen of Spain.

As a rhetorical question, can someone please explain to me how it is that progressive liberals such as John Edwards and Hillary Clinton as well as do-gooder humanitarians with multiple social projects on the go, such as David Rockefeller and every Royal House in Europe, can perennially attend Bilderberg meetings knowing that the final objective of this despicable group of hoodlums is a fascist One World Empire? How could it be orchestrated?

The idea is to give to each country a political constitution and an appropriate national economic structure, organised for the following purposes: (1) to place political power into the hands of chosen people and eliminate all intermediaries; (2) to establish a maximum concentration of industries and suppress all unwarranted competition; (3) to establish absolute control of prices of all goods and raw materials (Bilderbergers make it possible through their iron-grip control of The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization); and (4) to create judicial and social institutions that would prevent all extremes of action.

NOT PRIVATE, BUT SECRET

Although participants emphatically attest that they attend the Club’s annual meeting as private citizens and not in their official government capacity, that affirmation is dubious-particularly when you compare the Chatham House Rule with the Logan Act in the United States, where it is absolutely illegal for elected officials to meet in private with influential business executives to debate and design public policy.

Bilderberg meetings follow a traditional protocol founded in 1919, in the wake of the Paris Peace Conference held at Versailles, by the Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) based at Chatham House in London. While the name Chatham House is commonly used to refer to the Institute itself, the Royal Institute of International Affairs is the foreign policy executive arm of the British monarchy.

According to RIIA procedures: „When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed; nor may it be mentioned that the information was received at a meeting of the Institute.“

The Logan Act was intended to prohibit United States citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. However, there have been a number of judicial references to the Act, and it is not uncommon for it to be used as a political weapon.

Those who have attended Bilderberg Group meetings over the years and flouted the Logan Act include: Allen Dulles (CIA); Senator William J. Fulbright (from Arkansas, a Rhodes Scholar); Dean Acheson (Secretary of State under President Truman); Nelson Rockefeller and Laurance Rockefeller; former President Gerald Ford; Henry J. Heinz II (former CEO, H. J. Heinz Co.); Thomas L. Hughes (former President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); Robert S. McNamara (President Kennedy’s Secretary of Defense and former President of the World Bank); William P. Bundy (former President of the Ford Foundation, and former editor of the Council on Foreign Relations’ Foreign Affairs journal); John J. McCloy (former President of Chase Manhattan Bank); George F. Kennan (former US Ambassador to the Soviet Union); Paul H. Nitze (former representative of Schroeder Bank; Nitze played a very prominent role in matters of arms control agreements, which have always been under the direction of the RIIA); Robert O. Anderson (former Chairman, Atlantic Richfield Co., and Chairman, Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies); John D. Rockefeller IV (former Governor of West Virginia, now US Senator); Cyrus Vance (Secretary of State under President Carter); Eugene Black (former President of the World Bank); Joseph Johnson (former President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace); Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster (former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and later Superintendent of West Point Academy); Zbigniew Brzezinski (National Security Adviser to President Carter, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission); General Alexander Haig (once European NATO Commander, former assistant to Henry Kissinger, and later Secretary of State under President Reagan); James S. Rockefeller (former President and Chairman, First National City Bank, now Citibank).

BILDERBERG 2007 CONCLUSIONS

Thanks to our inside sources at the conference, we have compiled what we believe to be an accurate and a credible model of the Bilderberg 2007 conclusions. Following is a summary of some key points with some additional commentary added. Other subjects discussed were climate change and global warming, Turkey’s role in the new European Union, World Bank reforms, Middle East geopolitics, the conflict in Iraq, Iran’s potential nuclear threat, and the future of democracy and populism.

Robert Zoellick and The World Bank

The United States delegation is standing unanimously behind Robert Zoellick’s candidacy as the next President of The World Bank. Zoellick is a 53-year-old Wall Street executive, a former official in two Bush administrations and a free-market fundamentalist. During the meeting, he pledged „to work to restore confidence in the bank“. „We need to put our differences aside and focus on the future together. I believe that the World Bank’s best days are still to come,“ Zoellick said. The chances of Zoellick not being approved for the presidency are slim to none. The final decision is to be made in late June by the bank’s 24-member board of directors.

The United States and Europe have a tacit agreement between them that the World Bank’s President should always be a US national, while its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), should always be headed by a European. Nevertheless, according to our sources at the conference, European Bilderbergers are not at all pleased with continuing the status quo, in which the US nominates a single candidate after informal consultations with World Bank members.

The Zoellick nomination also appears to short-circuit burgeoning calls for reform of this selection process at the World Bank, one of the cornerstones of the global financial architecture as designed by the victors of World War II. One Belgian Bilderberger proposed „a merit-based selection process, without regard to nationality“, something which will obviously be discarded by the inept Bush administration. What is quite remarkable is that on several occasions European Bilderbergers openly rejected the current model, saying „the nomination reeks of double standards“, especially because both the USA and the World Bank preach accountability and transparency to developing countries-the main clients of the bank.

But with the IMF under the control of a Spaniard, Rodrigo Rato, and the European Central Bank headed by a Frenchman, Jean-Claude Trichet, it was difficult to imagine that the USA would give up control of the World Bank. Only the US Federal Reserve would remain in the hands of the Americans.

„Replacing one Bush appointee with another will not resolve the fundamental governance problems of the World Bank,“ said one Scandinavian. „Member governments should reject a back-door deal that leaves the bank’s governance structure intact, and should press for an open, merit-based selection process,“ he said.

Zoellick’s name also raised eyebrows among development groups for his close ties to the US establishment and corporate interests.

One of the attendees (I have not been able to confirm this individual’s identity) asked Zoellick how he was planning to patch up relationships with Third and Fourth World nations when he is best remembered during his tenure as US Trade Representative for arm-twisting poor nations’ governments to adhere to US-imposed intellectual-property laws that make medicines, for example, unaffordable in the developing world. Zoellick has been a close friend to the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, and the bilateral trade agreements he has negotiated effectively block access to generic medications for millions of people.

However, what has really riled both the American and European delegates is the fact that the World Bank’s dirty linen is being washed in public, thanks in great part to Paul Wolfowitz and his ineptness, which incidentally he has blamed on the press.

[Postscript: On 25 June, Robert Zoellick was unanimously elected President of The World Bank for a five-year term, taking over from Paul Wolfowitz on 1 July. In a statement posted at www.worldbank.org, he said: "Once I start at the World Bank, I will be eager to meet the people who drive the agenda of overcoming poverty in all regions, with particular attention to Africa, advancing social and economic development, investing in growth, and encouraging hope, opportunity and dignity."]

Relations with Russia

Another issue of great concern to both American and European Bilderbergers is Russia’s current muscle-flexing on the issue of energy. The controversy over the TNK-BP licence, BP’s Russian venture, is just one of many circumstances causing anger amongst the globalist elite.

One American Bilderberger said that after years of economic stagnation, „Russia is acting against unipolarity’s accommodating ideologies and politics, against its recently resurgent manifestations and machinations, and against the instruments of its perpetuation, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation [NATO]„.

Bilderberg 2007 served as a consensus-building exercise to decide on a common policy and strategy to deal with Russia’s resurgence. In particular, Bilderberg is not at all happy with Russia’s current strategy of actively dismantling what remains of „the atmosphere of acquiescence to America’s will“, in the words of one Bilderberger, which arose in the post-Soviet period and was absolutely crucial to the thriving of US-led unipolarity.

That was in the beginning of the 1990s, the early stages of the Yeltsin reign. With the wholesale looting of Russia in the 1990s through shock therapy and the loans-for-shares scheme, engineered by the socialist theoreticians at Harvard such as Jeffrey Sachs, Andrei Schliefer, David Lipton and Jonathan Hay, the country was brought into the dawn of the 21st century capitalist economy. As a result, Russia eventually toppled into anarchy, its population rendered desperate; its ability to support a world-class military establishment was smashed, which then made it inevitable that colonial behaviour would occur. That is exactly what George Ball was proposing during the Bilderberg 1968 meeting in Canada. I’ll get back to Ball later in this section.

Incidentally, the term „shock therapy“ refers to the sudden release of price and currency controls combined with the withdrawal of state subsidies and immediate trade liberalisation within a country-all the necessary ingredients for impoverishment of the society…in this case, Russia.

In Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book The Grand Chessboard,1 „Russia“ and „vital energy reserves“, as it turns out, are mentioned more frequently than any other country and subject in the book. Brzezinski is President Carter’s former National Security Advisor, a co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Club and a close associate of David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger. He is the proverbial insider’s insider. According to Brzezinski, global US and thus Bilderberg hegemony depended on having complete control of Russia’s vital energy reserves in Central Asia. As long as Russia remained strong, it remained a threat-a potential block to the complete imposition of Bilderberg-led economic and military will.

Bilderberg energy imperatives and geopolitical control are once again coming to play a key role in the lives of hundreds of millions of unsuspecting people.

Brzezinski spelled out in The Grand Chessboard the compelling energy issue driving American policy: „A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 percent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprise and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 percent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.“

The history of mankind has always shown that controlling the heart of Eurasia was the key to controlling the entire known world. Azerbaijan, containing the riches of the Caspian Sea Basin and Central Asia, is a case in point. From the US perspective, the independence of the Central Asian states will be rendered nearly meaningless if Azerbaijan becomes fully subordinated to Moscow’s control. To the Bilderbergers, energy imperatives are the end game.

The energy theme appears again later in Brzezinski’s book, written four years before 9/11: „The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the US Department of Energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy.“

Clearly, to the Bilderbergers, Russia was the beginning of the end game.

During a presentation titled „Internationalisation of Business“ to the 26-28 April 1968 Bilderberg meeting at Mont Tremblant, Canada, George Ball provided a far more truthful and insightful glimpse into the group’s economic orientation. Ball, who was Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs under JFK and Lyndon Johnson, a Steering Committee member of the Bilderberg Group as well as a Senior Managing Director for Lehman Brothers and Kuhn Loeb Inc., defined the Bilderberg’s new policy of globalisation and how it would shape the New World Order.

As Pierre Beaudry noted in Synarchy Movement of Empire, „…Ball presented an outline of the advantages of a new-colonial world economic order based on the concept of a ‘world company’, and described some of the obstacles that needed to be eliminated for its success. According to Ball, the first and most important thing that had to be eliminated was ‘the archaic political structure of the nation state’.“

In other words, Ball was calling for a return to the old colonialism system, but this time built on the concept of a „world company“.

„Ball wrote: ‘To be productive, we must begin our inquiry by explicitly recognizing the lack of phasing between development of the world company-a concept responding to modern needs-and the continued existence of an archaic political structure of nation states, mostly small or of only medium size, which is evolving only at glacier pace in response to new world requirements of scope and scale.’“

Beaudry concluded: „It was clear for Ball that the very structure of the nation state, and the idea of the commonwealth, or of a general welfare of a people, represented the main obstacle against any attempt of freely looting the planet, especially the weak and poor nations of the world, and represented the most important impediment to the creation of a neo-colonial world empire. The priority of the world company is obviously based on international free trade without restraint, that is, trade measured by the British standard of profit of buying cheap and selling dear. The problem is that national governments have priorities, which are different than and contrary to those of a looting company…“

On page 39 of a Bilderberg transcript from the 1968 meeting at Mont Tremblant, Ball self-assuredly stated the following: „Where does one find a legitimate base for the power of corporate managements to make decisions that can profoundly affect the economic life of nations to whose governments they have only limited responsibility?“

In other words, Messrs Rockefeller and Davignon, what Mr Ball would like to know is: how does one establish a Halliburton type of world company, which would greatly surpass in authority any government on the planet? Isn’t that what „world company“, run by the ruling class, stands for?

Not according to Bilderberg President and Belgian multimillionaire Etienne Davignon. During his 2005 BBC interview, Mr Davignon said: „I don’t think a global ruling class exists. Business influences society, and politics influences society-that’s purely common sense. It’s not that business contests the right of democratically elected leaders to lead.“

Is that so, Mr Davignon? Current parliamentary democracy works on the basis of an „elected“ head of state and a parliament, which can be dumped any time you decide to orchestrate a crisis and put a third branch of government in charge of its financial system, called an „independent central banking system“.

In the United States, this „independent“ banking system is known as the Federal Reserve, a privately owned bank interlocked with the Bilderberg Group. In Europe, the independent banking system is run through the European Central Bank, whose monetary policies are put together by the leading members of the Bilderberger elite, such as Jean-Claude Trichet. In Britain, this independent system is run by the Bank of England, whose members are also full-time members of the Bilderberg Group’s inner circle. The independent central banking system controls the emission of currency, controls national credit and interest rates, and, any time the government displeases it, uses its power to orchestrate the overthrow of the government. The British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was overthrown because she opposed the wilful handover of British sovereignty to the global world company superstate designed by the Bilderbergers. This is what Kuhn, Loeb and Lehman Brothers have been building worldwide, by way of mergers and acquisitions, from the 1960s until today. In the past decades, the entire deregulation policy of US industries and banking was precisely set up in response to this blueprint scenario for creating giant corporations for a new empire whose intention is nothing short of perpetual war.

Could the eventual dismemberment and weakening of Russia-to the point that it could not oppose US military operations that have now successfully secured control of the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia-been part of a multi-decade plan for global domination? Most credible senior analysts definitely believe so.

At a 1997 symposium held in Bonn, Germany, Dr Sergei Glazyev, Chairman of the Economic Policy Committee of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, explained: „This colonisation, masked as reforms, destroyed the basic institutions of Russian society along the following basic lines: (1) destruction of the financial system of the state by means of an endless build-up of the state debt pyramid, shrinking of the tax base, deepening of the non-payments crisis, and disorganisation of the monetary system; (2) destruction of the scientific and technological potential of the country, achieved by means of a many-fold reduction in state financing of science, the collapse of technological cooperation and scientific production integration in the course of mass privatisation, and the refusal of the government to have any scientific and technical, industrial or structural policy at all; (3) sale of controlling blocs of shares in the leading and most valuable Russian firms, in industry, electric power and telecommunications, to foreign companies; (4) Transfer of the right to exploit the most valuable Russian raw materials deposits to transnational corporations; (5) establishment of foreign control over the Russian stock exchange; (6) establishment of direct foreign control over the shaping of Russian domestic and foreign economic policy.“

The Bilderberg conclusions are striking in their candidness: „The US can no longer ride roughshod over, nor bully, nor simply ignore resurgent Russia, rising China or the globe’s regimes that supply the vital oil that fuels the US economy. Something must be done, and urgently, in order to cut deeply into Russia’s mounting global energy leverage. The US-Russia strategically deteriorating relations are one victim of this geopolitical struggle for energy supremacy.“

One Finnish delegate’s opinion that „no US-Russia military confrontation is likely, no matter how tense things should get“ is increasingly an unsafe one as a more desperate US pushes back against a much more aggressive Russia. Dr Henry Kissinger added that „aggressive, unilateralist US foreign policy has forced ‘axis of evil’ states to accelerate their pursuit of nuclear weapons to immunise themselves against US military strikes“.

Richard Perle pointed out that in response to aggressive US tactics across the globe, Russia has undertaken asymmetric steps to undermine the ability of the US to project its military power effectively into their neighbourhoods and into those of their partners and allies. When one American Bilderberger tried to object, European delegates brought up China’s recent response to US intentions to weaponise space: a simple and relatively inexpensive demonstration of destruction of its satellite. The example produced snickering in the room, much to the chagrin of the Americans.

Afghanistan and the price of treason

Another subject under discussion dealt with Afghanistan. It was commonly agreed by the attendees that the US-led NATO alliance/mission is in a state of quagmire and that „the situation in the country is getting worse“. The problem can be defined, in the words of one British Bilderberger, as „one of the unreal expectations“. He went on to explain that clamouring for democratic reform while simultaneously propping up Pashtun warlords without delivering serious progress „has managed to discredit a lot of our basic notions in the eyes of the Afghans“.

Bilderbergers, however, aren’t the only ones left scratching their heads as to how Western governments and their carefully chosen Afghan partners have managed to spend billions of dollars in development assistance with little to show for it.

