ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/abolition-usa/archive/v01.n123

Internet Message Format | 1999-05-03 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (abolition-usa-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #123
Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


abolition-usa-digest        Monday, May 3 1999        Volume 01 : Number 123




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 19:54:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Timothy Bruening <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) NATO Drops Uranium, On Serbs And Albanians

I am trying to write a letter about the use by NATO of bombs containing
Depleted Uranium (DU) on Yugoslavia.  I would entitled it "NATO Drops
Uranium, On Serbs And Albanians".  Please send me information and a sample
letter about the use of DU on Yugoslavia.  Is DU being used on Yugoslavia?
If so, what newspaper stories and other sources can I site about the use of
DU on Yugoslavia?  What media reports have there been on this subject?


- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 03:26:42 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Really Crucial / Yevtushenko/Yugoslavia (

 For those who missed it, this column is, in my view, one of the best
statement of the human - and political side - of this struggle and this
tragedy. I am grateful to the CoC net for putting it out on their list. I
really do urge people to read it through.

 Peace,
 David McReynolds
  #1
  New York Times
  May 1, 1999
  [for personal use only]
  History Returns to the Scene of Its Crime
  By YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO
  Yevgeny Yevtushenko, a poet, is a professor of literature at Queens College
  and a former member of the Soviet Parliament. This was translated by Albert
  C. Todd.

  Not long ago I received a letter from Israel from the parents of a boy they
  had named Babi Yar. Through their son's name the parents wanted people to
  remember what happened at that ravine near the city of Kiev in 1941. But
  today, from the photograph of their son, two dark eyes stared out at me like
  the smoking coals on television from Kosovo and Belgrade. Like Raskolnikov,
  history returns to the scene of its crime -- to the Balkans, where World War
  I began with a shot fired at Archduke Ferdinand. Today, it seems to me that
  this Israeli boy has either an Albanian or a Serbian face. Selective
  solidarity -- Western or Russian -- is blind.

  I can hardly believe my eyes when I see some of Russia's most demagogic
  politicians express their knee-jerk one-sided solidarity. How can one trust
  their sincerity when they pound their fists on behalf of Serbia, yet show no
  solidarity whatsoever with Albanian refugees, nor even their own people --
  war veterans with their hands out huddled in underground passageways,
  teachers and doctors who haven't been paid for half a year, miners crashing
  their helmets on the pavement without a response.

  Still, for many Russians, beyond the two peoples' similar languages and
  Orthodox religion, and beyond the many Serbian-Russian mixed marriages, true
  solidarity with the people of Serbia runs deep.

  During World War II, the feats of Yugoslav partisans in their struggle
  against Fascism inspired not only our soldiers but also our poets -- a whole
  anthology of Russian poetry about Yugoslavia could easily be compiled.
  Recently, when I heard a NATO spokesman placidly and icily name the city of
  Kragujevac as a target, I shuddered because this city was a symbol of the
  Yugoslav nation's heroic confrontation with Hitler's occupation. Yugoslavia
  was equally heroic in its opposition to Stalin's regime, but that resistance
  was never transformed into hatred toward Russians.

  In the late 1940's, Soviet propaganda branded Yugoslavia a traitor.

  But this slur never took root with the Russian people.

  In 1948, my father took me to the Moscow Circus, where a clown had an
  enormous dog wearing a Yugoslav Marshal's cap, a bundle of gigantic fake
  state dollars stuck in his teeth. "Hey, Tito, you mongrel, let go of them!"
  the clown screamed, laughing shrilly at his vulgar joke.

  But the audience kept deadly silent -- the Russian people's respect for
their
  Yugoslav comrades in arms in the struggle against Fascism was too great to
  laugh at.

  "How disgusting -- let's get out of here," my father said loudly as he got
  up. And suddenly, from every seat, fathers and mothers got up and led their
  children out.

  In the 1950's, the writer Orest Maltsev received the Stalin Prize for his
  novel "The Yugoslav Tragedy," which lampooned the partisan movement in
  Yugoslavia.

  When Stalin died and Khrushchev made peace with Tito, naturally the
  reprinting of "The Yugoslav Tragedy" ceased.

