MEDIA LIBRES :

La Vérité sur la Yougoslavie

ARRESTATION DE MILOSEVIC : LA VERITE !

ARREST OF MILOSEVIC : THE TRUTH !

Arrested ! Milosevic's Seizure Unveils Hidden Agendas Former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic arrived in a Belgrade jail Sunday, accused by Serbian authorities of corruption, embezzling state funds, and abuse of power. He surrendered peacefully to the militia besieging his home for nearly two days this past weekend, despite having reportedly threatened to kill himself, and the presence of about twenty armed supporters willing to defend him from government
assault.

STRUGGLE AND SIEGE
Milosevic's arrest was anything but ordinary. Friday afternoon, regular police cleared away the demonstrators who had gathered at the news that a convoy full of armed men had arrived at the gate of the former president's home. Indeed, several hundred heavily armed, masked men in black or mismatched uniforms did appear, many wearing balaclavas or pantyhose on their heads as disguise. An agency report revealed in passing that the force was commanded by Mihajlo Ulemek "Legija," a former Special Forces officer loyal since October 5, 2000 to Zoran Djindjic.

Back then, the Daily Telegraph spoke of Ulemek's alliance with Djindjic - not yet Prime Minister - as a disturbing sign that Djindjic was creating a private militia.

After an unpleasant exchange between the militia and the Army unit guarding the residence, the Army withdrew. An announcement around 10 PM Friday that Milosevic had been arrested and taken to the central prison in a convoy of cars distracted the populace. With the Army and the demonstrators gone and most of Milosevic's security disbanded, Ulemek's men were ready to make their move. Shortly before three in the morning, they stormed the residence - and failed.
Milosevic's remaining guards greeted them with bullets. A 24-hour-plus siege followed, ending only when Milosevic decided to surrender early Sunday morning, April 1.

FOES REJOICE
Milosevic's arrest was hailed by the US, NATO and Yugoslavia s neighbors and separatist groups as a vindication of their policies and practices, while the ICTY immediately demanded Milosevic s extradition and embarked on adding new charges to his war crimes indictment. There was hardly cause for such celebration; President Kostunica flat-out refused extradition, and Milosevic is to be tried on charges that have nothing to do with his alleged war crimes.

Nevertheless, the triumphant escalation of Western rhetoric bore numerous indications that the policy goals of the US and its satellites aimed far beyond the fate of Milosevic as an individual.

As news of arrest streamed in, some commentators suggested Milosevic should indeed commit suicide and save the Serbs from further pressure. Others claimed he was never really contemplating suicide, and that Milosevic's death would only serve US interests by removing a significant obstacle.

The matter of Milosevic's guilt or innocence on charges in Yugoslavia and the ICTY is less important at this moment than the fact that he is being used as a weapon, both by the usual suspects - the US and NATO - as well as a faction of the current government, eager to increase its power and influence. Aside from showing a readiness to bow to US demands, Milosevic's arrest strengthened the position of Prime Minister Djindjic and his supporters at the expense of President Kostunica.

ALL THE PRIME MINISTER'S MEN
Indications that Zoran Djindjic and his supporters in the government were behind the arrest are legion. First, Djindjic had just returned from a trip to the US, eager to make a deal with the Bush administration not to block financial aid to Yugoslavia after March 31. That was the deadline in the appropriations law passed by Congressional hardliners last fall, which mandated a cutoff of US aid and efforts to block all other aid to Yugoslavia unless Milosevic was arrested and extradited to the ICTY.

The evening Ulemek's masked men tried to enter Milosevic's courtyard, Djindjic claimed he knew nothing about any arrest, and that he was at home, watching "Gladiator" with his son. Yet just three days earlier, he told Reuters that Milosevic's arrest was only a matter of time, after seven former government officials had been arrested on corruption charges. President Kostunica, however, was kept in the dark, as he was giving a speech in Geneva at the time and had to rush home after receiving the news.

Zarko Korac, one of Djindjic's most vocal allies in the government, claimed he knew about the arrest beforehand. He also gave statements to the press afterwards, describing the events inside Milosevic's home as if he witnessed them and calling the former president suicidal. Cedomir Jovanovic, who was inside the residence and managed to persuade Milosevic to
give up, confirmed at a press-conference Tuesday that Milosevic contemplated suicide. While acknowledging that Milosevic surrendered because he did not want bloodshed, Jovanovic also criticized the Army (loyal to Kostunica) for stopping Ulemek's people from initially assaulting the house. Incidentally, he is a high-ranking member of Djindjic's Democratic party.

When President Kostunica finally green-lighted the arrest on Saturday, he reportedly made this decision only after a long meeting with Djindjic and his associates. Friday night's botched assault and the ensuing firefight forced his hand. After such an event, backing off would be a major PR defeat for the government.

POWER PLAYS
Djindjic's ability to sidestep Kostunica and extort his support is a profoundly disturbing trend. If the Serbian Prime Minister and his followers can effectively do whatever they want while the Yugoslav President is confined to criticizing or supporting their actions after the fact, Kostunica is in real danger of becoming Gorbachev to Djindjic's Yeltsin.

On Tuesday, Croatia's government daily Vjesnik heralded Kostunica's political death, claiming that Djindjic is in tune with US policy goals in the Balkans and willing to submit to them completely, while Kostunica's patriotism is passé and has become a liability. According to Vjesnik, Djindjic would prosper as long as he fulfills Western demands - which, incidentally, include the further weakening and dismemberment of Serbia.