Catastrophe is good for business; always has been. Without suffering, there would be no humanitarian assistance. And without humanitarian assistance, there would be no room for undercover intelligence network operations as part of Western imperatives for geopolitical control.

The worse it looks, the better it sells. While the American people were getting their daily diet of ubiquitous images of repression, suffering and burka-clad Afghani women beamed into every living room in America, a propaganda campaign was surreptitiously launched in the pages of newspapers and glossy magazines. The New York Times and the New Yorker were greasing the gears of the misery machine by urging the US government, the United Nations and anyone who would listen to „do something“-amid the jewellery advertisements. Terror and horror, like expensive jewellery, became commodities.

Today, Afghanistan and its African cousins of Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Congo and Rwanda and the rest of the nations blessed with Western humanitarian help are all basket cases. Bilderbergers seem to be asking: how is it possible that humanitarian missions of such scale and magnitude could have failed so miserably? Is it a case of good-intentioned exercises going bad due to corruption, greed and lack of oversight? Or is it the merciless dismemberment of yet more foreign lands and cultures exercised stealthily through humanitarian aid agencies tied to the larger apparatus of government?

Furthermore, the US government’s support for known Afghani drug warlords adds another vital clue to the puzzle. The amount of profit generated annually by the drug trade, according to the United Nations, is somewhere around $700 billion in tax-free cash flow per year. Seven hundred billion dollars a year is too much money to hide in a sock. You need a lot of experience and expertise to move those kinds of funds stealthily. Does anyone doubt that Afghanistan is about drugs? Does anyone doubt that the CIA is involved?

For example, the CIA financed the Muslim Brotherhood in 1977 and trained the mujahedin in preparation for the campaign of collusion between Washington and right-wing Islam: the Afghan War. The roots to the Afghan conflict can be traced to Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, the centre of the Muslim Brotherhood’s activity. Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, alleged airline hijacker Mohammed Atta was identified as a Muslim Brother in several Western publications such as the Washington Post (22 September 2001), the Observer (23 September 2001) and Newsweek (31 December 2001). Other Muslim Brothers involved were Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man, an Egyptian by the name of Ayman al-Zawahiri, is also a lifelong member of the Brotherhood.

Robert Dreyfuss, in his extremely important book Devil’s Game,4 explained it thus: „They returned to Afghanistan and formed a branch of the Brothers, the Islamic Society. Later, these same ‘professors’, as they were known, would form the backbone of the Afghan mujahedin who waged a US-backed, decade-long war against the Soviet occupation. The three leading ‘professors’ were Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, Burhanuddin Rabbani and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.“ Sayyaf and Hekmatyar, two big-time Pashtun drug traffickers and CIA assets, were backed by Pakistani Intelligence as well as Pakistan’s own „branch“ of the Brotherhood and funded by Saudi money.

There is yet another link between the Brotherhood and the super-secret Bilderberg Group. In the early 1980s, Bilderberger Michael Ledeen of the ultraconservative American Enterprise Institute and Bilderberger Richard Perle used Hekmatyar as a poster boy of anti-Soviet resistance at the time when Hekmatyar was actively working with Hezb-i-Islami terrorists to undermine America’s influence in Afghanistan. Does anyone reading this doubt that this is hardly a coincidence?

First came the „humanitarian relief“ through non-government organisations. In short order, this was followed by the US military which came to the rescue out of the goodness of its heart for „purely humanitarian objectives“. Once on the ground, it became an exercise in „nation-building“. In the end, it morphed into the hunt for a terrorist dictator.

During an animated discussion at Bilderberg 2007 in Istanbul, one Italian asked if the US-led NATO forces have „the will to stay the course“. In the wake of the US military siege of Tora Bora, Afghanistan, in December 2001, the commanding general, Tommy Franks, reportedly said it was not his intention to „get embroiled in a Soviet-style long-term engagement as in the 1980s“. Now, however, American Bilderbergers are pressuring NATO allies to provide larger troop contributions to the cause.

Dr Kissinger insisted that „the will“ is lacking and so „we must now begin to acknowledge our limits“. „The choices facing us are very difficult,“ reflected one European Royal, wholeheartedly agreeing with Kissinger’s assessment on the lack of commitment and will. A NATO representative categorically stated that the West has neither the political intelligence nor the understanding to fight a protracted, decade-long counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan.

A MEANS TO AN END?

The Bilderberg Group is not the end but the means to a future One World Government. This organisation has grown beyond its secretive beginnings to become a virtual shadow government which decides in total secrecy at annual meetings how its plans are to be carried out. The ultimate goal of this nightmare future is to transform Earth into a prison planet by bringing about a single globalised marketplace, controlled by a One World Government, policed by a United World Army, financially regulated by a World Bank, and populated by a microchipped population whose life’s needs have been stripped down to materialism and survival-work, buy, procreate, sleep-all connected to a global computer that monitors our every move.

And it is becoming easier because the development of telecommunications technology together with profound advances in present-day knowledge and new methods of behaviour engineering to manipulate individual conduct are converting what, in other epochs of history, were only evil intentions into a disturbing new reality. Each new measure, viewed on its own, may seem an aberration, but a whole host of changes, as part of an ongoing continuum, constitutes a shift towards total enslavement.

But there is hope. In almost every corner of the planet, stress points are beginning to fracture and people are starting to take sides. There is a general awakening taking place as people hold mirrors up to the irrationality that’s being imposed upon them. This awakening is beginning to empower our collective learning and understanding. You see, the powers-that-be have told us that world events are too difficult for the layperson to understand. They lied! We have been told that national secrets must be zealously protected. Indeed, they must! No government wants its citizens to discover that its best and brightest participate in massive collusion, conspiracy and pillaging of the planet.

Now, as the year 2007 unfolds, we find ourselves at the crossroads. The road we take from here will determine the very future of humanity and whether we will become an electronic global police state or remain free human beings. We must always remember that it is not up to God to bring us back from the „New Dark Age“ planned for us. It is up to us. Forewarned is forearmed. We will never find the right answers if we don’t ask the right questions.

Endnotes:

1. Brzezinski, Zbigniew, The Grand Chessboard: American primacy and its geostrategic imperatives, Basic Books, New York, 1997
2. Beaudry, Pierre, Synarchy Movement of Empire, Leesburg, Virginia, USA, 2005, Book IV, chapter 4, pp. 104-05, at
http://www.pehi.eu/organisations/SME/Synarchy_Movement_of_Empire_book_04.pdf
3. Glazyev, Sergei, „From a Five-Year Plan of Destruction to a Five-Year Plan of Colonisation“, EIR Bonn Symposium, 1997
4. Dreyfuss, Robert, Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam, Henry Holt & Co., New York, 2005
5. Smucker, Philip, „Missions impossible: NATO’s Afghan dilemma“, Asia Times Online, 1 June 2007
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/IF01Df01.html

About the Author:

Based in Spain, Daniel Estulin is an award-winning investigative journalist who has been researching the Bilderberg Group for over 15 years. He is the author of La Verdadera Historia del Club Bilderberg (2005), a bestseller in Spain and now in its 13th printing; it has been translated into 24 languages and sold to over 42 countries. The English-language edition, The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, is to be published by Trine Day, USA in September 2007 (available through Amazon.com). The sequel, Los Secretos del Club Bilderberg (2006), is already in its second printing in Spanish; bidding for international rights is scheduled for (northern) autumn 2007.

Estulin’s previous contribution to NEXUS was in 2005 with „Breaking the Silence: Bilderberg Exposed“ (vol. 12, no. 5). The original text of this 2007 article is at the web page http://www.danielestulin.com/?op=noticias&noticias= ver&id=345&idioma=en.

Daniel Estulin can be contacted by email at daniel@danielestulin.com. For more information, visit his website at http://www.danielestulin.com.

DELEGATES AT BILDERBERG 2007

Istanbul, Turkey, 31 May – 3 June 2007

This year’s delegation included many of the most important politicians, businessmen, central bankers, European commissioners and executives of the Western corporate press. They were joined at the table by leading representatives of European royalty.

According to the Bilderberg Steering Committee list which this author has had access to, the following names have now been confirmed as attendees at the Bilderberg 2007 conference (uncharacteristically, David Rockefeller was not present).

Graham Allison, Douglas Dillon Professor of Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University (USA); George Alogoskoufis, Minister for Economy and Finance (Greece); Ali Babacan, Minister for Economic Affairs (Turkey); Francisco Pinto Balsemo, Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA SGPS, former Prime Minister (Portugal); Michel Barnier, Vice President, Merieux Alliance; former Minister for Foreign Affairs (France); Michael Barone, Senior Writer, US News & World Report (USA); Martin Bartenstein, Federal Minister of Economics and Labour (Austria); Nicolas Baverez, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (France); Her Majesty Queen Beatrix, Queen of The Netherlands (The Netherlands); Leonor Beleza, President, Champalimaud Foundation (Portugal); Franco Bernabe, Vice Chairman, Rothschild Europe (Italy); Rosina M. Bierbaum, Professor and Dean, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan (USA); Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs, former Prime Minister (Sweden); Mehmet A. Birand, Columnist (Turkey); Lloyd C. Blankfein, Chairman and CEO, Goldman Sachs & Co. (USA); Anders Borg, Minister for Finance (Sweden); Charles G. Boyd, President and CEO, Business Executives for National Security (USA); Umit N. Boyner, Member, Executive Board, Boyner Holding (Turkey); Vendeline A. H. von Bredow, Business Correspondent, The Economist; Rapporteur (Germany); Ian Bremmer, President, Eurasia Group (USA); Oscar Bronner, Publisher and Editor, Der Standard (Austria); Hubert Burda, Publisher and CEO, Hubert Burda Media Holding (Belgium); Gerald Butts, Principal Secretary, Office of the Prime Minister of Ontario (Canada); Cengiz Candar, Journalist, Referans (Turkey); Henri de Castries, Chairman of Management Board and CEO, AXA (France); Juan Luis Cebrian, CEO, Grupo PRISA media group (Spain); Hikmet Cetin, Former Minister for Foreign Affairs and former NATO Senior Civilian Representative in Afghanistan (Turkey); Kenneth Clarke, Member of Parliament (UK); Timothy C. Collins, Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holding, LLC (USA); Frans van Daele, Permanent Representative of Belgium to NATO (Belgium); George A. David, Chairman, Coca-Cola HBC SA (Greece); Etienne Davignon, Vice-Chairman, Suez-Tractebel, Honorary Chairman, Bilderberg Meetings (Belgium); Richard Dearlove, Master, Pembroke College, Cambridge (UK); Kemal Dervis, Administrator, UNDP (Turkey); Anna Diamantopoulou, Member of Parliament (Greece); Thomas E. Donilon, Partner, O’Melveny & Myers LLP (USA); Mathias Dopfner, Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer AG (Germany); Cem Duna, Former Ambassador to the European Union (Turkey); Esther Dyson, Chairman, EDventure Holdings, Inc. (USA); Anders Eldrup, President, DONG AS (Denmark); John Elkann, Vice Chairman, Fiat SpA (Italy); Ulrik Federspiel, Permanent Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Denmark); Martin S. Feldstein, President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research (USA); Timothy F. Geithner, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (USA); Paul A. Gigot, Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal (USA); Eival Gilady, CEO, The Portland Trust, Israel (Israel); Dermot Gleeson, Chairman, AIB Group (Ireland); Emre Gonensay, Professor of Economics, Isik University, and former Minister for Foreign Affairs (Turkey); Marc Grossman, Vice Chairman, The Cohen Group (USA); Alfred Gusenbauer, Federal Chancellor (Austria); Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations (USA); Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Economics, Leiden University, former Honorary Secretary-General of Bilderberg Meetings (The Netherlands); Peter D. Hart, Chairman, Peter D. Hart Research Associates (USA); Frank Heemskerk, Minister for Foreign Trade (The Netherlands); Paul Hermelin, CEO, Cap Gemini SA (France); Richard C. Holbrooke, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA); Jan H. M. Hommen, Chairman, Reed Elsevier NV (The Netherlands); Jaap G. de Hoop Scheffer,* Secretary-General, NATO (The Netherlands/International); Atte Jaaskelainen, Director of News, Sports and Regional Programmes, YLE (Finland); Kenneth Jacobs, Deputy Chairman, Head of Lazard USA, Lazard Freres & Co. LLC (USA); James A. Johnson, Vice Chairman, Perseus LLC (USA); Vernon E. Jordan, Jr, Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frres & Co. LLC (USA); His Majesty, King Juan Carlos I,* King of Spain (Spain); Jyrki Katainen, Minister of Finance (Finland); Jason Kenney, Member of Parliament (Canada); Muhtar Kent, President and Chief Operating Officer, The Coca-Cola Company (USA); John Kerr (Lord Kerr of Kinlochard), Member, House of Lords, Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (UK); Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates (USA); Eckart von Klaeden, Foreign Policy Spokesman, CDU/CSU (Germany); Klaus Kleinfeld, President and CEO, Siemens AG (Germany); Mustafa V. Koc, Chairman, Ko Holding AS (Turkey); Bruce Kovner, Chairman, Caxto Associates LLC (USA); Henry R. Kravis, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (USA); Marie-Josée Kravis, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc. (USA); Idar Kreutzer, CEO, Storebrand ASA (The Netherlands); Neelie Kroes, Commissioner, European Commission (The Netherlands/ International); Bernardino Leon Gross, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Spain); Mogens Lykketoft, Member of Parliament (Denmark); William J. Luti, Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and Strategy, National Security Council (USA); Jessica T. Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (USA); Michael McDowell, Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Ireland); John R. Micklethwait, Editor, The Economist (UK); Mario Monti, President, University Commerciale Luigi Bocconi (Italy); Craig J. Mundie, Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation (USA); Egil Myklebust, Chairman, SAS and Norsk Hydro ASA (Norway); Matthias Nass, Deputy Editor, Die Zeit (Germany); Ewald Nowotny, CEO, BAWAG PSK (Austria); Christine Ockrent, Editor-in-Chief, France Television (France); Jorma Ollila, Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Chairman and CEO, Nokia Corporation (Finland); George Osborne, MP, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK); Laurence Parisot, President, MEDEF (Mouvement des Entreprises de France) (France); Christopher Patten, Member, House of Lords (UK); Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (USA); Rick Perry, Governor of Texas (USA); Volker Perthes, Director, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (Germany); HRH Prince Philippe of Belgium (Belgium); Rodrigo de Rato y Figaredo, Managing Director, IMF (International); Olli Rehn, Commissioner, European Commission (International); Heather Reisman, Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. (Canada); Mat’as Rodriguez Inciarte, Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander, Ciudad Grupo (Spain); Olivier Roy, Senior Researcher, CNRS (France); Paolo Scaroni, CEO, Eni SpA (Italy); Eric Schmidt, Chairman of the Executive Committee and CEO, Google (USA); Rudolf Scholten, Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG (Austria); Jorgen E. Schrempp, former Chairman of the Board of Management, DaimlerChrysler AG (Germany); Klaus Schwab, Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum (Switzerland); Robert W. Scully, Co-President, Morgan Stanley (USA); Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas (USA); Josette Sheeran, Executive Director, UN World Food Programme (USA); Kristen Silverberg, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Interational Organization Affairs (USA); Domenico Siniscalco, Managing Director and Vice Chairman, Morgan Stanley (Italy); Javier Solana,* High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union and the Western European Union (International); Her Majesty Queen Sophia, Queen of Spain (Spain); Ayse Soysal, Rector, Bosphorus University (Turkey); Lawrence H. Summers, Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University (USA); Peter D. Sutherland, Chairman, BP PLC, and Chairman, Goldman Sachs International (Ireland); Carl-Henric Svanberg, President and CEO, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Sweden); Paul A. Taggart, Professor of Politics, University of Sussex (UK); Sidney Taurel, Chairman and CEO, Eli Lilly and Company (USA); J. Martin Taylor, Chairman, Syngenta International AG (UK); Peter A. Thiel, President, Clarium Capital Management, LLC (USA); Teija Tiilikainen, State Secretary, Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Finland); Michel Tilmant, Chairman, ING NV (The Netherlands); Jean-Claude Trichet, Governor, European Central Bank (France/International); Jens Ulltveit-Moe, CEO, Umoe AS (Norway); Daniel L. Vasella, Chairman and CEO, Novartis AG (Switzerland); Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive, Royal Dutch Shell PLC (The Netherlands); Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman, Investor AB (Sweden); Vin (J.V.) Weber, Partner, Clark & Weinstock (USA); Guido Westerwelle, Chairman, Free Democratic Party (Germany); Ross Wilson, Ambassador to Turkey (USA); James D. Wolfensohn, Chairman, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC (USA); Paul Wolfowitz, President, The World Bank (International); Joseph R. Wood, Deputy Assistant to the Vice President, National Security Affairs (USA); Adrian D. Wooldridge, Foreign Correspondent, The Economist; Rapporteur (UK); Arzuhan Dogan Yalindag, President, TUSIAD (Turkey); Erkut Yucaoglu, Chairman of the Board, MAP, former President, TUSIAD (Turkey); Philip D. Zelikow, White Burkett Miller Professor of History, University of Virginia (USA); Robert B. Zoellick,* former US Trade Representative, former Deputy Secretary of State, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs (USA).