  Maltsev became impoverished. In the store where he went from time to time
for
  a bottle of the cheapest vodka and canned sardines, people would point
  fingers at him and say, "God punished him for Yugoslavia."

  For a long time Yugoslavia was the most prosperous and independent socialist
  country -- or at least that's how it appeared to us in Russia. Only later,
  after Tito's death and the collapse of the Yugoslav federation, which turned
  out to have been held together only by his "anti-Stalin Stalinist will," did
  we begin to understand that not everything was so pure and just in the land
  of our Yugoslav brothers in arms.

  Have today's NATO countries, which, like Russia, fought Fascism alongside
the
  Yugoslavs, forgotten our common wartime struggle? If they have, they can
rest
  assured that Russians have not.

  No sooner had the NATO bombs begun to fall on Yugoslavia than the skeleton
of
  the old war was awakened by the explosions. This was a remarkable gift to
our
  cheap showman-nationalist, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and other "professional
  patriots," who rushed to use the ribs of the skeleton like a war drummer's
  sticks.

  The West should not be surprised when ideas like the science fantasy of a
  union among Russia, Belarus and Serbia take hold. It seems to me that the
  leaders of the NATO countries, in deciding to bomb Serbs in order to save
  Albanians, have inexcusably not thought through many of the realities of the
  Yugoslav situation. One such reality is that even if NATO troops succeed in
  kicking out Slobodan Milosevic's Government and installing a more obedient
  one in its place, the result might be an exhausting, partisan war, the
  traditions of which the Yugoslavs have preserved since at least World War
II.

  The shame of the Balkan situation lies with some political cynics, Russian,
  Western and Yugoslav, who play the Kosovo card, not on behalf of the Serbian
  or Albanian people but only for their own prestige, preservation of power or
  demonstration of hegemony. Take note that with rare exception many have a
  pro-Serbian or pro-Albanian position. But in my opinion the only correct
  position is simultaneously pro-Serbian and pro-Albanian; that is, pro-human.

  We must not confuse people with extremists. During the conflict in Bosnia
one
  charming Serbian woman, who teaches philosophy at an American college,
ceased
  being intelligent in my eyes as soon as she began to speak about Bosnians:
  "These dirty Bosnians are all wild animals. . . .

  They must all be destroyed." Wolf fangs seemed to show from her beautiful
  lips. But within a month I talked with a Bosnian graduate student at another
  university and wolf fangs appeared when she began speaking about Serbs.

  Do not demonize any nation because someone may begin to demonize your own.
So
  be more cautious with the Balkans.

  The endless procession of completely innocent Albanian refugees moving
across
  the television screen appeals to the mercy of humanity. But the burning
  houses of completely innocent Serbs appeal to it also. It is tragic that
  Russia and America watch two completely different wars on television,
  although it is one and the same war.

  In the American television version the Serbs are simply guilty of
everything,
  and in the Russian version the Americans are. Years ago, when Aleksandr
  Solzhenitsyn spoke out against the Soviet authorities, his every half word
  was printed in the first columns of American newspapers. But now no one in
  the United States is rushing to print his words about the bombing in
  Yugoslavia: "A beautiful European country is being destroyed, and civilized
  governments brutally applaud. But desperate people, abandoning their bomb
  shelters, come out to the destruction like a living chain for the salvation
  of the Danube bridges. Isn't that a classic Greek tragedy?"

  But the truth is summed up not only in this, but also in a barely alive old
  Albanian woman being pulled over the snow in a plastic garbage bag just to
  drag her out of the Kosovo hell into Montenegro, and in the old Serbian
woman
  who stands at night on a bridge with a target on her sunken chest inviting
  bombs from the sky, and in the three American military prisoners with their
  quite little-boy faces beaten and bloody. Be more careful with the Balkans!

