• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mrcho

  • Rank
    Novi clan
  1. Nikola Tesla, 1856—1943 Nikola Tesla, a man of exceptional intellect and vision, a Serbian-American inventor, electrical engineer, and scientist. The most deserving world’s scientist and engineer for developments in the fields of Electromagnetism, Telecommunications, Electro-Energetics, and Electronics in general. Tesla was probably the greatest scientist and visionary of the past Victorian and modern industrial age. His most important inventions include telephone repeater, rotating magnetic field principle, polyphase alternating-current system, induction motor, alternating-current power transmission, Tesla coil transformer, wireless communication, radio, fluorescent lights, and more than 700 other patents. Many of them in other engineering fields. Nikola was born at the stroke of midnight on July 9 in 1856 in Smiljan, near Gospiæ, Lika, Krajina, a Military Frontier of Austro-Hungarian Empire, now in Croatia. The night he was born in was a stormy with lightning striking on the hills around the church where his father served. The midwife commented, "He'll be a child of the storm," to which his mother replied, "No, of light." He died on January 7, 1943 in New York City, New York (USA). "Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity." Nikola through time: Nikola's father Reverend Milutin Tesla, Serbian-Orthodox priest Links: ... tobio.html .... and so on,and so on...there are thousands of web sites dedicated to this great scientist
  2. Iz moje Arhive: ECONOMIC TERRORISM by Michel Chossudovsky, Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa In Yugoslavia, the IMF has become the steadfast financial bureaucracy of the Western military alliance, working hand in glove with NATO and the US State Department. ECONOMIC TERRORISM The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is known to bully developing countries, imposing strong doses of "deadly economic medicine" while saddling governments with spiraling external debts. In complicity with Washington, the IMF often meddles in cabinet appointments in debtor countries. In Korea in the turmoil of the 1997 Asian crisis, the Finance Minister --sacked for allegedly "hindering negotiations" with the IMF-- was replaced by a former IMF official.[1] In Turkey, also in the wake of an IMF-style financial meltdown (March 2001), the Minister of Economy was substituted by a Vice-President of the World Bank.[2] But what has occurred in Yugoslavia sets a new record in the abusive practices of the Washington-based international financial bureaucracy: the arrest of a head of State of a debtor nation --demanded by its main creditors-- has become "a pre-condition" for the holding of loan negotiations. While the 31st of March 2001 was Washington's deadline date for the arrest of President Slobodan Milosevic by the DOS government, another ultimatum was set for transferring the former head of State to the jurisdiction of the NATO-sponsored Hague Tribunal (ICTY). In the words of Secretary of State Colin Powell: "the US administration's support for an international donors' conference where Yugoslavia is hoping for up to $1 billion to help rebuild would depend on continued progress in full cooperation with the [Hague] tribunal."[3] A State Department spokesman further clarified "that the United States has the power to stop the conference from going ahead in the early summer if Washington is not satisfied." [4] Meanwhile, the Hague Tribunal has threatened to take the matter before the UN Security Council, if President Milosevic is not rapidly transferred to its jurisdiction.[5] WITHHOLDING FINANCIAL "AID" Very timely. At the height of the Yugoslav presidential elections (September 2000), "enabling legislation" was rushed through the US House of Representatives. Washington had forewarned Kostunica --pursuant to an Act of Congress (HR 1064)-- that unless his government fully complied to US diktats, financial "aid" would be withheld. The IMF and the World Bank had also been duly notified by their largest shareholder, namely the US government, that: "the US Secretary of the Treasury [would] withhold from payment of the United States share of any increase in the paid-in capital of [the IMF and World Bank] an amount equal to the amount of the loan or other assistance [to Yugoslavia].[6] Meanwhile, Washington had demanded the setting up of an office of the Hague Tribunal (ICTY) in Belgrade as well as modifications to the legal statutes of Yugoslavia. The latter --to be rubber-stamped by the Parliament-- would place the ICTY Tribunal above the jurisdiction of Yugoslavia's national legal system. It would also allow the ICTY to order on NATO's behest, the arrest of thousands of people on trumped up charges. RELEASING KLA TERRORISTS US officials had also intimated that the prompt release of KLA "freedom fighters" serving jail terms in Serbia was to be regarded as an "additional pre-condition" for the granting of financial assistance: "State Department officials later told UPI that among other steps the United States was looking for, were Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica to begin returning Albanians captured during the 1999 Kosovo conflict to Kosovo and for an acceptance of the war crimes tribunal's jurisdiction inside Serbia where numerous indicted suspects still enjoy immunity."[7] An "Amnesty Law" was rushed through the Yugoslav parliament barely a month before Washington's March 31st deadline.[8] While the victims of the war are persecuted and indicted as war criminals, the Kostunica regime --on Washington's instructions-- has released Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) criminals (linked to the drug mafias) who committed atrocities in Kosovo. Meanwhile, these criminals have rejoined the ranks of the KLA, now involved in a new wave of terrorist assaults in southern Serbia and in neighboring Macedonia. The evidence amply confirms that these terrorist attacks are supported and financed by Washington.[9] "ECONOMIC NORMALIZATION" Without further scrutiny, the Western media touts the holding of a donors' conference as "a necessary step" towards "economic normalization" and the "reintegration" of Yugoslavia into the "family of nations". Public opinion is led to believe that the "donors" will "help" Yugoslavia rebuild. The term "donor" is a misnomer. In fact the donors' conference is a meeting of bankers and creditors mainly from the countries which bombed Yugoslavia. Their intent is to not only to collect money from Yugoslavia, but also to gain full control and ownership of the Yugoslav economy. Meanwhile, national laws have been revised to facilitate sweeping privatization. Serbia's large industrial complexes and public utilities are to be restructured and auctioned off to foreign capital. In other words, rather than "helping Yugoslavia", the donor conference --organized in close consultation with Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels-- would set the stage for the transformation of Yugoslavia into a colony of the Western military alliance. Yugoslavia's external debt is in excess of $14 billion of which $5 billion are owed to the Paris Club (i.e. largely to the governments of NATO countries) and $3 billion to the London Club. The latter is a syndicate of private banks, which in the case of Yugoslavia includes some 400 creditor institutions. The largest part of Yugoslavia's commercial debt, however, is held by some 16 (mainly) American and European banks which are members of an "International Coordinating Committee" (ICC) headed by America's Citigroup and Germany's giant WestDeutsche Landesbank. Other big players in the ICC include J. P. Morgan-Chase and Merrill Lynch. The ICC --which operates discretely behind the scenes-- ultimately call the shots regarding debt negotiations, privatization and macro-economic therapy. In turn, the IMF bureaucracy acting on behalf of both the commercial and official creditors has called for "a restructuring of FRY's external debt on appropriate terms" underscoring the fact that fresh money can only be approved "following the regularization of arrears."