EMPIRE'S AGENDA
Having paid for Milosevic's arrest with a relatively paltry sum, the US is intent on assailing Serbia further. America's Balkans policy is about much more than Milosevic. Over the past ten years, Western politicians and media tended to pursue "Slobophobia" - a notion that Milosevic was a single culprit, and the Serbian people were merely deluded by his powers of
manipulation. But another idea has been present all along - Serbophobia - the notion that the Serbs as a whole were guilty of events in the Balkans over the past decade, and that Milosevic merely personified the entire nation. Serbophobia was used to complement Slobophobia when the latter, alone, was not enough. But it was always used sparingly in order to avoid the
deserving accusations of racism.

After Milosevic's arrest, that distinction disappeared. With him in prison - even only for
corruption - Imperial propagandists began attacking the Serbs as a people. Demands on the Yugoslav authorities are likely to continue – extradite Milosevic to The Hague, arrest and extradite all other indicted Serbs, and so on. When US Ambassador Montgomery delivered the list of Washington's demands to Belgrade in early March, it openly stated that Washington considered Djindjic's government much more likely to comply with the ever-multiplying conditions for aid and support.

ICTY has already announced it would be indicting Milosevic soon for alleged crimes in Croatia and Bosnia, eager to saddle Milosevic with the responsibility for those wars as well. In line with that, agencies have already reported excitedly that Milosevic admitted supporting the Bosnian Serbs with money he was accused of embezzling, as if this were a well-guarded secret.

"JUSTICE" IN THE HAGUE
Even Djindjic is not claiming that Milosevic would be extradited soon, though his statements can mean one thing in the morning and something else altogether in the afternoon. Milosevic, meanwhile, is facing new charges in Serbia; on top of corruption and abuse of power, the authorities are considering the charges of resisting arrest and conspiracy to foment armed
rebellion, the latter basically constituting treason and punishable by death. Serbia's minister of police, once part of a Milosevic government, said Tuesday in Vienna that Milosevic might actually wish to go to the Hague, because the ICTY does not have a death penalty.

A trial at home for corruption or treason, however, would be entirely different in scope from a trial in The Hague.

The ICTY is funded by the US and other NATO members. Its very existence is based on the premise that Milosevic and the Serbs were guilty of aggressive wars and unspeakable crimes. Unlike other courts, whose existence is not predicated on the outcome of any single trial, even a possibility of acquittal for Milosevic would shatter the ICTY's very foundations. In fact, this need for securing convictions has prompted the prosecutors to get very creative in presenting evidence.

A case in the point is the trial of Serb General Radislav Krstic. It recently featured a protected
(i.e. anonymous) prosecution witness, an American "linguistics expert" who claimed the speech patterns of Serbs and Muslims in Bosnia are so distinctive, it would be "very difficult for Bosnian Muslims to imitate the speech of Bosnian Serbs." Now I know this is a bald-faced lie. I have been speaking like any other Bosnian, Serb or Muslim, for over 24 years!

WHITHER MILOSEVIC, OR WHITHER SERBIA ?
In the aftermath of his fall from power and recent arrest, media that have fed the Western public all sorts of fabrications regarding the Balkans for over a decade trolled out the official line that Milosevic was an ideologue of "Greater Serbia," responsible for four Balkan wars, genocide, "ethnic cleansing," and in general, most of the misery that now grips Serbia and
the rest of former socialist Yugoslavia. Most of these accusations are mendacious drivel. But whether he is guilty of them or not does not matter in the least.

In order to justify the secession of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, policies of the United States, NATO's gross violations of international law and the existence of ICTY, Milosevic has to be convicted of war crimes by the ICTY. No other outcome would be recognized by Washington. Most Serbs, impoverished, disillusioned and itching to blame it on
someone they are capable of hurting - NATO and the US being out of reach - are more than willing to see him imprisoned or shot, no matter the consequences. But by doing so, they would be admitting responsibility for the alleged crimes Milosevic is accused of, and open
themselves up to new indictments, lawsuits and demands.

Milosevic could potentially become much more harmful to his people in court than he ever was at liberty. There is a precarious distinction between prosecuting Milosevic at home for domestic crimes and delivering him to the Inqusition to appease Serbia's many enemies.

Prosecuting him for misrule would clearly benefit the Serbs; allowing him to be persecuted by ICTY would open the door to persecuting the Serbs as a whole.

It is a trap both Kostunica and Djindjic are aware of, but while Kostunica is attempting a delicate balancing act to avoid it, Djindjic - concerned only about his power and prestige - is all to eager to jump right in violence.

By Nebojsa Malic* (April. 5, 2001)

* Nebojsa Malic left his home in Bosnia after the Dayton Accords and currently resides in the United States. During the Bosnian War he had exposure to diplomatic and media affairs in Sarajevo, and had contributed to the Independent. As a historian who specialized in international relations and the Balkans, Malic has written numerous essays on the Kosovo War, Bosnia and Serbian politics, which were published by the Serbian Unity Congress. His exclusive column for Antiwar.com appears every Thursday.

Comments on the Miloshevich arrest

"Only a Humiliated Servant is Loyal"

By their six-month political and media campaign of unprecedented proportions, the current authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have demonstrated a greater concern for the elimination of any influence whatsoever of the Socialist Party of Serbia as a national political force and its removal from the scene, than any interest in their own accomplishments.