   >>

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 21:27:59 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: (abolition-usa) Washington Post: Why Russians Say Nyet

In a message dated 5/3/99 4:35:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,=20
[e-mail] writes:

<<=20
 1999.05.02 Washington Post
=20
 The Talk of Moscow: Why They Say Nyet
=20
 By Roy A. Medvedev
=20
 Sunday, May 2, 1999; Page B01
=20
 MOSCOW-No single event in the past 50 years has provoked
 such elemental and fierce emotions in Russia as NATO's
 bombing of Serbia. Polls here show that 95 percent of Russian
 citizens condemn the Western alliance's actions in the Balkans.
 Last weekend's NATO summit, at which leaders spoke of their
 intent to embrace military missions beyond its members borders,
 received a uniformly negative response: Was NATO suggesting
 it might intervene in Georgia, Chechnya or other hot spots in the
 former Soviet Union?
=20
 The national indignation here is so strong that it is becoming an
 important factor in Russia's foreign and domestic policy and may
 even influence the outcome of the conflict. University students
 and schoolchildren, members of football clubs and sports
 associations are drawn into daily protests. People who used to be
 apolitical now participate in demonstrations and, until the
 Russian government prevented it, threw eggs and bottles at the
 U.S. Embassy.
=20
 Hundreds of Russian volunteers are already in Serbia; thousands
 are en route; and several thousand more are prepared to follow
 them. Not only former paratroopers and officers, but also
 generals and commanders of military districts say they are
 prepared to defend Serbia. Col. Gen. Viktor Chechevatov,
 commander of Russia's largest military district, recently
 announced that he is ready to lead the expeditionary corps to
 Serbia if necessary. What has produced this elemental howl of
 rage, supported both by opposition and pro-Western politicians?
=20
 Nobody here believes talk about the determination to prevent a
 "humanitarian catastrophe." The bombs and missiles have=20
 simply hastened and deepened the humanitarian tragedy and
 strengthened doubts about the advantages of Western
 civilization. If Western civilization proves itself by such
 methods, what can the Arab world, Africa, China or India think
 of it?
=20
 What is clear to political scientists, commentators and analysts
 alike is that the long history of religious and ethnic conflict
 between Orthodox Serbs and Albanian Muslims in Kosovo will
 not be resolved by bombs falling on Belgrade, Pristina or the
 bridges over the Danube. Some analysts here have tried to
 explain the conflict by arguing that the United States and NATO
 want to try out their new, precise weaponry under military
 conditions. Other more serious theories assert that NATO,
 having lost its purpose after the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet
 Union disintegrated, is simply looking for new ways to justify its
 existence. Geopoliticians argue that the war in the Balkans is=20
 intended to show the world that only one military
 superpower--the United States--remains.
=20
 These and other theories circulate among politicians, diplomats,=20
 military strategists and analytical observers. But none of them=20
 suffices to explain the angry response of ordinary Russians.
 Their violent reaction stems not from political logic but from
 human feelings. The reasons for their indignation are various,
 and I will list only those that seem to me to be most important,
 taking account of the Russian national consciousness and
 psychology, our historical traditions, and our understanding of
 justice, honor and dishonor.
=20
 * The strong strike the weak. Many strike one. Nineteen
 powerful countries--of which three, the United States, Great
 Britain and France, are great military powers--are striking targets
 in Serbia and even in Montenegro, which is not in conflict with
 anyone. This spectacle reaches us here by television and radio
 and in newspapers, and it is unacceptable to the Russian
 understanding of justice. The participation of Turkey and
 Germany--whose historic guilt before the Serbian people, not
 only in this century but before, is far from forgotten--adds to the anger.
=20
 * The armed strike the unarmed. Without modern aviation or
 new forms of antiaircraft weapons, the Serbs are practically
 defenseless against NATO's missiles and bombs. NATO pilots
 and sailors risk little; they are beyond danger; they go
 unpunished. There are hundreds of dead and wounded on the