[10] What this means is that Belgrade would be obliged to recognize these debts in full as a condition for the negotiation of fresh loans as well as settle pending succession issues regarding the division of the external debt of the FRY with the "successor republics." FICTICIOUS MONEY While token "reconstruction" loans are envisaged, vast amounts of money and resources will be taken out of Yugoslavia. In fact, most of the promised "reconstruction" money is totally fictitious. A $208 million 'bridge loan" granted by Switzerland and Norway (January 2001 was used to reimburse the IMF. In turn, the IMF had granted $151 million to Belgrade in the form of a so-called "post-conflict assistance" loan. But this "aid" was tagged to reimburse Switzerland and Norway, which had coughed up the money to settle IMF arrears in the first place: "The [iMF] Board approved a loan [of] .US$151 million under the IMF's policy on emergency post-conflict assistance in support of a program to stabilize the FRY's economy and help rebuild administrative capacities. Of this amount, the [belgrade] authorities will draw. US$130 million to repay the bridge loans they received [from Switzerland and Norway] to eliminate arrears with the IMF."[11] The illusion is conveyed that "money is coming in" and that "the IMF is helping Yugoslavia." In fact, what remains after the IMF "has reimbursed itself" is a meager influx of 21 million dollars. And broadly the same fictitious money arrangement has been put in place by the World Bank, which has ordered that $1.7 billion in arrears "be cleared" before the granting of fresh loans. In this regard, Belgrade will be granted a so-called "loan of consolidation" from the World Bank to reimburse the $1,7 billion debt it owes to the World Bank. Little or no money will actually enter the country. In the words of Central Bank governor Mladan Dinkic: "[this] will pave the way for Yugoslavia's return to the World Bank. `In the first three years, we will receive the so-called AIDA status, which the World Bank gives to the poorest countries. [this] is the most favorable arrangement possible, with a longer grace-period and minimum interest, which will allow our economy to pay off the [$1.7 billion] debt and create conditions for receiving new loans".[12] More generally, the "reconstruction" money will line the pockets of international creditors and multinational corporations (with trinkets for DOS cronies) while putting the entire Yugoslav economy on the auction block. Assets will be sold at rock-bottom prices under IMF-World Bank supervision. The meager proceeds of forced privatization --in which only foreign "investors" will be allowed to bid-- will then be used to pay back the creditors, who happen to be the same people who are buying up Yugoslavia's assets. And who will appraise the "book value" of Yugoslavia's industrial assets and supervise the auction of State property? The large European and US merchant banks and accounting firms, which also happen to be acting on behalf of their corporate clients involved in bidding. DEADLY ECONOMIC MEDICINE Fictitious reconstruction money, however, is only granted on condition Yugoslavia implements economic "shock therapy." The donor-sponsored program is predicated on "destruction" rather than "reconstruction". Under the disguise of "economic normalization", the IMF, the World Bank and the London-based European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) have been given the mandate to dismantle through bankruptcy and forced privatization what has not yet been destroyed by the bombers. In this process, political terror and "economic terror" go hand in hand. The evidence amply confirms that the IMF-World Bank's lethal economic reforms imposed in more than 150 developing countries have led to the impoverishment of millions of people. In a cruel irony, bitter economic medicine and token financial assistance are presented as "the rewards" for transferring President Milosevic to the jurisdiction of the Hague Tribunal. While the present IMF program is a "continuation" of the deadly economic reforms first imposed on federal Yugoslavia in the 1980s (and then on its "successor republics"), it promises to be far more devastating.[13] The Group of 17 economists (G-17) --which controls the Ministry of Finance and Yugoslavia's Central Bank (NBJ)-- are in permanent liaison with the IMF, the World Bank and the US Treasury. A "letter of Intent" outlining in detail the economic therapy to be imposed on Yugoslavia by the DOS government had in fact been drawn up in secret negotiations with the creditors before the September 2000 presidential elections. Mladjan Dinkic --who now holds the position of Governor of the National Bank of Yugoslavia (NBJ) (Central Bank)-- had stated that one of the first things they would do under a Kostunica presidency would be to implement economic "shock therapy": "Immediately after taking the office, the new government shall abolish all types of subsidies. This measure must be implemented without regrets or hesitation, since it will be difficult if not impossible to apply later, in view of the fact that in the meantime strong lobbies may appear and do their best to block such measures... This initial step in economic liberalization must be undertaken as a "shock therapy" as its radical nature does not leave space for gradualism of any kind."[14] The G-17 does not hide the fact that one of its main objectives consists in breaking social resistance to the economic restructuring program: "Any future democratic regime is likely to face substantial public resistance to privatization and the socio economic reforms that will accompany it. In the short term, the insolvency and restructuring of Serbian enterprises is likely to generate unemployment or wage cuts for many employees. The servicing of debts and fiscal adjustments are likely to require cuts in public expenditure and the introduction of potentially unpopular new taxes and levies. The purchase of Serbian firms by wealthy domestic and foreign investors may also generate resentment, especially as it will represent a radical break with the former Yugoslav tradition of workers' or "social" ownership. Nationalist and anti-reformist groups are likely to mobilize popular resistance by exploiting these problems. This form of political opposition would limit the scope for introducing effective economic reform and privatization."