The sensational arrest of Mr. Slobodan Miloshevich, former President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and President of the Socialist Party of Serbia, based on extremely unconvincing and hasty accusations, shows that the current authorities have discarded any pretense that their policy is independent.

Conscientiously meeting the strict US deadline, that Mr. Slobodan Miloshevich be arrested by 31 March 2001, the current authorities have admitted urbi et orbi [i.e., to Belgrade and to the world, see footnote 1] that they are mere protagonists of US and NATO policy. The United States and NATO desperately need the removal of Mr. Slobodan Miloshevich from the political and public scene and his incrimination for unsubstantiated crimes, in order to shelter themselves from their guilt for numerous war and other crimes committed against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Serbian people during their 1999 aggression.

There is no doubt that by setting the above deadline and insisting on its observance, the US intended to discredit the government of the 'Democratic Opposition of Serbia' and to tie it to US policy. For only a humiliated servant is loyal.

The current Yugoslav authorities, by agreeing to stage a political process against Mr. Miloshevich and other prominent members of the Socialist Party of Serbia, definitely conceded to the US and NATO the right to define and spearhead not only these authorities' foreign policy, but their internal policy as well. In this way, the current Serbian and Yugoslav authorities have reduced themselves to simple instruments for implementing US and NATO strategy and policy in the region. The dignity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been grossly trampled and its independence has been seriously brought into question.

Footnotes and Further Reading

1) Concerning the impossibility for people in target nations of achieving personal security by trying to satisfy Washington's hunger for servility, see "For Whom the Bell Tolls" by Jared Israel at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/tolls.htm

2. URBI ET ORBI is: "A Latin phrase meaning 'To the City and to the World' that is a blessing given by the Holy Father. Normally, the first Urbi et Orbi delivered by a pontiff is immediately after his election by the College of Cardinals. This is a blessing accompanied by a short address to the crowds in St. Peter’s Square and to the world; frequently, as with Pope John Paul II in 1978, it is delivered in as many languages as possible. The pope also delivers an Urbi et Orbi each year at Christmas and at Easter." From the 'Catholic Word Book,' http://www.kofc.org/faith/cis/371/wordbook21.cfm

By Dushan Milanovich [11 April 2001]

From emperors-clothes.com

Free Milosevic

Quiz time. Who said the following ?

"Serbia has never had only Serbs living in it. Today, more than in the past, members of other peoples and nationalities also live in it. This is not a disadvantage for Serbia. I am truly convinced that it is its advantage. National composition of almost all countries in the world today…has also been changing in this direction. Citizens of different nationalities, religions, and races have been living together more and more frequently and more and more successfully."

Elie Wiesel ? Madeleine Albright ? George Soros ? Vojislav Kostnica, Zoran Djindjic or one of the other creatures the U.S. installed in power in Belgrade ? No, it was Slobodan Milosevic. He spoke these words in Kosovo on June 28, 1989, the very occasion on which he allegedly whipped the Serbs into a bloodthirsty nationalist frenzy. (1)

The real Milosevic has never had the remotest connection with the idiotic cartoonish figure depicted by the U.S. government, the "two op-ed-page articles a year" denizens of the defense-industry-funded think tanks and the ignorant reporters passing for "Balkans experts" on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Milosevic was neither a "nationalist," nor a "Communist," nor a "dictator" nor a "demagogue". To be sure, he was never one of those East European Communists-turned-Thatcherite-overnight so beloved by U.S. elites. Nor did it help that he won elections handily, or that in the late 1980s he was leading massive demonstrations against the IMF bromides that were destroying Yugoslavia’s industry. The U.S. actually did Yugoslavia a favor by imposing sanctions in 1992. It freed the country–all too briefly, as the Serbs are about to find out–from the dreadful ministrations of the IMF. (2)

Milosevic did not instigate the wars in the Balkans. On the contrary, his record throughout the decade was that of a man eager for peace. Who was really responsible for the wars ? Those who insisted on secession without waiting to settle outstanding issues like final borders, the status of minorities or the disposal of state property and debt ? Or those who, in accordance with international law, insisted that secession could only be "legal" if it was accepted by the seceding state and the seceded-from state ? (3)

There is no question that the US Government will put enormous pressure on the Belgrade authorities to transfer Milosevic to the Hague, where he would receive a ridiculously unfair trial in a "court" which has already pre-judged him guilty of "war crimes," "genocide" and "crimes against humanity". This is the purpose of the the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia: to absolve the real instigators of the wars in the Balkans of any responsibility for their actions.

The Balkans today are littered with tiny, weak NATO protectorates whose domestic and foreign policies are shaped down to the last detail by the U.S. and its junior EU partners. This was an entirely foreseen consequence of U.S. policy in Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War. There is no truth whatsoever to the legend that the United States wanted to keep Yugoslavia together but was thwarted in this noble endeavor by the machinations of the Germans. In February 1990, nearly two years before the villainous German Chancellor Helmut Kohl supposedly muscled in on the Balkans by recognizing Croatia and Slovenia, Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger was already telling the Slovenians that Washington would accept Slovenia’s secession provided it was done "peacefully and democratically." The Slovenians did not need another signal. Even so, in October 1990–eight months before Slovenia declared independence, one year before war broke out in Croatia–Congress passed an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriation law barring any U.S. loans or credits for Yugoslavia unless the assistance was directed to a republic "which has held free and fair elections and which is not engaged in systematic abuse of human rights". This was an extraordinary piece of legislation. According to Washington then, Yugoslavia had ceased to exist. The U.S. government was henceforth to deal with the "republics," entities with no international legal standing whatsoever.