* Known to have attended Bilderberg 2007, although not included on the official list of attendees distributed by the Bilderberg Meetings office.

European Union: Dictatorship Rising?

јул 11, 2007

http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/european_union/european_union:_dictatorship_rising?_2007062868/

Vladimir Bukovksy, now 64, was a famous Soviet dissident from the 1960’s and 1970’s. A resident of England since 1976 when the USSR traded him for a communist prisoner held in the west, Bukovksy has since been an outspoken critic of communism and socialism.

Bukovksy delivered a speech while visiting Brussels in February, 2006. This speech was recorded and, thankfully, transcribed by Belgian journalist Paul Belien. The speech is presented in its entirety below and must be carefully read.

Note the reference to the Trilateral Commission in the highlighted paragraphs. At the time, Trilateral Commission membership was drawn from the global elite of Japan, Europe and north America (mostly the United States).

This writer and the late Antony Sutton (co-authors of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II) made a strong case that members of the Trilateral Commission hijacked the Executive Branch of the United States, starting with the election of Commission member James Earl Carter in 1976. The Commission’s undue influence has continued unabated and unchallenged through every Administration since Carter.

During this same time period, the European members of the Trilateral Commission were busy creating the European Union. In fact, the EU’s Constitution was authored by Commission member Valery Giscard d’Estaing in 2002-2003, when he was President of the Convention on the Future of Europe.

The European Union now serves as a model for the regionalization of north America, aka the North American Union.

Thus, it is no mistake that there are striking similarities between the proposed North American Union and the European Union — they are cut from the same cloth, by the same people. (See Toward a North American Union for a discussion of Trilateral Commission involvement in north America)

Conspiracy? Don’t buy that worn-out elitist deflection; this has all been done in plain sight for anyone to see, even as we (this editor and the late Antony Sutton) discovered over 30 years ago!

Transcript of Mr. Bukovksy’s Brussels speech

In 1992 I had unprecedented access to Politburo and Central Committee secret documents which have been classified, and still are even now, for 30 years. These documents show very clearly that the whole idea of turning the European common market into a federal state was agreed between the left-wing parties of Europe and Moscow as a joint project which [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev in 1988-89 called our “common European home.”

Vladimir BukovksyThe idea was very simple. It first came up in 1985-86, when the Italian Communists visited Gorbachev, followed by the German Social-Democrats. They all complained that the changes in the world, particularly after [British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher introduced privatisation and economic liberalisation, were threatening to wipe out the achievement (as they called it) of generations of Socialists and Social-Democrats – threatening to reverse it completely.

Therefore the only way to withstand this onslaught of wild capitalism (as they called it) was to try to introduce the same socialist goals in all countries at once. Prior to that, the left-wing parties and the Soviet Union had opposed European integration very much because they perceived it as a means to block their socialist goals. From 1985 onwards they completely changed their view. The Soviets came to a conclusion and to an agreement with the left-wing parties that if they worked together they could hijack the whole European project and turn it upside down. Instead of an open market they would turn it into a federal state.

According to the [secret Soviet] documents, 1985-86 is the turning point. I have published most of these documents. You might even find them on the internet. But the conversations they had are really eye opening. For the first time you understand that there is a conspiracy – quite understandable for them, as they were trying to save their political hides. In the East the Soviets needed a change of relations with Europe because they were entering a protracted and very deep structural crisis; in the West the left-wing parties were afraid of being wiped out and losing their influence and prestige. So it was a conspiracy, quite openly made by them, agreed upon, and worked out.

In January of 1989, for example, a delegation of the Trilateral Commission came to see Gorbachev. It included [former Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro] Nakasone, [former French President Valéry] Giscard d’Estaing, [American banker David] Rockefeller and [former US Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger. They had a very nice conversation where they tried to explain to Gorbachev that Soviet Russia had to integrate into the financial institutions of the world, such as GATT, the IMF and the World Bank.

In the middle of it Giscard d’Estaing suddenly takes the floor and says: “Mr President, I cannot tell you exactly when it will happen – probably within 15 years – but Europe is going to be a federal state and you have to prepare yourself for that. You have to work out with us, and the European leaders, how you would react to that, how would you allow the other Easteuropean countries to interact with it or how to become a part of it, you have to be prepared.”

This was January 1989, at a time when the [1992] Maastricht treaty had not even been drafted. How the hell did Giscard d’Estaing know what was going to happen in 15 years time? And surprise, surprise, how did he become the author of the European constitution [in 2002-03]? A very good question. It does smell of conspiracy, doesn’t it?

Luckily for us the Soviet part of this conspiracy collapsed earlier and it did not reach the point where Moscow could influence the course of events. But the original idea was to have what they called a convergency, whereby the Soviet Union would mellow somewhat and become more social-democratic, while Western Europe would become social-democratic and socialist. Then there will be convergency. The structures have to fit each other. This is why the structures of the European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into the Soviet structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning and in structure.

It is no accident that the European Parliament, for example, reminds me of the Supreme Soviet. It looks like the Supreme Soviet because it was designed like it. Similarly, when you look at the European Commission it looks like the Politburo. I mean it does so exactly, except for the fact that the Commission now has 25 members and the Politburo usually had 13 or 15 members. Apart from that they are exactly the same, unaccountable to anyone, not directly elected by anyone at all. When you look into all this bizarre activity of the European Union with its 80,000 pages of regulations it looks like Gosplan. We used to have an organisation which was planning everything in the economy, to the last nut and bolt, five years in advance. Exactly the same thing is happening in the EU. When you look at the type of EU corruption, it is exactly the Soviet type of corruption, going from top to bottom rather than going from bottom to top.

If you go through all the structures and features of this emerging European monster you will notice that it more and more resembles the Soviet Union. Of course, it is a milder version of the Soviet Union. Please, do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that it has a Gulag. It has no KGB – not yet – but I am very carefully watching such structures as Europol for example. That really worries me a lot because this organisation will probably have powers bigger than those of the KGB. They will have diplomatic immunity.

Can you imagine a KGB with diplomatic immunity? They will have to police us on 32 kinds of crimes – two of which are particularly worrying, one is called racism, another is called xenophobia. No criminal court on earth defines anything like this as a crime [Ed. note: Journalist Belien notes that this is not entirely true, as Belgium already does so]. So it is a new crime, and we have already been warned. Someone from the British government told us that those who object to uncontrolled immigration from the Third World will be regarded as racist and those who oppose further European integration will be regarded as xenophobes. I think Patricia Hewitt said this publicly.

Hence, we have now been warned. Meanwhile they are introducing more and more ideology. The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology, not to mention the fact that they forbid smoking almost everywhere now. Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays.

Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures. Apparently that is the whole purpose of Europol. Otherwise why do we need it? To me Europol looks very suspicious. I watch very carefully who is persecuted for what and what is happening, because that is one field in which I am an expert. I know how Gulags spring up.

It looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy. Look at this Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. It makes ministers into legislators who can introduce new laws without bothering to tell Parliament or anyone. My immediate reaction is why do we need it? Britain survived two world wars, the war with Napoleon, the Spanish Armada, not to mention the Cold War, when we were told at any moment we might have a nuclear world war, without any need for introducing this kind legislation, without the need for suspending our civil liberties and introducing emergency powers. Why do we need it right now? This can make a dictatorship out of your country in no time.

Today’s situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms? It looks like we are heading towards some kind of collapse, some kind of crisis. The most likely outcome is that there will be an economic collapse in Europe, which in due time is bound to happen with this growth of expenses and taxes. The inability to create a competitive environment, the overregulation of the economy, the bureaucratisation, it is going to lead to economic collapse. Particularly the introduction of the euro was a crazy idea. Currency is not supposed to be political.

I have no doubt about it. There will be a collapse of the European Union pretty much like the Soviet Union collapsed. But do not forget that when these things collapse they leave such devastation that it takes a generation to recover. Just think what will happen if it comes to an economic crisis. The recrimination between nations will be huge. It might come to blows. Look to the huge number of immigrants from Third World countries now living in Europe. This was promoted by the European Union. What will happen with them if there is an economic collapse? We will probably have, like in the Soviet Union at the end, so much ethnic strife that the mind boggles. In no other country were there such ethnic tensions as in the Soviet Union, except probably in Yugoslavia. So that is exactly what will happen here, too. We have to be prepared for that. This huge edifice of bureaucracy is going to collapse on our heads.

This is why, and I am very frank about it, the sooner we finish with the EU the better. The sooner it collapses the less damage it will have done to us and to other countries. But we have to be quick because the Eurocrats are moving very fast. It will be difficult to defeat them. Today it is still simple. If one million people march on Brussels today these guys will run away to the Bahamas. If tomorrow half of the British population refuses to pay its taxes, nothing will happen and no-one will go to jail. Today you can still do that. But I do not know what the situation will be tomorrow with a fully fledged Europol staffed by former Stasi or Securitate officers. Anything may happen.

We are losing time. We have to defeat them. We have to sit and think, work out a strategy in the shortest possible way to achieve maximum effect. Otherwise it will be too late. So what should I say? My conclusion is not optimistic. So far, despite the fact that we do have some anti-EU forces in almost every country, it is not enough. We are losing and we are wasting time.

Click here to listen to this speech

Local Glossary

Central Committee – the highest body of the Communist Party in the former USSR.

Europol – European Law Enforcement Organisation.

Gosplan – Russian abbreviation representing the State Committee for Planning. One of its main duties was the creation of Five-Year Plans.

Gulag – vast network of labor/concentration camps that were once scattered across the length and breadth of the former USSR.

KGB – Russian abbreviation for Committee for State Security. It was the umbrella organization for the USSR’s secret police and intelligence agency from 1954 to 1991.

Maastricht Treaty – formally, the Treaty on European Union (TEU), signed on February 7, 1992 in Maastricht, the Netherlands. It led to the creation of the European Union.

Politburo – Short for Political Bureau, and was the executive organization for the Communist party in the former USSR.

Securitate – secret police of Communist Romania.

Stasi – secret police and intelligence organization of the former German Democratic Republic (East Germany).

Supreme Soviet – the highest legislative body in the former USSR.

Ending the Balkan Quagmire at American Thinker

јул 10, 2007

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/ending_the_balkan_quagmire_at.html
July 04, 2007
By Julia Gorin
For the past eight years, I’ve been in a lonely place politically. I don’t mean the kind of lonely that conservatives generally find themselves in. I’m talking about utter desolation, for there are just as few conservatives as liberals where I’ve been. One of the only non-Serbian Americans to do so, I watched with steady interest for the better part of a decade the clockwork predictability of the fallout from our forgotten Kosovo intervention, a bombing campaign against an emerging post-Communist democracy rooted in Judeo-Christian values–on behalf of tribalistic, blood-code-following nominal Muslims claiming oppression and no less than genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Watching the Albanians predictably move on to terrorize Macedonia within a few months of our intervention that would „contain“ the conflict, and then watching Albanians turn their weapons on NATO peacekeepers within 18 months, I wondered what it would take to get a national discussion going about that huge, self-destructive debacle. What would it take to have the debate that, it must be said despite my hobby of mocking Europeans, the German public had in 2001 when it put its politicians’ feet to the fire after learning the hoax that their country had been party to, thanks to a German documentary unapologetically titled „It Began with a Lie.“

In sharp contrast to every other cynically reported war, this time not only were our peacenik presses on board, but conspicuously they didn’t try to ingratiate us to the enemy perspective by letting us hear incessantly from the other side, as they’re otherwise fond of doing. Something was off. Even the evolving „alternative media“-self-tasked with policing the mainstream press and usually very wary of „facts“ coming from the mainstream media and of cause celebres–were either silent on this or on precisely the same page as the New York Times, with its Sontag yentas for the first time explaining the concept of „just war“. I found that, aside from Serbian-Americans (and Serbian-Canadians), who would later describe 1999 as a surreality they observed as if outside themselves, the only other people who as a group understood that our action meant something awful for the free world were the Russian-Jewish community that I myself had come from-a cartoonishly patriotic and capitalistic immigrant group with less than zero feeling for „Mother Russia“ (if we’re talking about the 70s and 80s wave).

Every now and again, a glimmer of hope that the fraud would be revealed surfaced, first in March, 2000 with a Washington Post article titled „Was it a Mistake? We were Suckers for the KLA“ and then in April, 2001, with a Toronto Sun article titled „The Hoax that Started a War“. Now, I thought, the story of the century-a fabricated genocide and PR campaign starting a war-would finally „break.“

But the silence persisted, and none of the rare newspapers giving the occasional op-ed space to the dissenting perspective was interested in actually investigating. Nothing changed in this regard after the attacks of September 11th. Not even after a Washington Times article titled „Hijackers connected to Albanian terrorist cell“ came out a week after 9/11, reading:

Albania is one of several places U.S. intelligence agencies are focusing their resources…Islamic radicals, including supporters of bin Laden, have been supporting Albanian rebels fighting in the region, including members of the Kosovo Liberation Army…KLA members have been trained at bin Laden training camps in Afghanistan…As of last year, the group operated a residence in Tirana, and the CIA has been pressing Albania’s government to expel all associates of the Islamic terrorists.

Meanwhile, every one of my own articles attempting to expose the hoax-relegated to a small segment of the alternative media because of a near blackout on the subject everywhere else-dropped with a thud. As did an article coming out two months after 9/11, titled „Al Qaeda’s Balkan Links“(which appeared only in the European edition of the Wall St. Journal). Same thing with a March 2002 National Post article titled „U.S. Supported al-Qaeda Cells during Balkan Wars, Fought Serbian Troops“:

Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network has been active in the Balkans for years, most recently helping Kosovo rebels battle for independence from Serbia with the financial and military backing of the United States and NATO…In the years immediately before the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the al-Qaeda militants moved into Kosovo…to help ethnic Albanian extremists of the KLA mount their terrorist campaign against Serb targets in the region.

Even after another National Post article in 2004 by Canadian former UN General Lewis MacKenzie, titled „We Bombed the Wrong Side?“, came out, Kosovo remained off the media’s and public’s radar-something that vested politicians were counting on.

But then came March 2004, when rumors, proved false, that Serbs drowned three Albanian boys, were used as a spark for the orchestrated pogroms of March 2004, leading to the deaths of 19 people, the displacement of 4,000 Serbs, the destruction of dozens of churches and medieval monuments plus hundreds of homes. Surely people would demand to know what on earth was going on over there, I thought, and what are these people whom we „rescued“. All the questions that weren’t asked in 1999 would finally be asked, I thought.

They weren’t. And the silence grew louder. The questions still weren’t asked even when the 9/11 Commission found that Bosnia, with our help, had been the breakout event that transformed al Qaeda into a truly global network; they weren’t asked even when the Commission found that two of the 9/11 hijackers had fought alongside Bosnian and international forces against the Serbs, and that five of the hijackers had been trained in Bosnia, and that Australian David Hicks trained in a KLA camp. But the national dialogue that the issue demanded remained absent, and the media maintained its blackout, one door after another slamming in my face every time I proposed a piece on the repercussions of our Balkans intervention.