[15]. FREEZING WAGES The IMF program --put into full swing in the wake of the September 2000 elections-- calls for the adoption of "prudent macroeconomic policies and bold structural reforms", In IMF lingo, "bold" invariably means the application of "shock treatment" while "prudent" means carefully designed and uncompromising austerity measures.[16] Upon assuming office, the Kostunica government --under IMF instructions-- has deregulated the prices of basic consumer goods and frozen the wages of working people.[17] A new Labor Law setting the minimum wage at 35 percent of the average wage was rubber-stamped by the Yugoslav parliament. In other words, with rising prices coupled with the deindexation of wages ordered by the IMF, the new legislation allows the real minimum wage to slide to abysmally low levels.[18] Credit has been frozen to local businesses and farmers. Interest rates have already skyrocketed. With the end of the economic sanctions, the IMF has also demanded that import barriers be removed to facilitate the dumping of surplus commodities on the domestic market leading to the bankruptcy of domestic producers. In turn, energy prices are to be totally deregulated prior to the privatization of public utilities, State oil refineries, coal mining and electricity. In turn, drastic cuts in the social security and pension funds of the Republic of Serbia are envisaged, which would virtually lead to their collapse (See IMF Program, op cit). The restructuring of social programs is a carbon copy of that imposed in neighboring Bulgaria, where pensions paid out to senior citizens plummeted in 1997 to $3 as month.[19] ENGINEERING THE COLLAPSE OF THE DINAR The most lethal component of the IMF program, however, is the so-called "managed float" of the exchange rate which --according to IMF Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer-- is implemented "to better reflect market conditions".[20] Yugoslavia's central bank foreign exchange reserves are of the order of $500 million, the external debt is in excess of $14 billion. Under agreement with the IMF, money (in the form of "precautionary loan") would be granted to replenish the foreign exchange reserves of the Central Bank with a view to supporting the dinar. Moreover following the Brazilian pattern, the dinar would also be artificially propped up by extensive government borrowing from private banking institutions at exorbitant interest rates thereby fuelling the internal public debt.[21] In the absence of exchange controls restricting capital flight, central bank foreign exchange reserves would eventually be depleted. In other words, when the "borrowed reserves" are no longer there to prop up the currency, the dinar collapses. In the logic of the "managed float", the dollars borrowed under an IMF precautionary fund arrangement, would be reappropriated by international creditors and speculators once the dinar slides, leading to a further expansion of Yugoslavia's external debt. In fact, this policy is largely instrumental in triggering hyperinflation. The national currency would become totally worthless. In other words, prices would go sky high following the collapse of the national currency. In turn, wages would be frozen on IMF instructions as part of an "anti-inflationary program" and the standard of living would plummet to even lower levels. And Yugoslavs are already impoverished with two thirds of the population (according to UN sources acknowledged in the IMF report) with per capita incomes below 2 dollars a day. It's the same financial scam that the IMF applied in Korea, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil and more recently Turkey.[22] In this process, various speculative instruments (including "short selling" of currencies) were applied by international banks and financial institutions to trigger the collapse of national currencies. In Korea, debts spiraled in the wake of the currency crisis. As a result, the entire economy was put on the auction block and several of Korea's powerful conglomerates were taken over by American capital at ridiculously low prices. In Russia, the ruble became totally worthless following the implementation of an IMF program. The float of the ruble applied in 1992 under IMF advice was conducive in less than a year to a one hundred fold (9900%) increase in consumer prices. Nominal earnings increased ten fold (900%), the collapse in real wages in 1992 was of the order of 86 percent. In subsequent years, real earnings continued to plummet precipitating the descent of the Russian people into extreme poverty.[23] More generally, the IMF program creates a framework for collecting as well as enlarging the debt through the manipulation of currency markets. It is worth mentioning, in this regard, that barely a few weeks before the arrest of President Milosevic, Turkey was subjected --following the destabilization of its currency-- to the most brutal economic reforms leading virtually over night to the collapse of the standard of living. Under IMF ministrations, interest rates in Turkey had shot up to a modest 550%. WAR DAMAGES The IMF has acknowledged in its report that the damage caused by NATO bombings is of the order of 40 billion dollars.[24] This figure does not take into account the losses in Yugoslavia's GDP resulting from years of economic sanctions, nor does it account for the loss of human life and limb, the human suffering inflicted on an entire population, the toxic radiation from depleted uranium and the environmental devastation amply documented by Yugoslav and international sources.[25] Ironically, this study on war damages was coordinated by G-17 Mladjan Dinkic and Miroslav Labus who now hold key positions in the DOS government. Since his appointment to the position of central bank governor, Dinkic has not said a word about "war damages" in his discussions with Western creditors.[26] LUCRATIVE RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS No "compensation" for war damages let alone debt relief has been contemplated. In a cruel twist, a large part of the fresh loans --which Yugoslavia will eventually have to reimburse-- will be used to rebuild what was destroyed by the bombers. Moreover, under the World Bank-EBRD system of international tender, these loans are in fact tagged to finance lucrative contracts with construction companies from NATO countries: "the big winners [are the Western] telecommunications companies, construction firms, banks and shipping concerns who can rebuild the Danube River bridges, power plants and refineries destroyed by NATO airstrikes. While European companies, already busy with Balkan projects, have a home-court advantage, U.S. companies such as infrastructure specialists Brown & Root [a subsidiary of Vice President Dick Cheney's company Halliburton Oil], AES and General Electric could get a piece of the action."