In the days leading up to the secession of Croatia and Slovenia, U.S. officials would make pro forma declarations opposing unilateral declarations of independence. Then they would warn the Yugoslav army not to use force to stop the republics breaking away. It was a policy of accepting de facto independence. Moreover, it was revealed in the London Observer last year that, contrary to the publicly proclaimed Western policy of neutrality, the British were in fact secretly selling arms to Slovenia days before its declaration of independence. Since Britain is merely America’s errand boy on such matters, one can be fairly certain that this was a Washington-initiated policy.

The carnage that was to come in Bosnia was entirely the consequence of a ruthless and cynical U.S. policy. In March 1992, after seeing the bitter fighting that followed the secession of Croatia, the leaders of Bosnia’s Serbs, Croats and Muslims sat down in Lisbon and hammered out a partition plan of Bosnia. According to a 1993 New York Times story, European Community "mediators who brokered the agreement argued that partition was the only way to contain the ethnic rivalries. But the Bush Administration was pushing the Europeans to recognize Bosnia as an independent country, with a Muslim-led Government in Sarajevo."When the Bosnian Muslim or--more accurately--Islamist leader, Alija Izetbegovic returned to Sarajevo, U.S. Ambassador Warren Zimmermann called on him. "‘He said he didn’t like it,’ Mr. Zimmermann recalled. ‘I told him, if he didn’t like it, why sign it ?’ But after talking to the Ambassador, Mr. Izetbegovic publicly renounced the Lisbon agreement."

By April the United States had managed to bully the Europeans into recognizing the state of Bosnia, thereby setting in train the carnage to come. The U.S. subsequently sabotaged the Vance-Owen partition plan as well as the Stoltenberg partition plan. The fighting finally came to an end with a U.S.-sponsored partition plan at Dayton. We got what we were after all along. Bosnia was turned into a colony. (4)

By George Szamuely [11 April 2001]

From emperors-clothes.com

Further Reading:

1) To read 'What Milosevic Really Said at Kosovo Field in 1989' go to http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/milosaid.html

2) The IMF was directly involved in the Yugoslav coup of Oct. 5th. While promising to aid, the IMF in fact presides over the destruction of economies. See 'The International Monetary Fund And The Yugoslav Elections at http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/1.htm

3) Analyst T.W. Carr has written a most useful account of the Western assault on Yugoslavia. See 'Germany and the US in the Balkans- a Careful Coincidence of National Policies ?' at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/carr/carr.html

4) See Prof. Michel Chossudovsky's "Dismantling Yugoslavia, Colonizing Bosnia" at http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/chuss/dismantl.htm

Milosevic's Socialists come back ?

NATO's media said that President MILOSEVIC "is today unpopular in his own country". This view is commonly put forth in the West, but without evidence.

The only test we have of President MILOSEVIC's popularity is the September 23, 2000 election, where he ran for Yugoslav President against Voyislav Koshtunitsa, who was backed by 19 parties, and openly supported by U.S. and European leaders.

MILOSEVIC got 40% of the vote to Koshtunitsa's 49%, or, if you believe the claims of Koshtunitsa's organization, a bit over 50%.

However, close to 40% of eligible voters did not vote. That is, a plurality failed to vote.

Since the DOS parties backing Koshtunitsa posed this election as do-or-die, it is reasonable to assume that most of the non-voters were Serbian patriots who didn't want to vote for MILOSEVIC on the first round but who were horrified by Koshtunitsa's immense financial support from the U.S. It is quite possible that Mr. MILOSEVIC would have closed the 10% gap in a runoff election. We shall never know because DOS created provocations intended to prevent a runoff - and destroyed the September 23 ballots when they sacked the Yugoslav Parliament building. Was this a coincidence? I don't think so.

Please consider the circumstances surrounding the Sept. 23 vote. First, the U.S. had created an entire organizational and media apparatus inside Yugoslavia, involving thousands of people, with the sole purpose of politically isolating MILOSEVIC. As you may not be aware, most Serbian media was financed by Western, anti-MILOSEVIC sources. Add to that the anti-MILOSEVIC propaganda from the BBC, CNN, etc., which are watched in Yugoslavia. (1)

Second, the US, England, Germany and Norway (and perhaps other countries) poured vast sums into Yugoslavia to finance the Koshtunitsa forces. The impact of this money was a hundred times greater than it would have been in the U.S., because in Yugoslavia a person is lucky if they earn $75 (U.S.) a month and because many young people simply cannot find jobs. We don't yet know, and may never know, the real total of this money, but it is reasonable to think in terms of several hundred million dollars. To make a reasonable (but understated) comparison, imagine the impact of BILLIONS of dollars on a U.S. Presidential election.

Third, the opposition promised to end Yugoslavia's isolation, to end sanctions and to secure foreign aid - all desired by ordinary people. Moreover, the West not only agreed to do these things if Koshtunitsa was elected, but it also promised to inflict harsh measures, possibly including military attacks, if MILOSEVIC won. This threat was backed by the ostentatious maneuvers of the U.S. 6th Fleet, in coordination with the anti-Serbian Croatian military, right before and during the elections. And remember, the Presidential election occured while NATO occupied the Serbian province of Kosovo, with U.S.-armed and trained terorrists attacking inner Serbia.