What o what would it take, I wondered, for people’s eyes to stop glazing over at the mention of the words „Bosnia“, „Kosovo“ and „Balkans“. The answer came a few days before Valentine’s Day this past February, when a Bosnian immigrant shot nine Americans at a mall in Salt Lake City, an incident that raised some American eyebrows. But the media were prepared, quickly taking the story right back to Bosnia and rehashing the same „Serb-sparked Balkan-wars“ explanation that brought us in on the Muslim side in the first place. The story died soon enough, after a round of the familiar „Bosnians aren’t all like that“ and „Community fears American Backlash“ articles. However, the seed for the long-awaited questions had finally been planted, so that three months later when four Albanians were arrested for plotting to massacre American servicemen in New Jersey, the public finally wanted some answers.

Conservative Confusion

One thing that comes with researching and trying to talk about the Balkans for eight years, and something that’s important for this readership to understand, is that people we otherwise respect–people who seem to „get it“ on every other vital issue of the day, including Islam–are utterly clueless on the Balkans-and, alternately, agenda-laden. The Balkans are every respectable commentator’s blind spot. Notice that in their daily opining on the war on terror since 9/11, our best minds don’t touch on the Balkans, a key region in the fight for civilization. In trying to engage people-including the conservative intelligentsia that went along with the peaceniks on our 1990s „humanitarian“ wars-I find that people are confused, confounded, overwhelmed and bored by the subject.

Name your favorite conservative pundit, your most trusted jihadwatcher, and in deconstructing the war on terror and the danger of Islam and jihad, there is always, always one exception that he or she will make: the Balkans. That’s where we give the Muslims the benefit of the doubt, where world trends don’t apply, where Muslims don’t stage atrocities or provoke military responses or use Western dupes; the area is suspended in its own context, immune to the tactic of nationalism followed by separatism – which we buy and then Americans die as that separatism morphs into Islamism.

This is nothing personal against anyone who has attacked me in these pages, but a simple statement of fact that I and the handful of other Balkans observers out there have noticed over the better part of a decade: The Balkans make smart people stupid. And that includes people and publications we conservatives generally respect, such as the Wall St. Journal, National Review, Weekly Standard, and so on.

As well, it is a favorite vocation of conservatives who want to earn their „I’m not anti-Muslim“ stripes–to pile even more on those most expendable of whities, the Serbs. The Balkans are the bone we toss to the Islamic world in its perpetual but elsewhere transparent imaginings of genocides, massacres and hate crimes against them. At the policy level, attempting to win over the Muslim world by giving them Serbian territory and all the interventions that this included was a clearly stated goal-not only by Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Robert Wexler (D-FL) in April, but early on by Lawrence Eagleburger who, as Dr. Srdja Trifkovic wrote in his book Defeating Jihad, „said that a goal in Bosnia was to mollify the Muslim world and to counter any perception of an anti-Muslim bias regarding American policies in Iraq in the period leading up to Gulf War I.“ Added Trifkovic, „The result of years of policies thus inspired is a terrorist base in the heart of Europe, a moral debacle, and the absence of any positive payoff to the United States.“

What is it about the Balkans that makes it such an exception? What is it about the Serbs that makes „Serbian propaganda“ which is consistent with our own intelligence less preferable than Muslim propaganda? At the same time, what is it about the Serbs and the Balkans that makes George W. Bush indistinguishable from William Jefferson Clinton; Henry Hyde indistinguishable from Tom Lantos; John McCain indistinguishable from Joe Biden; Condoleezza Rice indistinguishable from Madeleine Albright; Joe Lieberman indistinguishable from Eliot Engel; and Wesley Clark from Bob Dole?

This confusion has found its way to the pages of American Thinker. As we finally, finally are confronted on our own shores with the direct consequences of our actions, as Americans pay the price of their leaders’ still unadmitted foreign policy disasters, some opinion makers–without following the direction the region has taken and without reading even a shred of Hague transcripts or articles based on those transcripts–have the gall to come out of the woodwork and do their piece to keep the Balkans chapter closed. This is my contribution toward sparing American thinkers any further such insults to their intelligence.

In the recent section „Disputing Julia Gorin,“ American Thinker contributor Ray Robison wrote the following:

One of the articles that Gorin cites comes from a website of something called CNW group. If you read the „about us“ portion you find that this is not a news service but a press distribution service. This „story“ is actually a press release from something called The Centre for Peace in the Balkans… This organization is nothing but a front.

Robison was objecting to a source I cited in the following sentence: „But already the Albanians of Kosovo believe that independence is the very least they are due, and don’t hesitate to attack UN officials or NATO troops that are perceived to stand in the way.“

But which fact is he objecting to? The fact that Agim Ceku is the prime minister of Kosovo? Or the part where Ceku’s Croatian troops shot at Canadian peacekeepers? If the Serbness of the source is what offends-and it usually does–then maybe the following source with a more graphic depiction will be more agreeable. From „Ceku Must Face Justice“ by Canadian journalist Scott Taylor:

…if one only casually glances at the resume of the incoming prime minister, Agim Ceku, it becomes apparent that his election flies in the face of international justice, foreshadows more violence in Kosovo and ignores the sacrifices and valour of our Canadian Forces…As a colonel in the Croatian army, Ceku commanded the notorious 1993 operation in what is known as the Medak Pocket [in Croatia's Krajina region].

It was here that the men of the 2nd Battalion of Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry came face to face with the savagery of which Ceku was capable. Over 200 Serbian inhabitants of the Medak Pocket were slaughtered in a grotesque manner (the bodies of female rape victims were found after being burned alive). Our traumatized troops who buried the grisly remains were encouraged to collect evidence and were assured that the perpetrators would be brought to justice.

And if you want to see for yourself, here’s a 17-minute video of the fighting-and of some body parts–courtesy of the Canadian Broadcasting Company’s „National“ subsidiary.

Meanwhile, I must point out that Mr. Robison has engaged in a favorite ploy of many Albanian readers, namely picking out one source out of a dozen that are cited, which he then points to and says, „Aha! A Serbian source! This writer can’t be trusted!“ (Stigmatizing a source as „Serbian“ and therefore not to be listened to is another favorite international pastime, no matter how much backup that source may have from mainstream, non-Serbian sources–which often don’t even know they’re backing up any Serbian claims.)

As to Mr. Robison’s quip that this information is „extremist Serb propaganda“ put out by „probably the same people who were raping and murdering the Kosovars in the first place,“ professional writers generally don’t make conjectures parroting debunked popular mythology, so I won’t dignify this buffoonery with a professional response. But if ethnic cleansing, racial supremacy, systematic murder and rape, organized terror and property plundering are what one seeks, here is an article about eyewitness Branko Piliser, an American who grew up in Kosovo and whom I interviewed for the Jerusalem Report and JewishWorldReview.com about his brother Slobodan, among the last of the Jews driven from Kosovo.

Next, Robison objected to my citing a Reuters story that stated, „Three synchronized explosions in Kosovo’s capital city were aimed at blocking the path to independence from Serbia, the province’s ethnic Albanian president and prime minister said on Sunday.“

Robison countered by saying, „In my book it is pretty obvious that in the very story she cites the Serbs are again attacking the Kosovars. That is evidence that we are enabling jihadists? What the …?“

My detractors don’t normally make it this easy for me, but if Mr. Robison insists on giving his inexpert opinion about who was behind an attack, then I can’t have much mercy. The reason Robison is confused is that he hasn’t been following the region for the past eight years and is unaware of its evolution as the big picture plays out. Had he been, he would know by now that if Serbs are suspected of attacks or attempted attacks, the word „Serbs“ appears in the news reports on the subject, starting with the headline. When those suspected are Albanian, no ethnicity is mentioned-as we recently witnessed here with the Ft. Dix arrests, when just about every news outlet referred to „former Yugoslavs“ instead of fingering our Albanian protégés. (It works similarly in the Middle East: „Israelis kill six Palestinians in West Bank Raid“ vs. „Bus explodes in central Jerusalem.“) Here are some headlines which don’t give any idea as to who is behind an attack, until you read the actual article:

Terror strike on Bill Clinton Avenue [Boulevard]: Kosovo car bomb injures 32 as U.N. analyzes peacekeeping effort, WorldNetDaily.com, Dec. 17, 2002.

Explosion at UN Mission in Kosovo March 11, 2005, BBC

Three blasts rock Kosovo capital, sparking fears of fresh unrest July 3, 2005, AFP

„Another Explosion Rocks Kosovo. EU Fiercely Condemns Violence“ July 4, 2005, Serbian source

„UN says threats made against Kosovo staff“ Nov. 27, 2006, EuroNews:

The UN says it’s received „credible threats“ against its staff and property in Kosovo. The UN-run province is braced for violence after a year-end deadline for a decision on the ethnic Albanian majority’s demand for independence from Serbia was pushed back. Security has now been heightened after political activists called for a mass protest on Tuesday against the UN negotiation process, which began in February.

KLA letter admitting attack on UNMIK cars sent from Tirana Feb. 23, 2007, Kosovo paper Express, via BBC Monitoring-Europe (Indeed, according to an American peacekeeper I spoke with, deployed with the National Guard in Kosovo, U.S. forces are advised to not park their vehicles near UN vehicles, as those are always exploding.)

Nor are recent headlines such as „NATO prepared to deal with possible civil disturbances in Kosovo“ particularly a warning to the region’s Serbs, with Albanians threatening violence if independence doesn’t happen this summer.

With regard to the quote Robison chose from the cited source, please note that it comes from the Albanian leadership, whereas the rest of the article paints a different picture.

Poole’s and Robison’s Vision Clouded by Sentimentality

Robison’s experience of Kosovo, which he described in his original, heart-warming account for American Thinker, dates back to his year 2000 peacekeeping mission during which, he wrote, he felt like a „rock star“ to grateful people including „gorgeous“ and „giggling“ toothless nurses. Of course he felt that way. As in other backwards, impoverished lands where any American is a celebrity, most of these people had never seen an American before, and this American was there to help them; naturally, he was embraced. (I can’t help wondering, though, if any of these nurses were employed at the hospitals which during Kosovo’s autonomous era wouldn’t treat Serbian patients, forcing pregnant Serbs to go to Serbia proper to give birth. Are the giggling nurses among the Albanians who later got work at the UN-run mental hospitals abusing Serbian patients?)

In contrast, after his trip to Kosovo and Bosnia last month, Jesse Petrilla, founder of The United American Committee, which promotes awareness of Islamic extremism in America, concluded:

The Kosovo Muslims are of course grateful for [our help], yet I spoke with several dozen of them about their allegiances and it was blatantly clear that their allegiance was to the east, towards Mecca, and certainly not to the [W]est. Where will their allegiances be once they get their way and have an independent state? Considering the continual bombardment of Saudi money and Wahabist indoctrination in most every mosque and every school in Kosovo?

Like Ray Robison, AT contributor Patrick Poole also has been befriended by Albanians, his heart touched by some hospitable and, for the moment, grateful people. While Albanians made Robison feel like a rock star, Poole openly states on his blog:

While it is easy to get me to speak endlessly on any topic, if there’s one topic that’s near and dear to my heart it is anything having to do with my travels to Albania. I get teary just thinking about it.

If that’s the case, Poole should responsibly recuse himself from the discussion, as he admits to being incapable of impartiality and objectivity on this issue. Both he and Robison are too close to the situation, their regard for a people clouding their vision and causing them to work backwards from a preferred and stale premise rather than follow the information. On this point, I should mention that I was writing my „Serb propaganda“ for more than eight years before befriending my first Serb face to face-which happened this past May in Israel.

It is clear that these two men depart from their anti-jihad guns when it comes to Albanians. Here is a perfect illustration in which, stunningly, Robison lays bare his conflicted confusion:

Gorin cites a Guardian article in which one of these „rebel leaders“: „…called for the area to be included in Kosovo under K-For administration. But Nato, the UN and the US have called on his group to disband and respect current borders.“

So just think about that for a moment. Here we have a commander of the extremists actually calling for western dictate over land he occupies. Can anybody with a straight face say this smacks of Islamic extremism? He did not say „we will behead infidels“ or „the infidels must stop involving themselves in our region“. He said he wanted NATO involvement.

A truly amazing statement. This is supposedly someone who knows something about the way jihad works? Is Robison unaware of the long-used tactic of enlisting the West’s help to further one’s territorial, nationalist and/or jihadist ambitions-until the West won’t take the jihadist or nationalist agenda to the next stage, at which point the weapons turn against the Western Infidel? The Bosnia and Kosovo jihads, as they are openly and casually called by Muslims around the world including Pakistani President Musharraf, were done by the book. Of course they called for a NATO intervention, and continue to call for Western interference where it is beneficial. For precedents on jihadists enlisting the aid of the international community (a.k.a. „Western dupes“), see the Oslo model (mind you, most Palestinians are „secular“ too); 1980s Afghanistan and even the Islamic green-light that Anwar Sadat got from his imam before signing the Carter-brokered „peace“ treaty with Menachem Begin.

In a September Human Events article titled „Will U.S. Back Islamo-Fascist State in Europe?“, editor John Gizzi wrote:

Indeed, at the 16th Islamic Conference held in Pakistan in October 1998, Albanian separatism in Kosovo was defined as a jihad and the Islamic world was called on to help „this fight for freedom on the occupied Muslim territories.“

It was at this time that the nascent al Qaeda „announced terrorist attacks against the ‘infidels’, i.e. Great Britain, the USA, France, Israel, Russia, India and Serbia,“ according to this Serbian government report-if Robison, Poole and Albanian readers will deign to skim section 6, „Pan-Islamic Factor“.

In defending his Albanian friends, Poole began one sentence with „But the fringe in the US that sees every Albanian as a terrorist, every Muslim a Wahhabi, and Kosovar independence a direct threat to the very existence of Europe…“

Robison similarly underestimates Kosovo’ significance when he writes:

If anybody who reads this pro-Serbian phony claim about the imminence of Islamic jihadists opening the door to the west through Kosovo can’t see right through this nonsense, I can’t help you. But if you have read my previous work you know I am all about stopping Islamic extremism. Kosovo is not a significant part of that fight and its’ [sic] inhabitants pose no threat to us. Gorin is a con-artist.

If Kosovo is an insignificant part of the fight, why is it so important to al Qaeda:

„In the eyes of the radical Islamic circles, the establishment of an independent Islamic territory including Bosnia, Kosovo and Albania along the Adriatic Coast, is one of the most prominent achievements of Islam since the siege of Vienna in 1683. Islamic penetration into Europe through the Balkans is one of the main achievements of Islam in the twentieth century.“ — Israeli Colonel Dr. Shaul Shay, author of Islamic Terror and the Balkans

This item, reported by AFP („Bin Laden in Kosovo“) and CNSNews.com, reinforced Shay’s notion as early as 2000:

The official Yugoslav news agency, Tanjug, reported Thursday that bin Laden has „found new sanctuary in the Balkans, in the hotbed of European terrorism–Kosovo…[He] arrived in Kosovo from Albania…Until recently, bin Laden was training a group of almost 500 mujahedin from Arab countries around the Albanian towns of Podgrade and Korce for terrorist actions in Kosovo.“…Tanjug reported that Abu Hassan, the man said to be accompanying bin Laden, was „responsible for the murder of three British tourists in December 1998.“…Israeli investigative journalist Steve Rodan wrote that, according to European security and diplomatic sources, „Kosovo has become the latest and most significant arena for radical Islamic states and groups that seek to widen their influence in Europe.“

And the National Guardsman I spoke with over the weekend echoed this reality, saying „With all the attention on Iraq, everyone underestimates this region. No one understands that what happens here will play a key role in European security for the next 10 years.“

American writer Christopher Deliso, who has been following the Balkans even longer than I have (let alone Poole and Robison), is among the few who does. His book, The Coming Balkan Caliphate, has just been released.