[27] And what will these companies do? They will sub-contract will local firms and/or hire Yugoslav engineers and workers at wages below one hundred dollars a month. In other words, the borrowed money promised to Belgrade for "reconstruction" will go straight back into the pockets of Western banks and MNCs. In turn, the so-called "prioritization of expenditures" imposed by the IMF means that the State (i.e. Yugoslavia's own money) would be footing the bill for clearing the Danube and rebuilding the bridges, essentially "subsidizing" the interests of foreign capital. Moreover, IMF "conditionalities" --which require drastic cuts in social expenditures-- would prevent the government from allocating its budget to rebuilding schools and hospitals hit during the bombing campaign. THE COSTS OF THE AIR CAMPAIGN Accusing the Serbian people and the former head of State of the crimes committed by the aggressor is intended to instill a sense of fear and collective guilt on an entire Nation. But there is something else which has so far not been mentioned: Washington's design is to hold President Milosevic responsible for the War not as an individual but as the country's head of State, with a view to eventually collecting war reparations from Yugoslavia. In other words, if the former head of State were to be indicted by the Hague tribunal, the country could be held "legally responsible" not only for the costs of NATO's "humanitarian bombs", but for all the military and "peacekeeping" expenses incurred since 1992. In fact, an army of accountants and economists has already evaluated --on NATO's behest-- the costs of the air campaign and the various "peacekeeping operations". In this regard, the U.S. share of the costs of the bombing, "peacekeeping" and "refugee assistance" solely in fiscal year 1999 was estimated at $5.05 billion. The amounts allocated by the Clinton Administration to pay for the war and the refugees in FY 1999 were of the order of $6.6 billion. So-called "emergency funding" appropriated by Congress for operations in Kosovo and other defense spending in FY 1999 totaled $12 billion. Moreover, the Department of Defense estimates the costs of deployment of American occupation forces and civilian personnel stationed in Bosnia and Kosovo since 1992 to be of the order of $21.2 billion.[28] In other words, indicting President Milosevic on trumped up charges raises a fundamental question of legitimacy. It sanctions the bombings as a humanitarian operation. It not only absolves the real war criminals, it also opens up the avenue for the indictment of Yugoslavia as a nation. The former head of State is indicted; the people are collectively indicted. What this means is that NATO could at some future date oblige Yugoslavia to pay for the bombs used to destroy the country and kill its people. There is nothing fundamentally new in this process. Under the British Empire, it was common practice not only to install puppet regimes but also to bill the costs of gunboat operations to countries, which refused to sign a "free trade" agreement with Her Majesty's government. In 1850, Britain threatened to send in its "gun boats" ---equivalent to today's humanitarian air raids-- following the refusal of the Kingdom of Siam (Thailand) to sign a free trade treaty with Britain (equivalent to today's "letter of intent" to the IMF). While the language and institutions of colonial diplomacy have changed, the similarity with contemporary practices is striking. In the words of British envoy Sir James Brooke (equivalent to today's Richard Holbrooke): "The Siamese Government is hostile-- its tone is arrogant-- its presumption unbounded... Should these just [british] demands firmly urged be refused, a force should be present, immediately to enforce them by a rapid destruction of the defenses of the river. Siam may be taught the lesson which it has long been tempted, . a better disposed king placed on the throne, and an influence acquired in the country which will make it of immense commercial importance to England... [Note the similarity in relation to Yugoslavia] Above all, it would be well to prepare for the change and to place our own kind on the throne . This prince [Mongkut] we ought to place on the throne and through him, we might, beyond doubt, gain all we desire.. And the expense incurred [of the military operation] would readily be available from the royal treasury of Siam."[29] Replace the head of State, impose "free" trade, bill the country for the military operation! PRECEDENTS OF WAR REPARATIONS: VIETNAM AND NICARAGUA In fact in the case of Vietnam --which won the war against US aggression-- Hanoi was nonetheless obliged to pay war reparations to the United States, as a condition for the lifting of economic sanctions in 1994. Although the historical circumstances were quite different to those of Yugoslavia, the pattern of IMF intervention in Vietnam was in many regards similar. The decision to lift the sanctions on Vietnam was also taken in the context of a donors' conference. "Some two billion dollars of loans and "aid" money had been pledged in support of Vietnam's IMF sponsored reforms, yet immediately after the Conference another separate meeting was held, this time "behind closed doors" in which Hanoi was obliged to fully reimburse . the debts incurred by the US installed Saigon military government."[30] By fully recognising the legitimacy of these debts, Hanoi had in effect accepted to repay loans that had been utilised to support the US War effort. Moreover, Hanoi's acceptance had also totally absolved Washington from paying war reparations to Vietnam totalling $4.2 billion as agreed at the Paris Peace Conference in 1973.[31] NICARAGUA: "FREEDOM FIGHTERS" AND IMF ECONOMIC MEDICINE Similarly the 12 billion dollars "reparations" that the US had been ordered to pay to Nicaragua by the Hague International Court of Justice (ICJ) were never paid. In 1990, following the installation of a pro-US "democratic" government, these reparations --ordered by the ICJ-- were erased in exchange for "normalization" and the lifting of sanctions. In return, Washington approved a token $60 million in "emergency aid" which was of course conditional upon the payment of all debts and the adoption of the most deadly IMF economic shock therapy: "The United States . provides severance pay to government workers fired under the U.S.-mandated [iMF structural adjustment] program to reduce the size of Nicaragua's government. Among the results: Nicaragua's social security budget has been slashed from $ 18 million to $ 4 million while unemployment has risen to about 45 percent. Health spending has dropped from $86 per person [per annum] five years ago to $ 18 [in 1991 in the year following the elections]. Pensions for disabled war veterans have been frozen at $ 6.50 per month while food prices have risen [1991] to nearly U.S. levels. In the words of a State Department official 'The US is committed to rebuilding Nicaragua, but there's only a limited amount you can do with development aid.'"