Given these immense Fifth Column and external pressures, it is remarkable that President MILOSEVIC did so well. Imagine if these pressures were applied to an incumbent in the U.S. How many votes would he or she get?

In late 24 March 2001, a rally of some 50,000 people was organised (NATO'S media spoke over 10.000...) called by the Socialist Party to commemorate the bombing of Yugoslavia, which began March 24, 1999. The audience was politically sophisticated, overwhelmingly workers and farmers, very passionate and very brave - for you must remember, Serbia has been through a fascist-like coup. People told me of being fired from their jobs and beaten for speaking their mind, or, in one case, for writing a critical letter to Koshtunitsa.

On every street you see billboards with MILOSEVIC's face staring down, like the face of the arch-demon Goldstein in Orwell's book, '1984', with the words underneath 'WHO IS GUILTY?" The media is entirely monolithic, i.e., just like the U.S. media. Socialists and anti-DOS nationalists rarely get their ideas on TV or into print. Most of the media ignored the huge and important antiwar rally.

The Yugoslav economy is now functioning at 40% of the (low) level at the time of the Oct. 5th coup. The country is riddled with strikes - none of this is reported in the West. I spoke to many people and over and over I heard the same thing: people who voted for Koshtunitsa feel they fell for a scam.

Therefore the notion that Serbia has gone from loving to hating Mr. MILOSEVIC is false. It is my opinion that the DOS authorities launched the drive to arrest MILOSEVIC, involving 10,000 police and the real possibility of a Chilean-type attack on the Socialists, precisely because the Socialists and anti-DOS nationalists are gaining support and therefore the U.S. ordered DOS to nip this problem in the bud. Will an anti-DOS government, perhaps made up of Socialists and nationalists come to power? It is a real possibility, if these forces champion national sovereignty and social justice for working people and militantly expose current "legal" attacks.

From emperors-clothes.com

Le New York Times prépare l'opinion au meurtre de Milosevic

Depuis que Slobodan Milosevic a décidé volontairement de se soumettre à ce qui , selon son opinion et celle d' autres observateurs, correspond à une arrestation ordonnée par les USA en échange de quelques dizaines de millions de dollars, un nouveau mythe a fait son apparition dans la presse de l' Élite américaine: "Mr. Milosevic est suicidaire."

Un commentaire porteur d'une lourde menace. Milosevic représente ces forces qui, en Serbie, désirent résister aux USA. Ceci est un fait, complètement indépendant du fait que l'on aime ou pas Milosevic. C'est pour cette raison que le sénateur américain Joseph Biden, a déclaré il y a un an et demi, lors d'un témoignage devant le sénat US:

"Un scénario logique consisterait à épingler le fils de pute en allant le chercher chez lui et le traîner à la Haye. Si nous avions un brin de jugeotte, c' est ce que nous devrions faire, concrètement et non figurativement."

"...Mon rêve est d' aller visiter Milosevic en prison [rires]. Je suis sincère, car une fois Milosevic en prison, les choses changeront d' une façon radicale dans toute la région." (Audiences du Sénat sur "Comment apporter la démocratie en Serbie, 29 Juillet 1999.

Le scénario idéal pour les États-Unis serait de monter un "Procès pour l'exemple" au cours duquel Milosevic avouerait les crimes qui lui sont imputés par l'OTAN. Malheureusement, le problème du gouvernement américain réside dans le fait que Milosevic n'est pas un homme que l'on brise facilement. Et l'administration Busch pourrait choisir de l' assassiner.

Avant de balayer d' un revers de main une telle éventualité, il faut nous rappeler à qui nous avons à faire. L'Élite américaine a continué de financer les terroristes de l'UCK , pendant que ces derniers commettaient les crimes les plus vils au Kosovo, en Serbie du sud et en Macédoine. Les E.U. soutiennent l'UCK alors qu' ils ont nettoyé ethniquement 90% du territoire kosovar. Les E.U. ont bombardé intentionnellement des trains de civils, des maisons et la télévision serbe durant l'agression contre la Yougoslavie en 1999.

Pour de tels individus il ne se pose aucun problème de moralité ou d'éthique. Le meurtre n'est évalué qu en termes pratiques: est ce que cela nous aide ou nous nuit ? Tel est l' espace trés étroit dans lequel se meut la question.

Et c'est là où se situe le "dilemme" américain. Comme ils ne tiennent pas à faire un martyre de Slobodan Milosevic, un prétexte est déjà mis en avant par les média monopolisés.

La rumeur, selon laquelle Milosevic serait un déséquilibré à tendance suicidaire, a été répandue par un article de mise en condition de l'opinion publique, paru dans le New York Times.

Il faut également se rappeler que le NYT, n'est pas un journal ordinaire. Il est ce qui se rapproche le plus d'un porte parole de l'Élite américaine.

Aussi fait-il prendre très au sérieux cette "suggestion" concernant l'état mental de Milosevic. Plus bas l' article va au cœur du sujet: le suicide.

"Zarko Korac, vice-premier ministre, a déclaré ce matin que Milosevic avait agité son revolver durant une discussion et menacé de se suicider et de tuer sa femme et sa fille. Korac a ajouté que Milosevic "n' était pas en forme" mais qu'il a finalement accepté de se rendre pour sauver des vies."

"Un haut fonctionnaire serbe a déclaré que Zoran Djinjic [le premier ministre, pantin des Américains à Belgrade] a envoyé un émissaire, Cedomir Jovanovic, qui passa plus d'un jour à négocier avec Milosevic et sa famille. Ce fonctionnaire a confirmé le rapport de Korac sur l'instabilité caractérielle et ses désirs de se supprimer ainsi que sa famille."