 Serbian side; Serbia's industry is destroyed. But there is not a
 single dead or wounded NATO soldier. From the point of view
 of Russian people, this unequal conflict isn't even a war, it's a
 massacre.
=20
 * A Slav, Orthodox country is being destroyed. It was Russia
 that helped Serbia attain its independence from the Ottoman
 Empire in the 19th century. In all the European wars of the past
 300 years, Serbia has been Russia's ally. It was because of Serbia
 that Russia went to war against Austria-Hungary in 1914. Serbia
 has never opposed Russia, and it remains our ally outside the
 former Soviet Union. All Russians know this from their history
 lessons at school.
=20
 * Serbia is being beaten to humiliate and teach Russia a lesson.
 There is a strong conviction among Russians that the senseless
 destruction of Dresden by the Western allies in 1945 and the use
 of atomic bombs against Japan later that year were
 demonstrations of strength to Moscow above all. The campaign
 against Serbia is often seen from the same point of view. Russia
 only began to rise from its knees in the autumn of 1998 with the
 appointment of Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, and to rid
 itself of worthless, alien politicians who were oriented to the
 West. Many Russians believe that the destruction of Serbia was
 conceived as a demonstration of the West's strength and=20
 invincibility. It was intended to break Russia's will, to put a stop
 to the integration process of Slav peoples. These ideas and
 feelings are particularly strong in the Russian army, in the
 defense industries and among veterans. But they are being
 adopted by the entire population.
=20
 * The West deceived and robbed Russia. Our people were told
 over and over again about the benefits of democracy and the
 market economy that the rich Western countries would help
 Russia construct. That illusion has long since disappeared. In the
 minds of the impoverished, there is a conviction that the West
 not only deceived us, but that it robbed Russia, trying to turn it
 into a source of raw materials. New wealthy Russians, stock
 market gamblers and financial speculators carried billions of
 dollars away to the West. Life in Russia became worse, and the
 country's debts to the West grew several times over. Russia was
 being squeezed not only out of international politics but also out
 of the international economy.
=20
 These arguments, popular among our people, are controversial.
 But they are worth considering. Although Russia is weakened, it
 is still strong both as a nation and as a state. Its army may not
 have enough food to feed its soldiers, but it has great traditions
 and is armed with modern weapons. Russia's military-industrial
 potential is still very great. If NATO ground forces and Serbia's
 neighboring countries are drawn into the war, Russia will
 certainly break the U.N. embargo against supplying arms to the
 Balkans. A real union between Serbia, Belarus and Russia is not
 utopian thinking.
=20
 Russian citizens are not impressed by NATO talk about the
 despotism of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Russia
 lived for centuries under conditions of despotism and political
 terror. Compared with our dictators, Milosevic seems a
 pragmatist. He was elected by the Serbian people; Serbia has a
 multiparty system and practically no political prisoners.
=20
 No one in Russia defends ethnic cleansing, but it is obvious to all
 here that external aggression can only make the situation worse.
 In Russia itself, there are about 3 million refugees who have fled
 from the ethnic conflicts in Central Asia, Moldova, the Caucasus
 and Abkhazia. There are 1 million displaced people in
 Azerbaijan, 500,000 in Armenia, 300,000 in Georgia. But no one
 thinks that bombs are the best means of returning lost land to
 these people.
=20
 In order for NATO to win a war, it will be necessary to smash
 the will not only of the Serb leaders but of the whole people.
 Serbia has lived in bondage for longer than it has been free. This
 small nation in the Balkans cannot be defeated. It can only be
 destroyed. If NATO does not intend to destroy Serbia, it would
 be better to stop now, and prevent a more serious war.
=20
 Roy Medvedev, a Russian historian living in Moscow, is the
 author of "Let History Judge" (Columbia University Press) and
 "Khrushchev: The Years in Power" (Norton). This article was
 translated by Margo Light.
=20
 =A9 Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company
=20
=20