[32] Yet the US did not hesitate in spending billions of dollars to finance nine years of economic embargo and war in which Washington created and funded a paramilitary army (the Contras) to fight the Sandinista government. Heralded by the Reagan administration and touted by the media as "freedom fighters", the Contras insurgency was financed by drug money and covert support from the CIA. And in fact the same pattern of covert support using drug money was applied to financing the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) with a view to destabilizing Yugoslavia. William Walker, head of the OSCE mission to Kosovo in the months preceding the 1999 war, was responsible together with Coronal Oliver North in channeling covert support to the Contras which ultimately led to the downfall of the Sandinista government and its defeat in "democratic" elections in 1990. THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (UNCC) Another case is that of Iraq which --in the wake of the Gulf War-- was obliged to pay extensive war reparations. The United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) was set up to process "claims" against Iraq. Thirty percent of Iraqi oil revenues in the "oil for food program" are impounded by the UNCC to pay war reparations to governments, banks and corporations. The UNCC "has awarded more than $32 billion [in claims], and more than $9.5 billion has been paid out under the food-for-oil regime."[33] These precedents are important in understanding the war in Yugoslavia. Although no official statement has been made by NATO, the framework and bureaucracy of the UNCC could at some future date be extended to collecting war reparations from Yugoslavia. The UNCC's claim procedures are based on a 1991 UN Security Council resolution which establishes Iraq's liability for the Gulf war under international law. In the case of Yugoslavia, President Milosevic is accused by the Hague tribunal for "crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war", [34]. Following the Iraqi precedent, a decision of the Hague Tribunal concerning President Milosevic could constitute the basis for the formulation of a similar UN Security Council Resolution establishing the liability of the government and people of Yugoslavia for the "direct loss, damage. to foreign governments, nationals and corporations", including "the costs of the air campaign."[35] REWRITING HISTORY Recent events have shown how realties can be turned upside down by the aggressor and its propaganda machine. NATO's intent is to blatantly distort the course of events and manipulate the writing of modern history. It is therefore essential that the Yugoslav people remain united in their resolve. It should also be understood that the "demonisation" of the Serbian people and of President Slobodan Milosevic alongside the triggering of ethnic conflicts is intended to impose the "free market" and enforce the New World Order throughout the Balkans. Internationally, the various movements against IMF-World Bank-WTO reforms must understand that war and globalization are inter-connected processes. Applied around the World, the only promise of the "free market" is a World of landless farmers, shuttered factories, jobless workers and gutted social programs with "bitter economic medicine" under IMF-WB-WTO custody constituting the only prescription. Moreover, militarization increasingly constitutes the means for enforcing these deadly macro-economic reforms. Yugoslavia's struggle to preserve its national sovereignty is --at this particular juncture in its history-- a part of the broader movement against the New World Order and the imposition throughout the World of a uniform neo-liberal policy agenda under IMF-World Bank-WTO supervision. Behind these organizations --which routinely interface with NATO-- are the powers of the US and European financial establishments and the Western military-industrial complex. ENDNOTES 1. Agence France Presse , 19 November 1997. 2 Quest Economics Database. West LB Emerging Trends, 8 March 2001, Agence France Press, 16 March 2001. 3. Statement of Secretary of State Colin Powell quoted in International Herald Tribune, Paris, April 4, 2001. 4. International Herald Tribune, op. cit. 5. B 92 News, Belgrade, 3 May 2001. 6. US House of Representatives, Bill HR 1064, section 302, September 2000, at, click 106th Congress and enter bill number. 7. UPI, 2 April 2001. 8. New York Times, 27 February 2001. 9. See Michel Chossudovsky, Washington Finances Ethnic Warfare in the Balkans", Emperors Clothes, April 2001. 10. See IMF, IMF Approves Membership of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and US$151 Million in Emergency Post-Conflict Assistance, 11. See IMF, IMF Approves Membership of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and US$151 Million in Emergency Post-Conflict Assistance, 12. Government of Serbia, Serbia Info, Belgrade 2 May 2001, 13 For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Dismantling Former Yugoslavia, Recolonising Bosnia, Covert Action Quarterly, Sprint 1996, available at ... sies4.html or ... smantl.htm. 14. See Group of 17 "Program of Radical Economic Reforms", Belgrade 1999 at 15. New Serbia Forum, "Privatization", Budapest, 13-15th March 2000, 16. The full text of the IMF program is available at ... &sk=3875.0 The Government's commitment under the IMF program is outlined in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, "Economic Reform Program for 2001" Belgrade, December 9th, 2000,, see also "Synthetic View" of main economic policy measures at 17. See Michel Chossudovsky, Kostunica Coalition Drives Up Prices and Blames...Milosevic, October 2000, 18. See B 92 News, 3 May 2001 at 19. IM Program, op cit. On Bulgaria see The Wind in the Balkans, The Economist, London, February 8, 1997, p.12 and Jonathan C. Randal, Reform Coalition Wins, Bulgarian Parliament, The Washington Post, April 20 1997, p. A21. 20. See the Statement of IMF Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer, December 2000 at 21. See Michel Chossudovsky, "Brazil's IMF Sponsored Financial Disaster", Third World Network, 1998 at 22. For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Financial Warfare triggers Global Financial Crisis, Third World Network at 23. See Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty, Zed Books, London 1997, chapter 12. 24. The IMF quotes the G-17 study, "Economic Consequences of NATO Bombardment", Belgrade 2000 at 25. See Michel Chossudovsky, NATO Willfully Triggered an Environmental Catastrophe in Yugoslavia, June 2000, at is 26. See G-17, "Economic Consequences of NATO Bombardment", Belgrade 2000 at 27. USA Today, 10 October 2000. 28. GAO : Briefing report to the Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, RPTno: gao/nsiad-00-125br, Washington, 24 April 2000. 29. Quoted in M. L. Manich Jumsai, King Mongkut and Sir John Bowring, Chalermit, Bangkok, 1970, p. 21. 30. See Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalisation of Poverty, op cit., Chapter 8. 31. A. J. Langguth, The Forgotten Debt to Vietnam, New York Times, 18 November 2000, see also Barbara Crossette, Hanoi said to vow to give MIA Data, New York Times, 24 October, 1992. 32. The Houston Chronicle, 8 December 1991. To consult the International Court of Justice 1986 Judgement on "Nicaragua v. United States of America" see: "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (1984-1991)" at, summary at http://www.icj 33. UPI, 7 December 2000. 34. See the text of 1999 indictment of President Milosevic by the Hague Tribunal at ... 90524e.htm. 35. See the text of UNSC resolution 687 (1991) pertaining to Iraq at © Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, May 2001. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to post this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other form, contact the author at, fax: 1-514-4256224.