On observera 2 choses dans ces 2 paragraphes.

D'abord que Zarko Korac est cité, sans qu'il ne soit précisé quoi que se soit à son sujet, mis à part sa fonction de vice-premier ministre au sein du gouvernement du parti DOS, présidé par Djinjic. Mais, puisque l'on cite ce monsieur comme la source de cette information sur le comportement de Milosevic, ne serait-il pas important de nous en dire un peu plus à son sujet ? Est-il un témoin neutre, objectif ? Est-il un ennemi de Milosevic ?

Deuxièmement, le NYT implique que Korac aurait observé directement le supposé comportement anormal de Milosevic. Cette impression est renforcée dans le second paragraphe, dans lequel il est souligné que le témoignage de Korac est confirmé par Jovanovic qui, selon le NYT, a dirigé les négociations. Mais si nous lisons soigneusement le second paragraphe nous constaterons qu'à aucun moment le NYT ne cite DIRECTEMENT Jovanovic dont la présence aux négociations n'a aucune signification si ce n' est pour "améliorer" la crédibilité d'un certain "haut fonctionnaire serbe" , non-identifié de surcroît, qui, nous dit-on, confirme les tendances meurtrières de Milosevic.

Or, Zarko Korac, n'est pas un politicien ordinaire. Il est très connu en Serbie. Pendant la dernière décennie il apparaissait régulièrement sur les chaînes de TV occidentales en tant qu'"expert psychologue yougoslave", qui utilisait l'autorité qui lui était ainsi conférée pour répéter ad nauseum les accusations selon lesquelles le peuple Serbe souffrait d'une paranoïa collective.

Selon ce triste sire, les Serbes "étaient obsédés par la pensée" que les USA et l'Allemagne avaient financé les terroristes en Croatie, Bosnie, et Kosovo. Qu'ils "s'étaient imaginés" que l'OTAN avait déjà ciblé le peuple yougoslave pour détruire une Yougoslavie multiethnique. Qu'"ils avaient l'illusion" qu'ils allaient être chassés du Kosovo, bombardés à l'uranium appauvri et que le tribunal de la Haye avait été mis en place pour détruire leurs leaders. Tant de "paranoïa" et en si peu de temps !

Ce matin j'ai parlé à un porte parole du SPS (Parti Socialiste), Vladimir Kershylanin. Il vérifia avec le président du parti, Banislav Ivkovic, qui, lui était présent durant les négociations. Ivkovic a déclaré, qu'à AUCUN MOMENT, Zarko Korac n' avait pris part à ces négociations.

Donc le NYT présente une image des plus préjudiciables sur la santé mentale de l'ex-chef de l'état yougoslave basé sur le témoignage d'un individu qui hait Milosevic et qui a bâti sa carrière sur la diffamation constante de la culture yougoslave et qui de toute façon n' était même pas présent durant ces derniers évènements (négociation pour la reddition de Milosevic).

Voilà beaucoup de désinformation compressée dans deux petits paragraphes.

Si le NYT avait été objectif il aurait pu commencer par dire que : "Zarko Korac, un psychologue trés controversé en Serbie par ses accusations sur la paranoïa de la culture serbe et qui n'était pas présent, a rapporté que M. Milosevic avait un comportement instable durant les négociations."

Ensuite le NYT aurait pu demander à quelqu'un, proche de Milosevic, de répondre aux accusation de Korac. N'est ce pas le rôle des journalistes de faire entendre les deux partis ? Ou bien suis-je terriblement vieux-jeu ?

En fait selon le SPS : "M. Milosevic était très calme ce qui est surprenant étant donné les menaces qui pèsent sur lui, sa famille et ses partisans. Pourquoi, M. Korac débite-t-il de tels mensonges, alors qu'il n' était même pas présent ? Nous craignons que cela ne fasse partie d' une action destinée à préparer une opinion selon laquelle Milosevic serait suicidaire. Au cas où il serait impossible, pour le système judiciaire yougoslave contrôlé par les Américains, de briser Milosevic lors d' un procès-exemple médiatisé, la scène serait, alors, prête pour l'assassiner en prison, et annoncer ensuite qu'il se serait suicidé."

L'attaque contre Milosevic est une attaque contre le peuple serbe. Le meilleur moyen d'empêcher les Américains de commettre ce meurtre est de les exposer pour leur enlever cette possibilité.

Le crime de Milosevic est AVANT TOUT sa résistance à l'agression de l'impérialisme américain.

Ceux qui devraient être sur les bancs des accusés sont: Clinton, Blair, Albright, Fisher, Solana et Schroeder.

From emperors-clothes.com

The 'Times' Spreads a Deadly Lie

by Jared Israel [2 April 2001]

Since Slobodan Miloshevich decided to voluntarily submit to what was, in his and many other people's opinion, a U.S.-ordered arrest, a new theme has emerged in the Establishment press. Put simply: "Mr. Miloshevich is suicidal." This is rather ominous. Mr. Miloshevich represents those forces in Serbia who wish to resist the U.S. This is a plain fact, irrelevant of whether one "likes" Mr. Miloshevich or "dislikes" him. That is why Senator Joseph Biden said, in Senate testimony a year and a half ago:

"The most likely thing to do is nail the son of a gun [Miloshevich] by literally going in and getting him and dragging him to The Hague. If we had a brain in our collective heads, that's what we would do; literally, not figuratively…

"It's amazing what a salutary impact that has upon extremes in countries....