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 18:46:52 -0700
From: Jackie Cabasso <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) DANGER: US-led NATO bombing pushes Russia back into Cold War posture

Kremlin to Bolster Nuclear Stockpile
NATO's Airstrikes Are Making Russia Worried, Sources Say

David Hoffman
Washington Post Foreign Service

Friday, April 30, 1999; Page A19

MOSCOW, April 29 -- In a rare meeting of the Kremlin Security Council devoted
to nuclear weapons policy, President Boris Yeltsin approved a new blueprint
today for beefing up thousands of shortrange or tactical nuclear weapons that
were taken out of service unilaterally earlier in the decade, officials said.

The decision was announced by the Security Council secretary, Vladimir Putin,
who said it had nothing to do with the conflict over Kosovo. But other sources
said the decision clearly reflected Russia's growing anxiety about the NATO
airstrikes against Yugoslavia and its continuing weakness in conventional, or
nonnuclear, weapons.

A second document approved today dealt with the entire Russian nuclear weapons
complex, Putin said. A third document was described as top secret.

Putin also said that Russian weapons designers feel cramped by the long period
in which they have been unable to test nuclear weapons, while other countries
use sophisticated computer modeling. Putin said a way had to be found for
Russia to evaluate its nuclear stockpile without violating the international
agreements banning actual tests.

Details of the decision on tactical nuclear weapons were not disclosed, but
Putin said Yeltsin had endorsed "a blueprint for the development and use of
nonstrategic nuclear weapons." The precise actions were not specified, but some
experts and Russian news reports said modernization or rebuilding tactical
nuclear weapons was possible. This category of weapons generally includes
nuclear shortrange missiles, bombs, artillery shells and submarinebased
tactical nuclear weapons.

In 1991, Presidents George Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev, in backtoback unilateral
announcements after the August putsch here, withdrew large numbers of these
tactical nuclear weapons. However, unlike the continentspanning longrange
weapons, which are covered by treaties, there was never a formal agreement
governing the pullback of tactical nuclear weapons.

Russian specialists have been speculating in recent weeks about the possibility
of reactivating and modernizing some tactical nuclear weapons in the wake of
the Kosovo conflict, and even moving them into neighboring Belarus.
However, experts said Yeltsin's latest action could be a prelude to scrapping
the BushGorbachev agreement if the war drags on. "The first victim of this
bloody crisis will be the BushGorbachev tactical nuclear agreement," said
Sergei Rogov, director of the Institute for the Study of the United States and
Canada here.
It is not clear that Russia has the wherewithal to rebuild or modernize its
tactical nuclear weapons, but the mere threat of doing so may be part of the
goal of making NATO think twice about the Kosovo conflict.

Russia's conventional forces are a shambles, and in recent years its military
and security doctrines have emphasized the nuclear deterrent. The strategic
nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles also have been going through a sharp
decline, driven by obsolescence and lack of money.

On tactical weapons, William C. Potter, director of the Center for
Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif., said recently that there are
"growing pressures" in Russia to remanufacture or modernize its tactical
nuclear weapons force. Although precise numbers are not available, Potter
estimated Russian tactical nuclear weapons at 7,740, after the reductions
announced by Gorbachev.

Copyright 1999  The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com



******************************************************
Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director
WESTERN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION
1440 Broadway, Suite 500
Oakland, California USA 94612
Tel: +[phone]
Fax: +[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
******************************************************
Western States Legal Foundation is part of  ABOLITION 2000
A GLOBAL NETWORK TO ELIMINATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS

- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 19:58:32 -0700
From: "David Crockett Williams" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (abolition-usa) Balkan War to Secure Oil Routes as necessary domination?

Yugoslavia: A New War for Loot
<http://uns.org/yugo/loot.htm>

Unlimited News Service

Yugoslavia: a New War for Loot

by Michel Colon

Humanitarian war? No. The NATO bombardments have worsened the situation o=
f
all the inhabitants of Kosovo-as foreseen, and desired. For
NATO needs victims to justify its aggression against a sovereign state, a=
nd
in complete violation of international law.

What are the real objectives of Washington, Berlin, and their consorts? 1.
Control oil transport routes. 2. Recolonize and exploit East Europe. 3.
Weaken Russia, thus give the West the means to pillage the whole of Asia.=
 4.
In order to realize the foregoing, impose NATO as the gendarme
of the world, starting with assurances of military bases in this strategi=
c
region. All of these objectives are tied together. The most important, at
this point, is the preparation for an attack on Russia.

Most important: on each of these objectives, Washington and Berlin are at
the same time in unity and in rivalry. Each tries to use the other so it
can grab the cake.

In short, a new war for loot. A war for the profits of the multinationals=
, a
war to break the resistance of the peoples.

Objective No. 1: Always, the Battle for Oil

"The oilfields of Kazakhstan, the gas fields of Turkmenistan, and the
enormous offshore reserves of black gold of Azerbaijan, make up a zone
that can gain, over the next fifty years, an importance equal to that of =
the
Persian Gulf today," writes a big German daily.1

Likewise in 1992 the US Senator Dole said, "The Gulf War was a symbol of =
the
American preoccupation for the security of oil and gas reserves.
The frontiers of that preoccupation are advancing to the north and includ=
e
the Caucasus, Siberia, and Kazakhstan."2. The threat is clear.