  3. E vidio sam "Hrvatinu", moram da napisem komentar tamo o njegovoj pravoj funkciji, . Da slika izgleda jako cudno. Moguce da je kompletna gluma pripremljena kao "dokaz" o "okupaciji".
  4. Dali neko zna ko su ovi vojnici i sta je bilo sa njima kasnije? Navodno su vojnici VRSK zarobljeni Avgusta 1995. Foto je odavde: ... c&start=96
  5. Зашто је Милош Обреновић убио свог кума Црног Ђорђа Петровића? Површна Историја, ону коју смо као обавезну учили у школи, каже да је Милош био похлепан за влашћу, док неки новији самозвани, и плаћени, аналитичари кажу да је Милошев план био бољи за борбу против турака. Неколико чињеница о Црном Ђорђу: - Ђорђе је био образован, углавном у Бечу, и доста је путова по Европи за то вријеме. - Ђорђе је био отврено велики Србин (Мој коментар: Да је живио у овом времену или би опет био убијен или би био у Хаугу), и вјеровао је да Срби требају градити своје савезе са другим Славенским православним народима. - Ђорђе је имао везе са тадашњом Руском Дипломатијом, Црквом и Владом и од њих је добијао политичку, а вјероватно и финансијску и савјетничку, помоћ и прије и у току Првог Српског устанка. Неколико чињеница о Милошу Обреновићу: - Милош је био необразован, самоуки, али успјешан, трговац свињама (свиње из Србије је продавао у Војводини, тадашњој Аустро-Угарској). - Милош је био похлепан и шкрт, скромног схватанја политичких и војних токова тог времена. Није никада показивао националне осјећаје. - Милош је имао везе са Аустро-Угарским пограничним властима јер је то био најбољи начин да добије 'пасоше' за свиње које је превозио преко Дунава и Саве. Сада ако погледамо карактерне профиле и историјске цињенице ја вјерујем да је Милош убио Ђорђа највише за Аустро-Угарске интересе и под Аустро-Угарским патронатом. Зашто тако вјерујем? - Зато што је Милош био уског и кратког погледа да би сам извео сам чин као и све што се десило после тога. - Зато што Аустро-Угарској није никаго одговарало да нова Србија буде близак Руски савезник. - Зато што је то била прилика Аустро-Угарској да инсталира владајућу лозу у Србији која је под њеном контролом и утицајем јер је било јасно да Турска слаби и да је само питање времена када ће Србија заиста бити слободна. - Историја је касније показала да су Обреновићи заиста били веома блиски са Аустро-Угарском, што их је и коштало живота на крају. Аустро-Угарска је помагала Милоша у току Другог Српског устанка, и после тога у раној фази његовог устоличавања као српског вође.