Yes, Mr. Poole, we are indeed the fringe-the informed fringe.

The Big Picture

Again, it’s common to be „all about stopping Islamic extremism“ and be dead wrong on Islam in the Balkans; it’s a standard disconnect among otherwise hawkish conservatives. The Bush administration itself, busy frying bigger fish, early on made the mistake of believing that Kosovo is not a significant part of the war on terror, and therefore defaulted to Clinton-era policies there.

But there is an old little propaganda pamphlet that Dr. Trifkovic has described, issued by an Albanian émigré organization in Turkey, which shows

a green arrow emanating from Turkey, thrusting through the Muslim-populated parts of the Balkans (Thrace, Macedonia, Kosovo, Sanjak, Bosnia), severing the links of the unbelievers’ defensive steel chain, and victoriously heading to the north-west, towards the heartland of Europe. This geopolitical idea [has been] known for decades as the Green Route („Zelena Transverzala“).“

It was no coincidence that the huge sports complex that Sarajevo built for the 1984 Olympics was named „Zetra“, short for Zelena Transverzala. Continues Trifkovic:

As Yugoslavia started disintegrating in the early 1990s, most Western analysts of world affairs promptly categorized the Green Route thesis as a crude, anti-Muslim conspiracy theory, mainly propagated by nationalist Serbian academics…The Green Route theory has gained fresh credence, in Europe at least, after 9-11. It is by now hard to dispute that the radicalisation of Islam in the Balkans – deliberate or not – turned out to be the net result of the actions of the „international community“ during the Yugoslav crisis…

After 9-11, nothing was supposed to be as before, but the U.S. policy in the Balkans has inexplicably retained its Islamophile bias, so remarkably persistent during the Clinton years. In the meantime, the Green Route has morphed from an allegedly paranoid Islamophobic propaganda ploy into a demographic, social and political reality.

About Albanians being anti-Wahhabi, as Poole has mentioned and as many Albanian readers have written me, all insisting that Albanians merely suffer from the same scourge as the rest of us-radical Islam making inroads with their population–what we have is this: The territorially ambitious Albanians accepted the Wahhabis’ and al Qaeda’s help, making themselves easy prey to jihadists while pursuing a terror war of secession, and now that they’re about to get their independence, they don’t want the Wahhabis moving in on their turf. It doesn’t work that way; Wahhabi help always comes with a price tag. Meanwhile, here is an illustration of the dynamic between the Wahhabis and the anti-Wahhabi Albanians, from the NGO Institute for War and Peace Reporting:

Agim Krasniqi and a dozen other armed men have given the [Macedonian] government a headache ever since last November, when they took over control of the village of Kondovo, a dozen kilometers from Skopje [capital], effectively turning it into a safe haven for criminals from Macedonia and Kosovo… But Krasniqi remained defiant, warning that if the police approached the village he would retaliate against Skopje itself with bombs and explosives…In the meantime, Krasniqi can be seen sitting in cafes in the centre of Skopje…

But now watch Agim Krasniqi save the day:

…[O]utside the village of Kondovo in the Summer of 2005, armed men from the Wahhabi camp attacked a car carrying…imams who spoke out against the Wahhabis. In a strange twist, the moderate imams were saved when another armed group, that of Kondovo native and young militant Agim Krasniqi, attacked the Wahhabis.

Hamas vs. Fatah, anyone? Sunnis vs. Shiite? Meanwhile, as early as that November, 2001 article in Wall St. Journal-Europe, the writer discerned a trend:

With the future status of Kosovo still in question, the only real development that may be said to be taking place there is the rise of Wahhabi Islam — the puritanical Saudi variety favored by bin Laden — and the fastest growing variety of Islam in the Balkans. Today, in general, the Balkans are left without the money, political resources, or institutional strength to fight a war on terrorism. And that, for the Balkan Islamists, is a Godsend.

According to Mickey Bozinovich at Serbianna.com:

Reliable sources on the ground in Kosovo confirm that Wahabis are tremendously popular among young Muslim Albanians, that UNMIK is afraid to patrol certain quarters where Kosovo Wahabis dominate and that even the peacekeepers themselves are afraid that their action may trigger a violent reprisal.

Serbianna.com is a Serbian-American news and commentary site that was put on the map in the wake of news of the Ft. Dix plot. KFOR intelligence incorporates articles from sources like Serbianna and Serbia’s „B92″ news site into the National Guard’s The Daily Falcon newspaper. According to Serbianna columnist Dr. Miroljub Jevtic, the most extreme imam in Bosnia comes from Kosovo:

[T]he Islamic extremism and open [incitement] on the US that [are] spreading among the Balkan Muslims [are] preached by an Imam, who is…an ethnic Albanian from [the] village of Orahovac in Kosovo. This Imam, Suleyman Bugari, is a hodja of the White mosque in Vratnik, known as the most Muslim part of Sarajevo. Ironically, the fiercest fighter of jihad has not turned up from the middle of Bosnia with its numerous Islamic top ranking religious schools, but from Albanian dominated Kosovo, busy teaching the Bosnians in the midst of Sarajevo what real Islam is.

With the recently announced delay in determining Kosovo’s status and the province’s leaders and citizens warning/threatening of violence to come should the province not get independence this summer, watch the „moderates“ become indistinguishable from the radicals. Surely „former“ terrorist and our pal, Democratic Party of Kosovo leader Hashim Thaci, knows what he’s talking about when he says, „Enough is enough. The time was yesterday. Today is already too late. Tomorrow is dangerous.“ (Let’s just hope the few hundred thousand Albanians living in America don’t get as upset as their brethren in Kosovo, especially the KLA fighters we’ve resettled here.)

In his original Albanian rhapsody, titled „Albania and the Perils of the 21st Century“ Poole wrote:

It was during a long road trip with a Ministry of Energy official…that I observed a number of new mosques being built in virtually every town we drove through, which was a bit of a surprise for a country that just a few years earlier had been officially atheistic. Inquiring about this, my friend — a high-ranking member of the Albanian government and the Democratic Party — shook his head and said, „Yes, Mr. Patrick. The Saudis are building everywhere they can. This is causing many problems all over, but since they bring with them millions of American dollars, there isn’t much that we can do to keep them out.“

At the same time, a Washington Post article Poole cited demonstrates that Albanians are grateful for the foreign money:

Many Albanians interviewed here said they are grateful for the money and manpower from foreign religious groups. Not only has the largess built new churches and mosques, it has funded job training, food, roads, irrigation, schools and other projects…The frantic pace of mosque construction has continued at a break-neck pace, as dozens of new Wahhabi-financed mosques have opened in every major city, staffed by foreign-trained Wahhabi imams.

If anyone has any illusions about the budding militancy of Kosovo, here is a small sampling of headlines to dispel them:

Albanian Gunmen Hijack Bus in Italy

Kosovo Link to [U.S.] Embassy Strike

Al Qaeda in Kosovo

Montenegro accuses ethnic Albanians of plotting insurgency

Ethnic Albanians protest outside U.S. Embassy, demand release of terrorist suspects

Ethnic Albanian Terror Suspects Appear in Court in Montenegro (Four of them live in the U.S., including three citizens from Michigan and one Tom Lantos contributor.)

Bin Laden’s Balkan Connections

We Buy Bag of Semtex from Terrorists [in Kosovo] („a breeding ground for fanatics with al-Qaeda links.“) Video here.

Bin Laden’s Camps Teach Curriculum of Carnage (KLA fighter’s application found at al Qaeda offices in Afghanistan, boasting experience fighting Serbian and American troops in Kosovo and recommending suicide operations against Disneyland)

Serbian Church Condemns Calls for Destruction of Churches

Albanian Sought by Italy Captured in New Jersey

Albanians in Southern Serbia Press for Greater Autonomy

Police Attacked in South Serbia

Albanians in Greece Form Paramilitary Formation

Ignore at Peril: the Growing Cauldron of Kosovo and Bosnia

Kosovo Albanian Drug Boss Admits Friendship with Al Qaeda Leader

US Tackles Islamic Militancy in Kosovo

Kosovo Seen as New Islamic Bastion

Bin Laden Operated Terrorist Network Based in Albania

Bin Laden Opens European Terror Base in Albania

Iranians Move In

And once again we are hearing from former al Qaeda operative Ali Hamad, who is still trying to warn the West about Bosnia and Kosovo:

Former Al-Qa’idah officer Ali Hamad [as transcribed] has said that the Bosnia-Hercegovina state still protects members of Al-Qa’idah, adding that members of this terrorist organization are also to be found in Kosmet [Kosovo-Metohija] where they are supported by ethnic Albanians.

In an interview with [Belgrade-based] Glas javnosti, Hamad said…that Al-Qa’idah had established control over Europe via Bosnia-Hercegovina, assessing that Spain and Italy would soon suffer a terrorist attack similar to what had happened in the United States…

He said that, according to his knowledge, Al-Qa’idah, after Bosnia, had the largest number of its people in Kosmet where Albanians supported them.

„They especially hate the Serbs. In some FBI reports, it has been demonstrated that Al-Qa’idah has its people in Kosovo, and that domestic people from Kosovo are among them…

All this is, of course, without even mentioning the sex-slave trade that Albanians are kings of and a mafia that has outpaced both the Italian and Russian mobs in this country.

Inverting Victim and Villain

But to keep American thinkers from second-guessing our help to the Albanians, Robison wrote:

There is no question in my mind that an objective evaluation can only concede that in the instance of Kosovo the Christians were the obvious aggressors and the Muslims the victims.

To borrow a term from Peter Brock’s book Media Cleansing: Dirty Reporting, Robison–like every journalist and politician involved with the Balkans in the 90s–“started the clock“ at the point of the Serb response to the abuses that were going on in Kosovo. As we see consistently with reporting on Israel, the public is given a context-free version of the facts. But articles throughout the 1970s and ‘80s, in newspapers from the New York Times to the Washington Post to the Christian Science Monitor described what was happening in Kosovo:

…Slavic Orthodox churches have been attacked, and flags have been torn down. Wells have been poisoned and crops burned. Slavic boys have been knifed, and some young ethnic Albanians have been told by their elders to rape Serbian girls.

As Slavs flee the protracted violence, Kosovo is becoming what ethnic Albanian nationalists have been demanding for years, and especially strongly since the bloody rioting by ethnic Albanians in Pristina in 1981 – an ‘’ethnically pure“ Albanian region, a „Republic of Kosovo“ in all but name.

Last summer, the authorities in Kosovo said they documented 40 ethnic Albanian attacks on Slavs in two months…Officials in Belgrade view the ethnic Albanian challenge as imperiling the foundations of the multinational experiment called federal Yugoslavia…

Ethnic Albanians already control almost every phase of life in the autonomous province of Kosovo, including the police, judiciary, civil service, schools and factories. Non-Albanian visitors almost immediately feel the independence – and suspicion – of the ethnic Albanian authorities.

The hope is that something will be done…to exert the rule of law in Kosovo while drawing ethnic Albanians back into Yugoslavia’s mainstream.

In Bosnia, writes Petrilla, he got a tour of the EUFOR Army base in Sarajevo „and was comforted to learn that although our politicians may not get it, the Army certainly understands who the enemy is today.“ Similarly, a Jerusalem-based monk from Kosovo named Father Jovan-who can’t travel from one Kosovo monastery to another without an armored NATO escort so that he doesn’t get beheaded the way other monks there have-told me, „Every American [and Spanish] soldier I meet in Kosovo says the same thing: ‘Our mission was to protect Albanians. But after a week I discover that it is the Serbs who need protecting from Albanians.’“

The policies and rhetoric coming out of Washington are in direct contradiction to the reality on the ground in Kosovo as observed by our fighting men and women.

But back to Poole’s tall tales-one of which involves „poisoning“ by the Yugoslavian government of Albanian high school students. This was a PR scam so thoroughly refuted and discredited that not even the most avid of the Albanians’ advocates deign to invoke it in their list of Serbian „misdeeds.“

…the actions of the Serbian government since seizing the formerly autonomous province in 1990 during the break-up of Yugoslavia, including the poisoning of thousands of Albanian high school students in March 1990 and the attempted ethnic cleansing of Kosova [sic] of Albanians in 1999 (prevented only by NATO intervention), have certainly not helped the cause of the Serbian minority.

Where have we heard this kind of accusation before? Recall the infamous poison slander by Suha Arafat in 1999. The Albanian-poisoning incident came up at the Milosevic trialcame up at the Milosevic trial-that momentous but aggressively ignored „Second Nuremberg“–in February 2005. The testimony is available in transcript form, but here it is as reported by the only known American observer of those proceedings-Andy Wilcoxson, on his unfortunately titled website „Slobodan-Milosevic.org“:

In March of 1990 several thousand Albanian teenagers were brought to hospitals and clinics across Kosovo. [Former Kosovo Health Secretary Dr. Vukasin] Andric said that they were brought to the medical centers en masse with great urgency, and with great publicity.

The Albanians claimed that the Serbs had poisoned the teens with gas while they were attending school. According to press reports, between 4,000 and 7,000 ethnic Albanian teenagers were admitted to hospitals in Kosovo complaining of a mysterious illness.

Dr. Andric said that the sudden flood of Albanian teenagers forced the hospitals to discharge existing patients some of whom were seriously ill. Dr. Andric testified that toxicology tests performed on the teens revealed no traces of poison gas in their blood or urine.

Dr. Andric, who was a doctor treating these people, noted that the alleged illness became more severe when TV cameras were around. He said that the Albanians would be up walking the hospital corridors when there were no cameras, but as soon as the press would show up they were suddenly struck ill and had to return to bed.

It was Dr. Andric’s conviction that these Albanian teenagers were faking. He based his conviction on the fact that no Serbian students, who were studying in the same schools at the same time, fell ill. It was exclusively Albanians who were [a]ffected…

Dr. Andric said that several Albanian doctors also believed that the illness was fake, and condemned the incident. To bear this out he listed the names of several Albanian doctors who condemned this fraudulent incident. He was forced to give their names to the court in closed-session in order to protect them from reprisals by the KLA.

This was not the only poisoning libel that Albanians tossed at the Serbs. However, if poisoning tales are the order of the day here, then refer to the above-cited New York Times article describing Kosovo in 1987:

The federal Secretary for National Defense, Fleet Adm. Branko Mamula… said ethnic Albanian subversives had been preparing for „killing officers and soldiers, poisoning food and water, sabotage, breaking into weapons arsenals and stealing arms and ammunition, desertion and causing flagrant nationalist incidents in army units.“

As for Poole’s ignorant aspersion that the Serbian government „seized“ the formerly autonomous province, the Serbian government didn’t „seize“ anything. Even Tito’s Communists who gave Albanians autonomous privileges acknowledged Kosovo as a part of Serbia. What critics of the revoked autonomy believe, essentially, is that it was right for all the entities to violently break away from Yugoslavia, which was created by communist Tito, but it was wrong for the Serbs to reverse communist Tito’s 1974 decision to give Kosovo autonomy to appease the Albanians at the expense of the Serbs there.

Mr. Poole complained that in my article „Allied Assassins?“, I claimed that Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha hosted Osama bin Laden in his former presidential offices in 1995, something for which he is sure that „not a shred of evidence exists that such a meeting ever happened.“ Two items of documentation for this were linked in two of my previous articles, but here they are for American thinkers. And here’s a third. (Again, section 6, „Pan-Islamic Factor“.)

The Role of Albania Proper, and some Asked-for Evidence

Last week a Tirana-based activist named Erion Veliaj shared a little more with us about Berisha:

[O]ur government, led by Prime Minister Sali Berisha, has abused this relationship with Washington, using it as cover to shore up his increasingly tyrannical rule. Today’s Albania is the closest European resemblance to Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela. With seemingly unconditional US support, Berisha is slowly undermining respect for human rights and democracy.

Media crackdowns have become a routine, and most of the public is only exposed to governmental airwaves, which often accuse critics of being ‘jews’ and ‘faggots’…Berisha talks about progress and reform, but these are euphemisms for cracking down on the independence of the judiciary, redistributing private property, solidifying his grip on secret services and stacking the public administration with hardcore supporters of his Democratic party irrespective of their competence.