"And that's why the single best thing we -- my dream is to visit Milosevic in prison. [Laughter.] I mean that sincerely. I'm not being facetious. Because you put Milosevic in prison, and things in the region will change drastically.

"If you said to me, 'You can leave him where he is or give him a plane ticket to take off to some -- like the former leader of Uganda, well, you know, we gave him -- what was his name? -- Idi Amin -- we can give him an "Idi Amin passport' and he would leave; I'd say no, leave him there, leave him there till we get him. Put him in jail…." (Senate Hearings on "Bringing" Democracy to Serbia, 29 July 1999, http://www.emperors-clothes.com/analysis/hearin.htm)

The ideal scenario for the U.S. government would be to stage a show trial in which Mr. Miloshevich confessed that he was guilty of NATO's crimes. The problem for the U.S. government is Mr. Miloshevich is a hard man to break.

I was part of a group of three people who spent two and half hours talking to President Miloshevich after we attended a conference in Serbia last week. He is tough-minded; he is "cynical" about U.S. Establishment intentions. (I put cynical in quotes because I think his assessment is accurate.) He is very calm. Most important, he is certain that the tide in Serbia is turning in favor of the Socialists and their nationalist allies. Frankly, in my conversations with ordinary people there, I had the same impression. But whether heis right or wrong, the point is - he is optimistic. Hopeful. Stimulated by discussion. Anxious to lead. Excited about the future. Not suicidal.

He is also very stubborn. That is a famous Serbian trait. The more you order a Serb to do something, the harder he or she resists. That's one of the reasons they drove the German Nazis crazy.

Precisely because the Socialist Party (SPS) is getting stronger and because Mr. Miloshevich and the Socialists are leading the resistance to U.S. domination, the U.S. government, which is plainly calling the shots in the current Yugoslav regime, may find it unfeasible to stage a Miloshevich show trial at the Hague.

Instead, they may choose to assassinate him.

Before you dismiss this thought out of hand, please recall whom we are talking about. The U.S. Establishment has continued to finance and train KLA terrorists while they committed the vilest crimes in Kosovo, southern Serbia and Macedonia. The U.S. supported the KLA while it drove 90% of non-Albanians from Kosovo. The U.S. Establishment intentionally bombed civilian trains, homes, Serbian Television, during the 1999 aggression against Yugoslavia.

For such people, morality is not an issue. Murder is a practical affair: will it help us or hurt us? That is the question.

And that is the problem with killing Miloshevich. They don't want to make him a martyr. Hence a cover story has been worked out and is being spread in the media. This cover story portrays Miloshevich as a nutty character prone to suicide.

This line appeared in today's 'New York Times'. Keep in mind that the 'Times' is not some ordinary newspaper. It is the closest thing to the official voice of the American Establishment. Hence today's article, which suggests that Mr. Miloshevich is suicidal, should be taken seriously.

The suicide argument is slipped into a piece about Miloshevich's arrest. From the start, the article is misleading. Consider the headline:

"Serb Authorities Arrest Milosevic to End Standoff"

With any given story, most people read only the headline. This headline clearly suggests that through the initiative of the DOS regime, a dangerous situation was peacefully resolved - "to end the standoff". That is, DOS was trying to avoid trouble whereas, by implication, Mr. Miloshevich was causing it.

What are the facts? It was the DOS authorities who sent jeeps with darkened windows, filled with armed men in black uniforms, to Mr. Miloshevich's house last week. It was they who refused to comment, saying they couldn't be bothered worrying about a few jeeps. Under those circumstances, wasn't it reasonable for Mr. Miloshevich and his supporters to believe he was about to be murdered? Then DOS mobilized hundreds, and then literally thousands of "special police" wearing ski masks and women's stockings over their heads. Eyewitnesses told this reporter that some of the "special police'' spoke a non-Serbo-Croatian language. These men were stationed all around Mr. Miloshevich's house and all over Belgrade. Wasn't this an extreme provocation? Why did the DOS regime do these things?

Was it because they had discovered Mr. Milshevich had committed some monstrous crime and so they just had to arrest him immediately?

First of all, that wouldn't explain the anonymous jeeps, would it? And second of all, during the stand-off, the news reports concerning the so-called charges against Mr. Miloshevich varied according to which spokesman for DOS was speaking to which Western news agency at what time. One police official named:

"Miodrag Vukovic said the original charges were abuse of power and corruption that cost the state close to $100 million, and that Milosevic would face a maximum five-year prison term if convicted." (My emphasis.)

Other DOS people said the alleged charges were far more serious.

The point is, given the inability of the DOS leaders even to agree on a specific charge or charges, why was it suddenly such an emergency to arrest Mr. Miloshevich? Doesn't it make sense that the urgency was not based on a need to achieve justice, but rather on a need to get Miloshevich behind bars or dead quickly, to meet a March 31^st deadline set by the U.S. government?

That the U.S. government's preferred solution to the Miloshevich 'emergency' was to kill him and his staunchest supporters is suggested by the slew of articles that suddenly appeared with title's like "Miloshevich: the Endgame" and "Slobo: the Final Act" and "Milosevic's Last Stand," and so on. Having vilified the Serbian people for so long, some folks could not avoid a certain enthusiasm over the prospect of the destruction of this stubborn symbol of Serbian resistance to American hegemony.