  6. The definition of a "Yankee" depends on where you live. If you live outside the U.S. a Yankee is anyone from the U. S. If you live in the southern U.S., a Yankee is anyone who lives north of the Mason-Dixon line. If you live in the northeast, a Yankee is anyone from New England. If you live in New England, a Yankee is anyone from Vermont. If you live in Vermont, a Yankee is anyone who still uses an outhouse. =============================================== Then and now in California California became a state. The state had no electricity. The state had no money. Almost everyone spoke Spanish. There were gun fights in the streets. So basically, it was just like California today, only the women had real breasts then =============================================== On some air bases the Air Force is on one side of the field and civilian aircraft use the other side of the field, with the control tower in the middle. One day the tower received a call from an aircraft asking, "What time is it?" The tower responded, "Who is calling?" The aircraft replied, "What difference does it make?" The tower replied, "It makes a lot of difference........ If it is an American Airlines flight, it is 3 o'clock. If it is an Air Force plane, it is 1500 hours. If it is a Navy aircraft, it is 6 bells. If it is an Army aircraft, the big hand is on the 12 and the little hand is on the 3. If it is a Marine Corps aircraft, it's Thursday afternoon and 120 minutes to "Happy Hour." ============================================= During training exercises, the lieutenant who was driving down a muddy back road encountered another car stuck in the mud with a red-faced colonel at the wheel. "Your jeep stuck, sir?" asked the lieutenant as he pulled alongside. "Nope," replied the colonel, coming over and handing him the keys, "yours is." ============================================== Having just moved into his new office, a pompous, new colonel was sitting at his desk when an airman knocked on the door Conscious of his new position, the colonel quickly picked up the phone, told the airman to enter, then said into the phone, "Yes, General, I'll be seeing him this afternoon and I'll pass along your message. In the meantime, thank you for your good wishes, sir." Feeling as though he had sufficiently impressed the young enlisted man, he asked, "What do you want?" "Nothing important, sir," the airman replied, "I'm just here to hook up your telephone." ============================================== Officer: "Soldier, do you have change for a dollar?" Soldier: "Sure, buddy." Officer: "That's no way to address an officer! Now let's try it again!" Officer: "Soldier. Do you have change for a dollar?" Soldier: "No, SIR!" ============================================== Q: How do you know if there is a fighter pilot at your party? A: He'll tell you. Q: What's the difference between God and fighter pilots? A: God doesn't think he's a fighter pilot. Q: What's the difference between a fighter pilot and a jet engine? A: A jet engine stops whining when the plane shuts down. ============================================= An Air Force Chief Master Sergeant and a General were sitting in the barbershop. They were both just getting finished with their shaves, when the barbers reached for some after-shave to slap on their faces. The General shouted, "Hey, don't put that stuff on me! My wife will think I've been in a wh0rehouse!" The Chief turned to his barber and said, "Go ahead and put it on. My wife doesn't know what the inside of a wh0rehouse smells like." ============================================== "Well," snarled the tough old Navy Chief to the bewildered Seaman, "I suppose after you get discharged from the Navy, you'll just be waiting for me to die so you can come and p!ss on my grave." "Not me, Chief!" the Seaman replied. "Once I get out of the Navy, I'm never going to stand in line again!" ============================================== WHY DID YOU HAVE TO DIE? A man placed some flowers on the grave of his dearly departed mother and started back toward his car when his attention was diverted to another man kneeling at a grave. The man seemed to be praying with profound intensity and kept repeating, "Why did you have to die? Why did you have to die?" The first man approached him and said, "Sir, I don't wish to interfere with your private grief, but this demonstration of pain is more than I've ever seen before. For whom do you mourn so deeply? A child? A parent? The mourner took a moment to collect himself, then replied, "My wife's first husband."
  7. Air University Review / September-October 1980 Yugoslavia After TITO, powder keg of the Balkans Lieutenant Colonel Dallace L. Meehan YUGOSLAVIA has suddenly found itself in the transition stage that analysts have been speculating about for years. With the passing of the leadership of Josip Broz Tito, the new leaders face what is perhaps the greatest challenge to Balkan security since World War II. Yugoslavia possesses geopolitical importance well beyond its geographic size and economic status. Her nonaligned position serves as a political claw at the throat of Soviet-dominated European socialism, and her relative economic self-sufficiency is the envy of less fortunate members of the Soviet-dominated Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA or COMECON). Yugoslavia plays an important role in United States national security interests as well. Certainly the balance of forces could only be tilted away from the West if the Soviets were to establish dominance in the Balkans and particularly on the strategically important Adriatic. A Soviet military presence in Yugoslavia would put severe pressure on Italy, enhance Moscow's strategic capability in the eastern Mediterranean, and pose a new threat to NATO's southern flank. Central among the many questions facing the new Yugoslav leadership--and for that matter, the West as well--is whether the Soviet Union will offer "fraternal assistance" after the manner of Afghanistan or Czechoslovakia in order to reestablish "regional stability." In order to speculate meaningfully on the future of post-Tito Yugoslavia, however, it is absolutely necessary to understand at least the basics of that extremely complex multinational state. Perhaps the most prominent characteristic of Yugoslavia is its ethnic and national diversity. The population of 22 million people is a hodgepodge of ethnic groups, nations, and national minorities. It has been accurately described as a country with two alphabets, three religions, four languages, five nationalities, and six constituent republics! In addition to the national minorities, which include Albanians, Hungarians, Turks, Slovaks, Bulgars, Romanians, Czechs, Italians, Germans, and Gypsies, the five official "nations" are the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Macedonians, and Montenegrins. Together, these diverse peoples make up the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, governmentally organized into the six loosely bound republics of Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, and Montenegro, and two autonomous provinces (within Serbia), Vojvodina and Kosovo. The political structure that binds Yugoslavia's ethnic cornucopia together is, therefore, understandably complex. The Yugoslav Experiment, 1948-1974* traces in analytical detail the evolution of that system since Yugoslavia in 1948 became the first Communist-ruled state to defy Soviet domination. The author, Dennison Rusinow, has studied and lived in Yugoslavia and Austria since 1963. *Dennison Rusinow, The Yugoslav Experiment, 1948-1974 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978, $21.75 cloth, $5.95 paper), 410 pages. Yugoslavia's ability to challenge Soviet domination successfully can be attributed in no small measure to the simple fact that Yugoslavia essentially liberated herself from fascist Germany without Soviet assistance. After 1948, Tito sought to maintain Yugoslavia's independence by pursuing a foreign policy that witnessed the development of ties with the United States and other Western countries, based largely on trade and military assistance. By the mid-1950s, Yugoslavia began to identify herself as a leader of nonaligned nations, thereby avoiding the condition of posing a "military threat" to the