There are no McDonalds or ClubMeds in Albania, and not because we oppose globalization. On the contrary, we welcome it – but businesses here are constantly harassed, extorted and shut down if not found favourable with the ruling regime…

Washington learned the hard way what the costs are of turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuses. America should be reminded of its past mistakes. We Albanians would be grateful if Washington would remember the principles and values that so many of us have come to admire about the United States of America.

Ready for the comments to his post? This one sums up at least a few: „Dude, you must be paid a pretty penny by the Serbs, or Greeks to talk like that about Albania, its political past and future under Sali Berisha or any other Albanian leader. You should be ashamed calling yourself Albanian…“

Though Veliaj supports Kosovo independence like just about every other Albanian on the planet, he asked the comment posters, „Shouldn’t we in Albania fix things here first, before trying to ‘export’ our despotic regime elsewhere?“

But the pull of tribalism is too strong, as Colorado State University professor G. Richard Jansen demonstrates in a paper he’s been updating since 1999, titled „Albanians and Serbs in Kosovo: An Abbreviated History/An Opening for the Islamic Jihad in Europe“:

In March 1997 civil government in Albania totally collapsed and anarchy resulted. This caused some Albanians to realize that a „Greater Albania“ may not be such a great idea after all as they saw Albanians being killed by other Albanians….The United States advised the League for a Democratic Kosovo, under the leadership of Ibrahim Rugova, who sought a non-violent solution to the crisis, that…Kosovo should remain part of Serbia. However public opinion among Albanian Kosovars swung strongly against Rugova and his non-violent approach and toward the radical KLA.

Despite Albanian hesitations about a Greater Albania, then, concern for life and limb, as well as for quality of life and a solid future, paled in comparison to Albanian „solidarity“, deadly as it can be for Albanians themselves. (One of many notable confluences between Albanians and Muslims in general.)

Jansen concludes with a note on Sali Berisha:

In 1992 Sali Berisha became President of Albania. He made clear right away his desire for a „greater Albania“ that would include part of Kosovo and his belief that the struggle in Kosovo by Muslim Albanians against Serbia was indeed a jihad, that is a holy war on behalf of Islam. Albania nearly collapsed in economic instability and riots in 1997. During the ensuing chaos firearms, ammunition and passports moved from Albania to Kosovo. Albania is believed by the United States government to harbor an Al Qaeda infra-structure.

We are starting to pay the price for the military interventions of NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990’s. Hopefully the United States will soon start to realize that the Islamic jihad in the Balkans in general and in Kosovo in particular is very much an integral part of a worldwide Islamic movement to impose over the entire world Islamic rule under Sharia law…

Just a bit more on „Greater Albania“, an agenda that the comparatively „moderate“ former Kosovo Prime Minister Ibrahim Rugova denied under oath at the Milosevic trial–from a 1982 New York Times article:

„The nationalists have a two-point platform,“ according to Becir Hoti, an executive secretary of the Communist Party of Kosovo, „first to establish what they call an ethnically clean Albanian republic and then the merger with Albania to form a greater Albania.“

Poole accused me of warning „that President Bush was walking into a virtual Albanian deathtrap in his visit to Tirana on Sunday, where he was to be greeted with bombs, guns and the sinister machinations of al-Qaeda.“ See if you can find where I said this in the article, which related that former Defense Secretary William Cohen’s visit to Albania had to be cancelled in 1999 because of a terror threat (as did Bill Clinton’s), and also the fact that for Bush’s visit the U.S. government requested that its own small army of 500 combat-ready Marines be flown in with the president for security and that Albania’s elite guard be disarmed.

In his article „Kosova [sic] and Anti-Jihad Bigotry,“ Poole wrote:

…[W]e must remember the circumstances under which the Kosovar refugees came to America. Do [sic] any of us remember the staggering sight broadcast live by the international news media of hundreds of thousands of Albanian[s] fleeing their homes in Kosova [sic] and walking across the Albanian border in order to flee the ethnic cleansing campaign launched by the Serbian military? Do those present critics of our efforts to help the Kosovars believe that those hundreds of thousands of refugees were all part of a colossal media stunt, or are they willing to acknowledge that they were fleeing from the real threat of Serbian butchery and were deserving of our assistance and military intervention?

It’s humorous that someone who hasn’t heard that the „ethnic cleansing“ and „genocide“ rumors were debunked is asking critics of the intervention to „acknowledge“ the „real threat of Serbian butchery“. The word „colossal“ doesn’t begin to cover it. The „war“ in Kosovo absolutely was, and still is, the greatest, most costly ($45 billion so far), scandal in American history, outdone only by the elaborate, voluntary, conspiracy-free suppression that continues to keep the truth locked.

If you can imagine, the West was complicit in being conned into military action against a genocide and ethnic cleansing that proved false and in fact staged. (That has been the finding of one observation force after another, most vocally that of Spanish forensic pathologist Emilio Perez Pujol, who told London’s Sunday Times, „We did not find one-not one-mass grave,“ and Spain’s El Pais newspaper, „There never was a genocide in Kosovo.“)

What is it about the Balkans that has led every last journalist and, more appallingly, the journalists’ police-the blogosphere-to continue to miss/ignore the biggest story of the millennium?

But Poole is determined to perpetuate even more mythology:

…we have had tens of thousands of troops stationed in Kosova [sic] and Albania for almost a decade without a single combat-related fatality…The NATO mission in Kosova [sic] may very well be the most successful international peacekeeping effort of the modern era…Our intervention in Kosova [sic] and our close relations with Albania are among the best US foreign policy successes in recent memory.

According to U.S. columnist and security analyst Michael Garner:

Kosovo is a hotbed of Islamic extremism: And, more than ever, organized crime is rampant in today’s Kosovo. This is despite the expensive presence of KFOR, the NATO-led Kosovo Force which consists of some 17,000 troops — about twenty times as big as the multinational peacekeeping contingent which currently successfully monitors the ceasefire between Moldova and Transdniestria.

To call the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo a „success“ flies in the face of the daily reality that non-Albanians face, living in shipping containers and confined to two-kilometer perimeters beyond which they dare not venture. It flies in the face of the purification of the province that’s been taking place, with 220,000 Serbs and thousands of other non-Albanians fleeing the province since 1999, and it defiles the memory of the 1,000 Serbs abducted and/or killed since that rest-in-peacekeeping mission began. It also makes a mockery of the meaning of „no combat-related deaths“, given that KFOR troops are instructed to simply flee when fired upon-to avoid calling attention to the fact that our protégées are shooting at us. (Recall reports about the 2004 March pogrom describing the peacekeepers as being „helpless“ to stop the mobs, with NATO tanks just standing watch and, alternately, turning away.)

Even writers whose take on Serb culpability in Kosovo is no more flattering than Poole’s and Robison’s know at least something about the reality of the situation. From a 2004 article „General Clark’s Kosovo is a Mess“ in Canada’s Globe & Mail:

Far from ending ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, Gen. Clark’s war only set off another round. The result has been to establish a new, ethnically cleansed, fiercely nationalistic mini-state in the Balkans — and a pretty unpleasant one at that.

Despite hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, and a NATO garrison of more than 12,000 troops, Kosovo today is still a poor, dangerous, unstable place. The remaining Serbs live in fear. Last summer, in a sign of the times, someone opened up with a machine gun on a group of Serb boys swimming in a stream, killing two and wounding four.

Like U.S. lawmakers, who continue touting our military adventure in Kosovo as a victory for „democratic values“ of humanitarianism and multicultural tolerance, Poole is boasting our mono-ethnic „success“ in the Balkans. Here’s what that success actually looks like, as reported by Sherrie Gossett, managing editor of The Objectivist Center’s magazine The New Individualist, in February:

Knifings, bombings, abductions, murder, threats, and intimidation have been used to cleanse the province of any remaining minorities.

…KPC members [Kosovo Protection Corps, which absorbed many KLA] had acted as de facto police officers, torturing or killing local citizens, illegally detaining others, extorting „liberation taxes“ from businesses, and threatening UN police who attempted to intervene.

Today, the property rights of minorities have disappeared as ethnic Albanians help themselves to what’s left of the former owners’ cars, homes, furnishings, and businesses. According to UNMIK’s Housing and Property Department, over 700,000 property units in Kosovo have been illegally occupied, along with an unknown number of businesses…

Moderate Albanians have been targeted as well, including those who had been content with Serbia’s rule or who enjoy socializing with Serbs. Political rivals have been assassinated and, in at least one case, dismembered.

…[A]fter seven years of UN administration and billions of dollars in foreign aid, Kosovo and its international administrators have been unable to consistently meet even the most basic standards set forth in UN Security Council resolutions 1199, 1160 and 1244. Those resolutions demanded the demilitarization of paramilitary groups, an end to „acts of terrorism,“ the protection of basic human rights, and safe return of all refugees.

In October 2005…Norwegian Ambassador to NATO Kai Eide published a review of how Kosovo was meeting UN-set standards…Prosecution of serious crimes was said to be hindered by „family or clan solidarity and by the intimidation of witnesses as well as of law enforcement and judicial officials.“ Failure to prosecute crimes targeting minorities was said to result in a climate of „impunity.“

Into this vacuum of lawlessness have come radical Wahhabi Muslim groups from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These groups flooded into the area after the bombing and invasion, offering financial aid to Albanians, sometimes on strict conditions: ‘They had to wear the head scarf and bow to Mecca five times a day, or allow the Wahhabis to build a mosque,’ [Former OSCE official Tom Gambill] recounts. The burly ex-Marine also showed this author security records logging complaints by Albanian school teachers who said they were being kicked out of their classrooms for hours at a time, so that Wahhabis could teach the Koran to their students.“

The picture painted by Sunday Times of London diplomatic correspondent Tom Walker in his 2004 article „Kosovo Goes to Hell“ isn’t much different:

Those Serbs who remain in Kosovo, and those not living in Mitrovica, which adjoins Serbia itself, are sitting ducks. The nameless Albanians who funded and invented the KLA from Geneva, New York and elsewhere are pursuing their deadly plan…

[Former Labour MP] Alice Mahon just about hit the nail on the head when she said, „Kosovo is a monoethnic state run by the Mafia, with ethnic minorities living in guarded enclaves.“…Saddest of all, perhaps, are the decent Albanians who have to sit by in silence. I would too; Kosovo is the sort of place where dissenters get sniffed out then snuffed out pretty quickly. Last month one of them sent me an email to let me know that he and his family were surviving. ‘The situation seems under control,’ he wrote. ‘KFOR has finally appeared (after a few days), and the rest you can imagine … Kristallnacht. Keep in touch.’

Nor do the following headlines-a tiny sampling of what has been a sustained campaign of violence–speak to the success of the peacekeeping mission or of our foreign policy there:

Albanian Threat to Kill UK Peacekeepers UK Observer, December 24, 2000

Albanian gunmen training for war; Guerrillas fire on British troops trying to keep the peace in the bit of Serbia that Kosovo wants, UK Guardian, Jan. 26, 2001

US troops in Kosovo border clash, BBC, March 7, 2001:

US troops have shot and wounded two rebel fighters in Kosovo, near the increasingly tense border with Macedonia…Macedonian sources say the gunmen were trying to reinforce rebel positions in the village…Nato troops could be sucked into combating the ethnic Albanian insurgency in Macedonia…Fighters from the rebel National Liberation Army have told the BBC that if any of those arrested were to be extradited to Macedonia, the organisation would consider American K-For troops to be legitimate targets. The border has grown increasingly tense amid warnings from Macedonia that ethnic Albanians pose a threat to the stability of the entire Balkans region…“We are looking very closely now at the possible decision to allow Yugoslav forces into the ground safety zone,“ Nato Secretary General, Lord Robertson, said in New York.

Yugoslav Forces to Return To Buffer Zone in Kosovo, Washington Post, March 9, 2001:

Yugoslav security forces could return to a buffer zone along the Kosovo border as soon as this weekend under a decision yesterday by NATO to allow Belgrade’s troops to take control of some territory from which they were expelled two years ago.

Peacekeepers, Albanians Could Clash, AP, March 12, 2001:

There is little sign…that Kosovo Albanians are softening their opposition to remaining in Yugoslavia, despite the ouster of Milosevic by a democratic movement…neither [moderate Ibrahim Rugova] nor [Hashim] Thaci has spoken out publicly against the rebellion…Instability in Macedonia could draw in Greece and Bulgaria.

We’ll Fight NATO Troops, Warn Albanian Rebels, UK Telegraph, June 19, 2001

U.S.-Based Muslim Charity Raided by NATO in Kosovo, NY Times, Dec. 18, 2001:

NATO troops have raided the offices of an American charity in Kosovo as part of an investigation that…links at least two large Muslim charities based in Illinois to fund-raising for Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network.“

Gunmen attack Kosovo peacekeepers, BBC.com, Aug. 29, 2002:

The trouble started when a group of Serbian farmers, and UN police officers guarding them, came under fire in the village of Gorazdevac, about 90 kilometres west of the province’s capital, Pristina….the situation was brought under control only after reinforcements were called in and following a gunbattle which lasted more than two hours.“

U.N. Officer Killed in Ambush in Kosovo, Washington Post, Aug. 5, 2003:

An Indian policeman was gunned down in an ambush late Sunday in the first killing of a U.N. police officer on duty in Kosovo since the United Nations assumed control of the Serbian province in 1999…A rocket-propelled grenade was fired into a local courthouse shortly after the trial [of four KLA members] and numerous U.N. vehicles were vandalized.

Angry Kosovars call on ‘colonial’ UN occupying force to leave, The (UK) Observer, Oct. 19, 2003

‘Specific Threat’ Triggers Kosovo Alert, Reuters, Nov. 28, 2003 („NATO has raised security in Kosovo in response to a ‘specific threat’ of attack against international organizations in the United Nations protectorate.“)

NATO Warns Albanians, Serbs Brace for More Attacks, Reuters, March 18, 2004:

NATO boosted its force by 1,000 and vowed to stamp out ethnic violence with „robust“ action… A Serb official in Lipljan, central Kosovo, said about 300 Albanians were trying to enter a church protected by Finnish U.N. peacekeepers. Some threw hand grenades and Finnish troops fired back… Nuns from Devic Monastery near Srbica, south of Mitrovica, were flown out on KFOR helicopters…when at least 1,000 armed Albanians threatened the convent, the church said. The Orthodox church in Pristina was also burning on Thursday evening and the priest was hiding in the cellar of his parish house next door…In the central town of Obilic, Serbs appealed to KFOR for weapons to defend themselves. ‘There are no more Serbs in Obilic,’ local Serb Mirce Jakoljevic told Belgrade’s B92 radio.

NATO Sends Reinforcements to Kosovo, USA Today, March 18, 2004

NATO Sees Specter of Ethnic Cleansing in Kosovo, Reuters, March 19, 2004:

There are not many (ethnic) minorities left in Kosovo…“ UNHCR spokesman Ron Redmond told a news conference in Geneva… „Albanians are trying to cleanse the Serbs and create a fait accompli before any talks [about Kosovo's status],“ said a Western source…“Anyone with political experience can see that.“

New Kosovo Violence is Start of Predicted 2004 Wave of Islamist Operations, Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, March 19, 2004

Centuries of Culture Vanish in Kosovo City, March 24, 2004 AP:

Orthodox Christian Serbs and symbols of their culture and history were targeted throughout Kosovo in violence last week…In all, 366 homes were destroyed and 41 churches burned. In this southern Kosovo city, centuries of culture vanished in seconds….The mobs specifically targeted churches, the very symbols of Orthodox Christian Serbs.

Daily Stabs of Violence in Kosovo Rattle U.N., Reuters, March 29, 2005

CIA Probes Possible Kosovo Links to London Blasts, Defense & Foreign Affairs (viewable in this Kosovo.net compilation from August 6, 2005.) On this point Human Events’ Gizzi wrote:

German intelligence (BND) confirmed in ‘05 that the terrorist bombings in London in July of that year and in the Madrid commuter railway on May 11, 2004 were organized in Kosovo.