This DOS-created 'emergency' was in fact defused by Miloshevich. Even while Miloshevich was negotiating with DOS, DOS was, according to news reports, preparing to attack the compound and telling the press he would never surrender. But he did surrender, and voluntarily, "to end the standoff." It was they who tried to provoke civil war, and he who avoided it.

To be accurate, the 'Times' story should have had a headline that stated these facts, something like : "Miloshevich voluntarily surrenders to DOS authorities to end standoff."

That has quite a different political impact, does it not?

Further down, the article gets to the point, which is suicide : "Zarko Korac, a Serbian deputy prime minister, said this morning that Mr. Milosevic had waved his own gun during the discussion and had threatened to kill himself and his wife, Mirjana Markovic, and his daughter, Marija. Mr. Korac said Mr. Milosevic "was in bad shape" but had finally agreed to surrender to save lives. "

"A senior Serbian government official said that Zoran Djindjic, the Serbian prime minister, had sent an emissary, Cedomir Jovanovic, who spent more than a day negotiating with Mr. Milosevic and his family. The official confirmed Mr. Korac's account, saying Mr. Milosevic's mood "swung wildly, and he talked about killing himself and his family."

Two things about these two paragraphs.

First, note that Zarko Korac is quoted, but we aren't told anything about him other than his current position in the DOS government. Since he is being cited as a source concerning Mr. Miloshevich's behavior, isn't it important for us to know a bit about him? Is he a neutral witness? Is he an enemy of Miloshevich?

Second, the 'Times' implies that Korac directly observed Miloshevich's allegedly wild behavior. This impression is strengthened in the second paragraph, which gives the impression that Mr. Korac's account was confirmed by Cedomir Jovanovic, who, the 'Times' tells us, attended the negotiations. But if you read the second paragraph carefully, you will see that the 'Times' never quotes Mr. Jovanovic. Indeed, the mention of Jovanovic's presence at the negotiations is irrelevant to the article - except insofar as it enhances the credibility of a certain (unnamed) "senior Serbian official" who, we are told, has "confirmed Mr. Korac's account, saying Mr. Milosevic's mood 'swung wildly and he talked about killing himself and his family.'"

Zarko Korac is no ordinary politician. He is quite notorious in Serbia. For a decade he's been appearing regularly on Western TV as an expert Yugoslav psychologist. Using those credentials, he repeats ad nauseum the charge that Serbs suffer from collective paranoia. They just THINK the U.S. and Germany have been financing terrorists in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. They just IMAGINE that NATO has targeted the Serbian people in its ongoing effort to destroy multiethnic Yugoslavia. They are under the ILLUSION that they've all been driven out of Kosovo, that they've been bombed with depleted uranium, that the Hague Tribunal was set up to destroy their leaders. So much paranoia; so little time.

This morning I spoke to a Socialist Party (SPS) spokesman, Vladamir Kershylanin. He checked with SPS leader Banislav Ivkovic, who was present throughout the negotiations.

Ivkovic says Zarko Korac did not take part. Not for a minute.

Thus the 'Times' is presenting a most damaging picture of Miloshevich's mental condition based on the testimony of a Miloshevich-hater who has made a living slandering Serbian culture, and who in any event did not observe Mr. Miloshevich during the negotiations. And then the 'Times' 'confirms' Korac's misleading statements by quoting an unnamed official who apparently also did not attend the negotiations. To top it off, the 'Times' 'quotes' this real or imaginary official in a sentence structured so as to mention the misleading fact that Cedomir Jovanovic was present at the negotiations, thus giving the hasty reader a false impression that he has been given an eye-wsitness account.

That's a lot of misinformation to squeeze into two little paragraphs, is it not?

If the 'Times' were trying to practice unbiased journalism, what might it have done different?

To start with, it should have told us something like this : "Zarko Korac, a psychologist whose accusations about the paranoia of Serbian culture have made him a highly controversial figure in Yugoslavia, and who was not present, reported that Mr. Miloshevich acted unstable at the negotiations." (See Further Reading at the end of this article for an example of Dr. Korac's diagnosis of the Serbs)

Then the 'Times' should have asked someone from Mr. Miloshevich's team to answer Korac's accusation. Wouldn't that be fair? You know, like, present both sides? Isn't that what NEWSpapers are supposed to do? Or am I being absurdly old-fashioned?

If the 'Times' had bothered to check with the SPS, they would have told the 'Times' what they told me this morning :

"In fact, Mr. Miloshevich was quite calm which is amazing given the threat to himself, his family and his supporters. Why is Mr. Korac, who was not present, telling these lies about Mr. Miloshevich's actions and mood? We fear this is an effort to create public opinion which views Mr. Miloshevich as suicidal. Then, in the likely eventuality that the DOS-controlled, or should we say the U.S.-controlled Serbian judiciary cannot break Mr. Miloshevich, thus making it impossible to stage a proper show trial, the regime will assassinate him in jail and say he committed suicide."

As is well argued elsewhere (see Diana Johnstone (1) Sven Olafsson (2) and T.V. & Alida Weber (3)) the attack on Miloshevich is an attack on the Serbian people. The best way to prevent the U.S. government from having him killed is to expose their media campaign to label him suicidal. Let us do whatever is possible to make the public aware that this is a cover story to allow assassination. And demand his release. His crime is resistance to aggression. Let us jail the real war criminals: Clinton, Blair, Albright, Fischer, Solana and Schroeder.