security of either bloc. Domestically, the Yugoslav leadership has pursued a pragmatic policy that has produced a relatively open and liberal society. It has, in many respects, moderated the harsher features of a Communist dictatorship, and while it refuses to tolerate serious opposition, the Tito regime decreased the power of the police, largely abandoned collectivization (85 percent of arable land is privately owned), and, perhaps more important, has decentralized the federal government, giving more power and prerogative to the republics, provinces, and local communities. Also important in any discussion of post-Tito Yugoslavia is the innovative machinery of succession engineered largely by Tito himself. Designed to effect a system of collective leadership in both the government and party structures, it provides for rotating one-year terms for the leader of the nine-member state presidency, the highest governmental body, and for the 24-member Party Presidium. The machinery is intended to prevent anyone from rising to a dictatorial level, while giving each of the six republics and two autonomous provinces an equal voice in Yugoslavia's decision-making process. Rusinow provides probably the best single-text description of yet another prominent feature of the Yugoslav experiment--the extraordinary concept of "worker self-management." Basically, Yugoslavia's self-management system says that power should be concentrated neither in the hands of a few capitalist bosses nor in those of party bureaucrats. Rather, the workers themselves should own the capital and make the major decisions. What this means in practice is that units within corporations (which the Yugoslavs call "basic associations of labor") are the centers of power, and they determine how their enterprises' profits are to be spent. The result is an economy guided mainly by market forces, stimulated by individual initiative within, of course, acceptable limits of socialism. It is Karl Marx sprinkled with liberal doses of Adam Smith--and pragmatic business sense mixed in. Yugoslavia thus enjoys a considerably higher standard of living than other Communist states. Nearly half of Yugoslavia's families own cars and more than half own TV sets. Yugoslavia is largely self-sufficient in agriculture and, in fact, exports substantial quantities of high-grade fresh and canned meats as well as other agricultural products. Consequently, Yugoslavia's "experiment" has resulted in a relatively open and liberalized society of decentralized governmental power dedicated to a system of development based on the concept of workers' self-management. No wonder, then, that Lawrence Minard was able to quote a Yugoslavian taxi driver who said: In Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Russia--people can hardly ever leave the country and even then not with their families. Here I can take my family out whenever I want--to Italy, America, even Hawaii if I have the money. We can buy what we want here. This car (he strokes his late-model Peugeot) is French. My pants are French. My shirt is Italian. I can own five cars at the same time if I want to. In Czechoslovakia you can own one car in your lifetime . . . . There is no possibility that the Russians can take this away from us.1 WHAT, then, of post-Tito Yugoslavia? Is the Soviet Union likely to invade Yugoslavia in order to establish Soviet domination in the Balkans? In a book published under the auspices of the United States Air Force, a number of specialists address this question and other possible dangers caused by the passing of Tito's stabilizing influence in Yugoslavia. The articles in Soviet Policy in the Post-Tito Balkans* clearly illustrate that from a Soviet perspective the Balkans in general, and Yugoslavia in particular, pose a serious challenge to Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and the worldwide Communist movement. Soviet interests in the area -strategic, economic, and political-are nicely explained, and projections for the future of Soviet policy in the Balkans are carefully developed. * Phillip A. Petersen, editor, Soviet Policy in the Post-Tito Balkans, Studies in Communist Affairs, vol. 4 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1979, $4.95), 157 pages. The recent Soviet invasion of Afghanistan has been frequently cited as a new example of Soviet expansionism that bodes ill for the future of other socialist states that might have strayed too far from the folds of Marxist ideology. But Yugoslavia, unlike Afghanistan, is part of Europe. Soon after the worsening illness of President Tito, Western leaders were quick to issue strong statements in support of Yugoslavia. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher told the British Parliament, "We shall do everything we can to see that the independence of Yugoslavia is maintained." AU. S. State Department official restated the American commitment to Yugoslavia's "territorial integrity and security." Yugoslav officials then quietly opened discussions with the United States about the sale of American antitank and antiaircraft missiles to help shore up their defenses. But Yugoslavians are quick to point out that while support from the West is welcome, they are confident that it is their own determination and will to resist that will most effectively deter Soviet military aggression. The strength of the Yugoslav army is estimated at 190,000 men, backed by 500,000 reservists. It includes 8 infantry divisions, 7 independent tank brigades, 12 independent infantry brigades, 2 mountain brigades, and an airborne battalion. Western observers of army exercises praise its discipline, training, and spirit. The real security of Yugoslavia, however, rests in the concept of total national defense. An invader must expect resistance from every citizen, irrespective of sex, age, or occupation. A Yugoslav nurse was recently quoted: "We all have guns, and we all know how to shoot them. In a way we are like the Israelis--every boy and girl is a soldier." Also, from a Soviet point of view, Romania would probably resist any Soviet military moves toward Yugoslavia, creating severe strains in the Warsaw Pact. (The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 resulted in the withdrawal of Albania from the Pact.) The People's Republic of China has also pledged support for the independent position of Yugoslavia, a strategic element that Soviet policymakers are not likely to discount. Yugoslavia's newly established collective presidency will probably provide an interim period of grace. Real stability in the long run, however, will have to wait for a new national leader to emerge. Even without the prospects of Soviet military intervention, this period of uncertainty is fraught with serious difficulties. Foremost among them is a need to deal with deep-rooted, national (ethnic) antagonisms among its people. Economic problems also confront the new leadership. "Market Socialism" and worker management represent a compromise economic model that may prove, in the long run, to be inherently unstable. A current inflation rate of nearly 30 percent is a potential problem, despite Yugoslavia's still favorable consumer position relative to other Communist states. The Yugoslav story, in short, does not end with the absence of a Soviet military takeover. It is a story of a rapidly changing society where institutions and systems are likely to be, indeed more likely to be, threatened from within as much as they are from without. Air Command and Staff College Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Note 1. Lawrence Minard, "Yugoslavia’s First Line of Defense," Forbes, February 18, 1980, pp. 44-46. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contributor Lieutenant Colonel Dallace L. Meehan (M.A., Naval Postgraduate School) is Chief, Regional Studies Branch, Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. He has served as commander of an airborne missile squadron and in Japan, South America. Vietnam, and Germany. He has published articles in the Military Review and the Review. Colonel Meehan is a graduate of the Defense Language Institute (Russian), Air Command and Staff College, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, and Air War College. Disclaimer The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.