The grisly combination of international narcotics dealing and militant Islam and terror in an independent European nation portends a future that is, at the very least, questionable. Granting Kosovo independence could well lead to a Greater Kosovo, one that is Muslim-ruled and could easily seize neighboring Macedonia and parts of Greece.

Police Attacked in South Serbia, B92, Jan. 31, 2006

NATO Peacekeepers, Police Seize Weapons Cache in Kosovo, Reuters, December 21, 2006

Explosion Damages 3 UN Vehicles in Kosovo, AP, Feb. 19, 2007

For good measure, the Albanians’ advocates follow up boasting this „success“ with citing Albanian pro-Americanism, as Poole and Robison have done. A dubious endorsement for America if ever there was one, enshrined in a makeshift Statue of Liberty that overlooks our handiwork from atop Pristina’s „Victory Hotel“.

The Kosovo Giveaway: the Beginning of the End, ala Munich

„One of the most cherished principles of international law-the territorial integrity of states-is about to be undone as part of the latest Western attempt to cover up failure in the Balkans,“ Tufts international law professor Hurst Hannum recently wrote in the Christian Science Monitor.

[T]he Security Council will be asked to dismember a sovereign UN member state for the first time in its history…Conditions in the Balkans and the desire of diplomats to „do something“ cannot justify overturning two basic principles of international law: territorial integrity and the nonacquisition of territory by force. Insisting on independence for Kosovo is likely to trigger a Security Council veto by Russia and/or China, which would raise the stakes and make the situation even more untenable…Adopting the Ahtisaari proposal would mean that might makes right in the Balkans, and it would serve neither peace nor justice.

About covering up that failure, it has been like watching Keystone Cops as we attempt to patch up every disastrous consequence of our flawed policies with the next flawed policy, concealing every mistake with the next mistake–until we find ourselves protecting KLA heroin factories; supporting Albanians wherever they rise up against their host societies (even rescuing ANA terrorists when they lose the upper hand in Macedonia).

From an email to me by Canada’s last ambassador to Yugoslavia, James Bissett:

The principle of territorial integrity is one of the oldest and fundamental principles of international law. It is enshrined in the United Nations Charter and reinforced in the Helsinki Final Accords when it was reaffirmed by stressing that international boundaries are inviolable. Territorial integrity overrides the concept of self determination which is not a principle of international law. Moreover, the UN Resolution 1244 that ended the bombing of Yugoslavia reaffirmed Serbia’s sovereignty over Kosovo and that resolution still stands.

So what the USA is determined to do is in violation of international law, the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act. Ironically, the Russians understand this and they are the ones upholding international law and defending the UN Charter. Even Hitler at the time of Munich insisted that Benes, the Czech Prime Minister, sign a document agreeing to give up the Sudetenland so that would make the Munich Pact legal. What the USA seems determined to do…strikes a body blow to the framework of international peace and security and leads us back to the rule of „might is right.“ How your founding fathers must feel. What has gone wrong with your leaders who once inspired the hope and admiration of all free men?

We’ve promised Albanians the impossible, and as it explodes in our faces in the coming weeks, the plan is to blame Serbian and Russian „intransigence“ (though Greece, Slovakia, Spain and other European countries oppose independence as well-and note that the six-month delay in Kosovo’s status resolution was suggested by Sarkozy’s France, which has had more than a taste of what the Serbs got from a restive minority).

Supporting Kosovo independence is supporting illegal immigration; violability of borders; meaninglessness of international laws; secession by critical mass ethnicities; guerilla warfare; ethnic purification; religious purification; no rule of law; mob justice; collective guilt; blood code; no minority rights; selective justice; sex slavery; terrorism; the drug trade; mafia states; and might-makes-right diplomacy and intervention.

Pots Calling the Kettle Black

Yet somehow, pointing this out makes me a pro-Serb propagandist, according to Poole and Robison. Why is applying to Serbia the right of each country to keep its territory from being torn away by domestic terrorism or aggressive foreign states a „pro-Serb“ position? Why is taking the position of legality, respect for international norms and territorial integrity, not to mention rule of law and civil rights, the ipso facto „pro-Serb“ position–and my writings nothing more than „Serbian propaganda“?

Ah yes, all that Serbian propaganda that’s just oozing out from the woodwork for American consumption, accounting for all the positive associations brought out in people the moment you say the word „Serb“, and fooling us into…bombing the Serbs. Again I ask why, especially at this stage of the worldwide jihad, has Serbian propaganda been less preferable than Muslim propaganda?

The London Times’ Walker runs into the same problems, particularly since he is married to a Serb. As he described in that same article:

My father-in-law was a Serb policeman (albeit a traffic cop). I am sometimes accused of being ‘pro-Serb’ in the way I look at Kosovo. I once reported seeing a tractor pulling a trailerload of mujahedin in Kosovo, and was told that I was not only pro-Serb, but fantasising.

I receive regular emails from Albanian agencies in Pristina arguing that when a Serb village is wiped from the map, it is somehow Belgrade’s fault. Or if not, then the UN’s. ‘Give us independence and all will be well’ is the mantra.

Poole and Robison have attributed racist overtones to my writings on Albanians while, like most, not even attempting to hide their seething contempt for everything Serbian. For some reason, the universal and unchecked anti-Serbism is much less offensive than my „anti-Albanianism“, with every aspersion and rumor against Serbs assumed as fact without it ever being called discrimination. Meanwhile, only pro-Albanian folks can be the objective arbiters of the situation. As Gossett asked me, „Ever notice how they’re always accusing people of being ‘pro-Serb’ because they’re oblivious that they’re anti-Serb?“

And all this is without mentioning the irony of Albanians and their promoters calling anyone racist, when Albanians with their open agenda of creating a pan-Albanian area in Europe are as supremacist as it gets. „Albanians’ religion is Albanianism!“ one Albanian reader informed me when I made the Islamic connection. And indeed, for now Albanian supremacy trumps Islamic supremacy among Albanian Muslims, but as radicalization asserts itself as the only future for Muslim countries, „Albanianism“ will be twice as pleasant.

„The hope in giving [Albanian-ruled] Kosovo autonomy was that they would become loyal citizens of Yugoslavia,“ author Alexander Dragnich, who served in the American Embassy in Belgrade, told me in 1999. „But instead they used the increased privileges to clean Kosovo of Serbs.“

And from Gossett about that autonomous era:

[A]n official inquiry found that local security and justice bodies had let Albanian offenses against Serbs go unchecked, including rape, assault, arson, intimidation, and property offenses.

Meanwhile, who can forget the UN aid worker from New York who was killed on his first day in Kosovo–for speaking Serbo-Croatian? Bulgarian-born Valentin Krumov had „spent years working toward a peacekeeping assignment with the organization,“ the AP reported. The 38-year-old

was beaten and shot to death as he took an after-dinner stroll on Mother Teresa Street, the main pedestrian thoroughfare in the capital Pristina….after he spoke Serbo-Croatian to a group of ethnic Albanian teen-agers, one of whom had apparently asked him the time in Serbo-Croatian, officials said.

„A crowd of local citizens assaulted him. He was taken by a mob … and shot dead,“ Lt. Col. Dmitry Kapotsev told The Associated Press. A black jacket he was wearing, inscribed with the words „United States, New York,“ was found nearby, splattered with blood…

[Krumov] had been zealously studying Albanian during the last few weeks because he wanted to get closer to the local people…A suspect escaped on foot, apparently helped by other residents crowding the street….A Polish police officer who did not want to be identified told The Associated Press that he never spoke his own language because it could be mistaken for Serbian…Albanians themselves have reported threats when speaking Serbo-Croatian with visitors from Bosnia or Croatia.

Poole closes his article „Kosova [sic] and Anti-Jihad Bigotry“ by writing:

There is enough bloodguilt in the Balkans to go around, and we shouldn’t be trying to add to it. Many of our forbearers left their homelands to escape such violent stupidity; we only dishonor their memory and sacrifices by attempting to revive it.

The suggestion to not „add to it“ always comes along on those rare occasions that someone ventures to expand the blame beyond the Serbs. So when they say „we shouldn’t be trying to add to it“, they mean „don’t add non-Serbs to it.“ Yes, there is, as they say plenty of blame to go around, but somehow the only shoulders it ever lands on squarely are Serbian.

Poole’s spelling and pronunciation Kosova impugns him as well. „Kosova“ is the nationalist/Islamist/Fascist and dhimmi pronunciation. „Kosovo“ means „of blackbirds“ in Serbian. „Kosova“ has no meaning in Albanian. The intent of inventing the word „Kosova“ was to de-Serbify the name of the land. The invented „Kosova“ is the same as if Hispanics were to take over the state of Maryland and call it „Marylando“, which has no meaning in Spanish.

But let’s go ahead and call all this my „anti-Albanian racism“ for now. After the consequences of our Albanian-friendly but morally wrong and self-destructive policies manifest themselves more often and closer to home, then we can call it what it was: a warning. This is not pointing the finger at every last Albanian, most especially those who knew from the start to fear the KLA and its objectives. Even if one were to take the Salt Lake City shooting by a Bosnian and the Ft. Dix plot by Albanians as isolated incidents not representative of the overall populations the attackers hail from-though this article demonstrates that they’re not quite „isolated“–the question needs to be asked: If it’s not the Serbs who are involved in plots against America, why were they, and why are they still, the designated enemy? Why are the „handful“ of Albanian and Bosnian baddies coming from the side we took? Is it just a coincidence that for years I’ve been writing articles titled „Kosovo May Explode-Here“ and „What Happens in the Balkans Doesn’t Stay in the Balkans“–and this year Americans faced Balkans-related attacks on their soil?

It started with the Serbs and now has moved on to the rest of us. Should we wait until the next Albanian or Bosnian attack before demanding that our politicians move away from the 1990s polices that endanger Americans, not least by resettling our designated „allies“ on our shores? Thirty million dollars were raised here to support insurgents who have engaged in axe murders, purges of their own ranks, and killings of Albanians as „collaborators“ merely for being employed by the Yugoslav government as postal workers. As official „allies“, the KLA has a haven for their operations in the U.S., their supporters here collecting money and weapons to support operations in Kosovo, southern Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, and northern Greece.

It’s time to stop making exceptions, excuses and double standards for the Balkans, as Poole and Robison have been doing because they’ve had personal contact with affable Albanians. For Poole and Robison to try to lull American thinkers back into their pre-9/11 stupors-after all that’s happened and all the lessons learned about what’s what and who’s what–would border on the treasonous if I didn’t know that they’re just dupes themselves.

I am not guided by a hatred for Albanians, but Poole and Robison are guided by a love for them, as they themselves admit. The „rhetoric“ and „con artistry“ they attribute to me is all theirs. The information is out there, but few are willing to put it together. I don’t maintain my distasteful perspective on the Balkans because I don’t know what I’m talking about, but because I do.

The Cold War: Fears of an unfinished victory

мај 30, 2007

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/IE31Ag01.html
The Cold War: Fears of an unfinished victory
By W Joseph Stroupe

„The Cold War is dead!“ read the newspaper headlines of 1991, and ever since, confidence has been absolute that the victory of the West over the former bloc of the East was a complete one – until lately.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Cold War-style speech in Munich in February and its combative follow-up, the State of the Nation speech in April, are being matched by Russia’s stiffening,

and its mounting assertiveness, in opposition to any bolstering or reconsolidating of ailing US-led unipolarity.

Around the globe, Russia is acting against unipolarity’s accommodating ideologies and politics, against its recently resurgent manifestations and machinations, and against the instruments of its perpetuation, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Russia is actively and now more openly working to bring to an end what remains of the atmosphere of acquiescence to America’s will, whether it be willing or unwilling acquiescence, that arose in the post-1991 period and that was absolutely crucial to the thriving of US-led unipolarity. The United States, it turns out, achieved and maintained its global hegemony largely by the consent of the globe’s lesser powers who, fearful of standing up to or opposing „the last superpower“ and distinctly insecure about the potency of their own leverage, permitted it to dominate without the considerable encumbrances and obstructions that are now arising.

Since US overreach after the Iraq invasion of 2003, and the subsequent decline of the US and the unrelenting rise of Russia, China and India, in concert with the globe’s key resource-exporting regimes, have become ever more strident, even brazen, in opposition to US global hegemony. The US can no longer ride roughshod over, nor bully, nor simply ignore resurgent Russia, rising China, or the globe’s regimes that supply the vital oil that fuels the US economy.

In the face of such developments, the US isn’t finished in its attempt to stand unipolarity back on both its feet. It has by no means conceded the game. Instead, belatedly recognizing the damage done by its distraction in Iraq, a desperate and determined US is refocusing and getting started on the geopolitical project of restoring its lost global might.

Against the backdrop of a renewed US push to enlarge NATO membership eastward, expand its mission to take on a global range, establish anti-ballistic-missile (ABM) defenses in Europe and the Caucasus along Russia’s western and southern flanks, instigate and re-energize the „colored“ revolutions, and cut deeply into Russia’s mounting global energy leverage, US-Russia relations are sharply and strategically deteriorating. So are US-China relations, as economic protectionism mounts on the part of the US and it builds up its military forces and proxies in Southeast Asia aimed at containing China’s rise.

This worsening state of East-West relations is prompting rising fears that the loudly proclaimed Cold War victory of the West in 1991, contrary to appearances, may be turning out to have been an unfinished, incomplete victory after all. The death of the formal Cold War did not in itself automatically guarantee the death of all its virulent elemental components, nor of its style of thinking, nor of the enduring global forces that prompted its emergence in the first place shortly after World War II.

In one famous scene in the movie Terminator II, the frightening assassin is melted down and blasted into mercury-like droplets that are spattered over a wide area of pavement. Initially that appeared to be the complete and welcome end of the assassin. But then dread revisited our heroes as they watched each of the spattered droplets begin to reassemble again into the living terminator, but in a new and restyled form that bore little obvious resemblance to its previous form. That monster proved to be much more resilient than our heroes had ever imagined. Why? Because its component parts refused to die.

Is it possible that certain potent elements of the Cold War refused to die, but went instead into a long hibernation, only to reassemble and re-emerge now into a newly styled neo-cold war?

Heightened fears of a nuclear catastrophe
Today, the threat of nuclear catastrophe remains potent, and even though we generally aren’t talking about a catastrophe resulting from an East-West confrontation, sharply rising US-Russia tensions over planned ABM complexes in Poland, the Czech Republic and the Caucasus are ratcheting up fears of a scrapping of arms treaties, a proliferation of missiles on both sides, heightened strategic tensions, and possible confrontation in which nuclear weapons could be employed, either purposefully or by accident.

In reaction to the US plans, Russia is building up its strategic nuclear arsenal by placing multiple independently targeting re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) in its advanced Topol-M missiles. Russia also threatens to scrap treaties and build up conventional missiles along the borders with states cooperating in the United States’ ABM scheme, and it further asserts its right to attack and destroy the sites as they become operational. The former assumption, that virtually no US-Russia military confrontation is likely, is increasingly an unsafe one as a more desperate US pushes back against a much more assertive Russia.

In important ways the nuclear threat today is more insidious and worrisome than before as radical states acquire the technologies and non-state terrorist groups bent on the destruction of the West seek the technology. The credible case can be made that both sides, East and West, are massively contributing to the worsening state of nuclear fear. Aggressive, unilateralist US foreign policy provides compelling motivation for so-called „axis of evil“ states to accelerate their pursuit of nuclear weapons to immunize themselves against US military strikes. And Russia, China and others are only too happy to sell nuclear technology to such states to further their own economic and geopolitical aims, failing to consider properly the global consequences.

The new arms race
A new kind of arms race is also increasingly in evidence. The US has pursued an aggressive policy in regions across the globe, while comparatively weaker powers such as Russia and China have taken asymmetric steps to level the playing field and undermine the ability of the US to project its military power effectively into their neighborhoods and into those of their partners and allies.

Wide proliferation of nuclear and missile technologies has been the direct result of the persistent yet sometimes hidden East-West rivalry over regional and global influence, a rivalry that only temporarily eased after 1991. The response of Russia and China to the NATO bombing of the sovereign state of Serbia in 1999 was to engage in determined efforts to form a Russia-China axis and to militarize it in response to the encroachment from the West. Since then the determination in the East to meet ever more deeply encroaching force with asymmetric force multipliers has been bolstered by aggressive Western policies, both military and political/ideological.

However, today’s arms race is quite different from that of the Cold War. Russia and China are now pleased to let the US spend itself deeper and deeper into economic jeopardy while they, in turn, spend far less on potent asymmetric weapons and strategies that effectively exploit the vulnerabilities of large, unwieldy US weapons platforms.

As Putin stated recently, Russia’s responses are „asymmetrical“ and „potent“, and Russia will not let the US goad it into a costly arms race. Likewise, China’s response to US moves and intentions to weaponize space was a simple and relatively inexpensive demonstration of its satellite killer, which left thousands of chunks and particles of debris smack in the middle of the low-earth orbits of most US spy satellites – in effect, China has planted a very inexpensive time bomb there.

Therefore, the correct measure of the potential destructiveness of today’s arms race is not the competing sums of money spent by
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/IE31Ag02.html
both sides. Instead, it is the potency of Russian and Chinese asymmetric systems and strategies and their wide proliferation to US rivals.

These two elements of the Cold War, fears of nuclear catastrophe and the arms race, have refused to die. Instead, they have morphed into forms that are insidious and just as deadly as ever. Hence the Cold War victory of 1991 is proving to be an unfinished one, with serious consequences today as a neo-cold war signals its ominous emergence on the global stage.

Putin has been vocal in roundly condemning US-led unipolarity and foreign policy. Whether or not Putin’s Cold War-style criticism of the US genuinely signals the emergence of a new cold war depends on your definition of the term „cold war“.

An examination of two more of the components of the old Cold War, (1) hot proxy wars and (2) „winner takes all“ ideological warfare, prove instructive. The reader should be careful to resist the unfounded yet immensely popular notion that says only the rising of entirely familiar evils, such as an old-style cold war that employs the old principles and ideologies, is something to be concerned about.

Prudently, the reader should be alert for signs of equally destructive evils masquerading in a different, newly styled and only apparently less threatening veneer, a facade intentionally constructed to provide cover for both background and foreground machinations aimed at achieving precisely the same aim as those of the principal participants in the old Cold War – the seizing of irrevocable global control and dominance by one side.

A new kind of proxy war
Newly styled proxy „wars“ between East and West are being sponsored – „wars“ for increased leverage in strategically vital regions via willing proxies. Whereas in the old Cold War such proxy wars were „hot“ conflicts, they are now, generally speaking, political „wars“.

The East sponsors proxies in Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Syria and Venezuela, which obliges the West to engage and/or compromise and perhaps overreach in an effort to roll back the rising potency of those sponsored proxies. The recent North Korea nuclear deal is a potent example, a deal in which the US is undoubtedly compromising for apparently little or no tangible benefit in return. And its impotency and isolation are showcased, leading to a dilution of its leverage on the regional and global stages.

The West sponsors proxies such as Chechen separatists and „colored“ revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, and expands the European Union and NATO to include former Soviet states, all aimed at obliging Russia and the East to make concessions, cutting into the influence and control they exercise in energy-rich strategic regions, aimed at affording the West increased leverage in those same regions.

Obviously, these actions by both the East and West can sometimes end up in a hot war, as Iraq did, and as Iran seems likely to, but generally this is a newly styled version of the „hot proxy wars“ component of the old Cold War. As such, it aptly illustrates the principle mentioned earlier of evils as equally destructive as those inherent in the old Cold War masquerading under a new and updated facade. In a world where the energy-dependent industrialized economy is the norm and where such wars are almost always engaged in over the issue of control of strategic resources, everyone knows the enormous stakes.

The new ideological war
Consequently, there arises the matter of the „winner takes all“ ideological warfare component one expects to find in a cold war. In the old Cold War it was democratic capitalism vs communism, and when the West won the Cold War in 1991 it did take virtually all the spoils.

Yet today it is also true that Russia and China have, in effect, co-opted certain democratic and capitalistic principles, amalgamated these with facets of totalitarianism and communism, to form so-called „managed democracies“ or „sovereign democracies“ to make a profoundly effective economic assault on the global center of economic might – the liberal democratic-capitalistic West.

So effective is that assault that it is now widely recognized that the global economic compass irrevocably points to Eurasia – the global center of economic might is shifting to the East, led by China. In reality, nearly all the spoils of the West’s Cold War victory are being incrementally handed back to the East as authoritarian democracy credibly threatens to become economically and geopolitically ascendant over liberal democracy.
That present, newly styled ideological war between the liberal democracy of the West and the authoritarian democracy of the East plays directly into the race to achieve control of global strategic resources. In the old Cold War the ideological rivalry gave thick cover to the quest on each side for control over oil – the industrialized West’s Achilles’ heel. Today, just as in the past, ideology is used on both sides to justify and to implement geopolitical moves that are really aimed at achieving control of strategic global resources.

The West instigates „colored“ liberal-democratic revolutions in certain strategically vital regions, promotes liberal-democratic reform in other strategically vital regions, and invades to bring democracy at the point of a gun in yet other places, all in an effort to achieve „regime changes“ that will underwrite a consolidation of the West’s control of strategic resources – for such moves are only tried where strategic resources are abundant or where their transit to markets in the West is at stake.

Conversely, the East bolsters autocratic regimes while simultaneously helping such regimes to proliferate around the globe, encourages state takeovers of resources industries, and assists such regimes to form authoritarian democracies and authoritarian resources-based and exports-based corporate states similar to the ones found in Russia and China, respectively. All the while, the potent ideological justification of the inequitability and destructiveness of US-led unipolarity, and the desirability of the more democratic „multipolar“ world order, is employed to justify and implement all such moves.

In today’s East-West rivalry, the vital ideological component provides only a thin veneer for the geopolitical moves in the Great Game over control of strategic global resources, and the side that wins that game will absolutely take all the spoils of war.

The war no longer in the shadows
Clearly, all the fundamental Cold War components are present today in a newly styled but potent form. Additionally, just as was the case in the old Cold War, the aims and the stakes are identical – the seizing of irrevocable global control by one side and the loss of political, economic and even military autonomy and might by the losing side.

Consequently, we do not have now a reviving of the old Cold War, but rather the ongoing emergence from the shadows of an entirely new style and type of cold war, the neo-cold war, as an expression of the irreversible, fundamental and ongoing competition and rivalry between an unrelenting rising East and a West that insists, at almost any cost, on recapturing and retaining all the spoils of its old Cold War „win“; spoils that are already slipping through its fingers as the global momentum in almost every sphere shifts in the favor of Russia, China, India and the East.

Increasingly, East and West are polarized along the closely braided twin dividing lines of (1) the issue of unipolarity vs so-called multipolarity and the intimately intertwined issue of (2) who shall control strategic global resources – the West or the East? Any neutral ground between East and West is rapidly disappearing as states are being pressured by both sides to declare their true positions by their actions.

Events signifying deepening global polarization into two de facto geopolitical blocs opposed to each other and the resulting mounting East-West rivalry and divide are the signal that the neo-cold war does already exist and is emerging from the shadows.

W Joseph Stroupe is author of the books Russian Rubicon: Impending Checkmate of the West and Grand Reversal: Russian Global Ascendancy and is editor of Global Events Magazine, online at www.GlobalEventsMagazine.com.

Can Europe end the lose-lose game with Iran?

мај 24, 2007

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=20798
On the one hand, Europe must remain tough and steadfast against Iran’s defiance of two UN Security Council Resolutions. On the other, it must redefine suspension of enrichment in order to kick-start much needed negotiations and end the current lose-lose game being played between the West and Iran, says Trita Parsi.

Washington, DC – Back in the summer of 2006, European diplomats feared that escalation in the Security Council would aggravate the Iranian nuclear stand-off and render a solution more difficult. These fears have now been realised, as Iran has defied two Chapter VII UN Security Council Resolutions demanding that it suspend its uranium enrichment programme, and has retaliated by scaling down its cooperation with the IAEA.

Thus far, the pressure from the Security Council – or the financial sanctions imposed unilaterally by the US – has not softened Iran’s position. On the contrary, both sides in the standoff have dug in their heels and limited the space for compromise. In spite of the cost of US financial sanctions on the Iranian economy, Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi declared earlier this week that Tehran was prepared to „pay the price“ for continuing its nuclear programme.

„What has been the result of three (UN) Security Council resolutions, two introducing sanctions?“ he asked. „Iran has quickened the pace of its peaceful activities and reduced its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency… This can go on, but the result is an escalation of the crisis.“

Moreover, non-proliferation experts warn that Iran sooner or later will master the technology, after which a compromise limiting its nuclear activities may be out of reach.

Ironically, the lose-lose situation has created balanced incentives on all sides to seek a face-saving way out of the standoff. With the two key states in the equation standing so far from each other – Iran refusing to give up enrichment and the US seeing zero enrichment as the only acceptable outcome – significant out-of-the box thinking is required from the Europeans in order to bridge these seemingly incompatible positions.

On the one hand, Europe must remain tough and steadfast against Iran’s defiance of two U.N. Security Council Resolutions. On the other, it must redefine suspension of enrichment in order to kick-start much needed negotiations and end the current lose-lose game being played between the West and Iran.

Lately, Europe has emboldened its diplomatic efforts. EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana has publicly called for direct US-Iran talks, a message the Europeans preferred to make in private only up until recently. Furthermore, Solana has acknowledged that reform of the non-proliferation treaty is needed and that the Iranian case cannot be seen in isolation from that larger issue.

Furthermore, the Europeans have floated several different ideas in order to get Iran to agree to the suspension precondition for negotiations, including an international enrichment consortium on Iranian soil.

In the earlier negotiations with Europe, Iran entered the talks with the impression that the parties would identify „objective criteria“ that would enable Iran to exercise its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty while providing the international community with guarantees that the Iranian nuclear programme would remain strictly civilian. As the negotiations progressed, however, Europe gravitated towards the U.S. view that the only acceptable criterion would be for Iran not to engage in uranium enrichment in the first place.

As a result, Tehran felt trapped in the talks since the EU wasn’t pursuing solutions that would ensure that Iran’s enrichment activities would remain peaceful; rather, the objective was to eliminate Iran’s enrichment programme altogether.

Tehran may continue to reject the call for suspension unless the framework for the negotiations does not just include solutions that would permit enrichment on Iranian soil, but more importantly, that would exclude any potential solution that would deprive Tehran of that activity. But agreeing to such a framework will create another headache for Europe though – Washington has thus far shown no appetite for any negotiations that wouldn’t have the explicit aim of ending all Iranian enrichment.

An alternative path may be to revamp an old idea that was floated around last summer in various track-II meetings. The idea, termed „freeze for freeze,“ would require both sides to freeze their activities from further advancement, but not require these activities to be halted. This would enable talks to begin while evading the suspension requirement, yet still prevent both sides from enhancing their positions by creating new facts on the ground.

Under this idea, Iran would continue its current nuclear activities, but it would be prohibited from expanding the programme or adding new centrifuges. Iran would freeze its programme, but not suspend it.

Western powers, on the other hand, would not have to roll back the U.N. sanctions against Iran – a step that Washington seems to appreciate, being mindful of the difficulties it faced getting the Security Council to impose them in the first place. By keeping the sanctions intact, the U.S. would avoid a scenario in which Russia and China would resist efforts to re-impose sanctions after a failed negotiations attempt.

The „freeze for freeze“ concept would, however, prohibit Washington from seeking to enhance the sanctions regime during the duration of the negotiations. Much like the Iranian programme, the Security Council track would be frozen, but not suspended.

Political support for the freeze-for-freeze concept remains weak, but as all sides start to feel the pain of the continuation of the current stalemate, the idea may pick up steam and provide the parties with a face-saving way out of the lose-lose game.

Dr. Trita Parsi is the author of „Treacherous Alliance – The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States“ (Yale University Press, 2007). He is also president of the National Iranian American Council (This article is distributed by the Common Ground News Service and can be accessed at GCNews. It was originally published by the Inter Press Service News Agency

Will Russia Block Kosovo Independence?

мај 24, 2007

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1624851,00.html

By YURI ZARAKHOVICH/MOSCOW

„We agreed to seek a solution that will satisfy all parties,“ said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on recent talks between President Vladimir Putin and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Kosovo. Except, added Lavrov, „No such solution is immediately in sight.“

The Serbian province of Kosovo, whose 2 million people are predominantly ethnic Albanians and want independence, has been administered as a U.N. protectorate since NATO’s 78-day bombing campaign forced Serbian withdrawal in 1999. Now, U.N.’s special envoy Marti Ahtisaari has proposed de facto independence under European Union supervision for Kosovo, with a view to subsequently integrating both it and Serbia into the EU. Ahtisaari’s plan is backed by the U.S. and NATO countries, but Russia strongly objects to what it describes as a dangerous precedent for separatists elsewhere. And as an historical ally of Serbia, Russia cannot turn down Belgrade’s pleas of help, particularly at a time when Putin is promoting an image of himself as a strident defender of Russia and its allies against the designs of NATO. In the year of Russia’s parliamentary and presidential elections — however token those may be — Putin wants Russians to feel proud of Moscow’s growing readiness to challenge the U.S. and bully the EU, which is increasingly dependent on Russian fuel supplies.

Still, the grim reality for Russia, summed up by Secretary Rice to Echo Moskvi Radio station during her recent visit, is that „Kosovo will never again be part of Serbia. It’s not possible.“ And Russia does not have sufficient leverage to change that reality — although it can use its U.N. Security Council veto to freeze the process, once the Ahtisaari plan is put to vote. Off the record, Russian officials indicate that this is, indeed, what Russia will most likely do, for the lack of other options.

The separatism theme is played differently by Moscow in different contexts: Russia brutally burns out separatism in Chechnya, but it endorses the efforts of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to break away from pro-NATO Georgia, as well as those of Moldova’s breakaway region of Trans-Dniestria. Russia uses these separatist entities to turn up heat on Georgia and Moldova, and the separatist movements in all three demand Russian recognition, and subsequent incorporation into Russia. Hence, Moscow’s headache: Should it go along with the Ahtisaari plan, it must insist that the same approach be applied to Russian allies, lest it loses face both with them and with its own increasingly nationalist population. But should Russia derail the Ahtisaari plan on grounds of opposing separatism, it has to find a better rationale to encourage its own separatist clientele.

The issue also has implications for the image of the protagonists in the Islamic world: Helping Muslim Albanians win independence may help the Western powers repair their image in the Muslim world, whereas resisting the Albanians’ secession will cause a lot of bad blood in the Muslim world for Russia. Another factor is Serbia’s own unreliability. Over centuries, Serbia always asked for Russia’s protection first, and ended up siding with the West second, leaving Russia with a lot of egg on the face and in a lot of trouble for all its pains. Even with the current rise of Serbian nationalism, piqued by the West’s position on Kosovo, Belgrade is more likely to cut a deal with the West and opt for the EU’s patronage rather than for Moscow’s.

Serbia certainly has reasons to be piqued. Despite the NATO countries pledging even handedness, they appear oblivious to the fact that the tables in Kosovo have been turned since 1999. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1244 on Kosovo, demanded to guarantee the safe and free return of all refugees and displaced persons to their homes. But since 1999, the Albanians have forced out some 200,000 Serbs, who cannot freely return. NATO peacekeepers always are not always able to calm down clashes between Albanians and the few Serbian enclaves still remaining in Kosovo. Though Kosovo will never again be a part of Serbia, the U.S. might be too hasty seeking to have both peoples integrated into the EU before they have learned how to co-exist. Helping develop functioning — and inevitably cooperative — economies in Serbia and Kosovo might prove a necessary pre-requisite. It takes time. In this respect, the likelihood of a desperate Russian veto may be a blessing in disguise for the region.