Add to this the most important gold mine in the world (in Uzbekistan), th=
e
largest deposit of silver (in Tajikistan), note the rumors of uranium,
and you understand why Le Monde Diplomatique wrote in 1995: "To capture t=
he
contracts, no holds are barred."3

No holds, including war-particularly around the pipelines that transport =
oil
(and soon, gas, of which the importance will grow). Ferocious wars
explode around the routes, real or projected, of pipelines: Chechnia,
Nagorny-Karabakh, Georgia, Kurdistan.

Yes, all means are good to block the people of the region (including Russ=
ia)
from control of their own riches. Why does Washington support
the Taliban criminals in Afghanistan? To control the southern access to t=
he
oil of Central Asia.4

But the battle to control this wealth rages already between the Western
"allies" themselves: "Baku is an oil center of great importance in the
eyes of Germany. On the level of raw materials, we must be on the attack.=
"
Signed: F.W. Christians, Chairman of the Deutsche Bank.5 For this
was always the Achilles heel of German imperialism: its lack of raw
materials. Hence its constant and very strong tendency to expansionism.

But the United States doesn't want to hear that. It wants to keep worldwi=
de
control of oil. Not for fear of need--it has enough on its own soil-but
because, in the event of a new world conflict between great powers, it is
essential to be able to deny energy to the adversary. Who wants to
rule the world, must control the oil.

What is the role of the Balkans in all of this? The oil transport routes
must pass by there. From the Caucasus it goes to the Black Sea. Then
there are two possibilities. First, the Danube. This very long river (280=
0
km, about 1700 mi.), of great flow, allows the connection of the Black
Sea to Northwest Europe. Oil reaches Hamburg and Amsterdam by passage
through the Rhine and the Main. Belgrade alone occupies a
strategic position on the Danube. This shows why Germany wants to absolut=
ely
break Yugoslavia.6

A second path is possible: a new pipeline project would cross Bulgaria,
Macedonia, Albany, and . . . Kosovo. This enormous project of several
billion dollars is supported by the United States. One condition is
necessary to realize it: to subdue the local populations. This shows why
Washington wants absolutely to impose its military bases in the Balkans.

Certainly, to justify the installation of military bases, there is a "nee=
d"
for a local conflict. We see why several Western powers armed the
Croatian nationalists of Tudjman in '91, Muslims in Bosnia in 1993, and
Kosovars of the KLA in '98. Those who call themselves firemen need
incendiaries.

Objective No. 2: Recolonize East Europe

In 1989 the West promised East Europe prosperity. Six years later Unicef
found: "75 million newly poor in the East. The hardest hit: Bulgaria
(half the population is poor), Roumania, Moldova, Lithuania, Azerbaijan,
Lettony, Estonia. In these countries are found between 27% and 35%
of poor people in 1994, as against 1.55 in 1989."7

Chance? Bad luck? Transition a little too late? Not at all. The West had =
no
intention at all of keeping its promises, as Noam Chomsky explains:
"I think the prospects are pretty dim for Eastern Europe. The West has a
plan for it -- they want to turn large parts of it into a new, easily
exploitable part of the Third World. There used to be a sort of colonial
relationship between Western and Eastern Europe; in fact, the

Russians' blocking of that relationship was one of the reasons for the Co=
ld
War. Now it's being reestablished and there's a serious conflict over
who's going to win the race for robbery and exploitation. Is it going to =
be
German-led Western Europe (currently in the lead) or Japan (waiting
in the wings to see

how good the profits look) or the United States (trying to get into the
act)? There are a lot of resources to be taken, and lots of cheap labor f=
or
assembly plants. But first we have to

impose the capitalist model on them."8

What isn't evident is that the West particularly fears the resistance of =
the
workers of the East, who have known the advantages of socialism,
who have gained traditions of organization and resistance with the
Communists. This is why, since 1991, NATO has threatened that, "We will
continue to give our support by all means at our disposal to the reform
enterprises of the East and to the efforts aiming at creation of market
economies."9 This "with all the means at our disposal"! A clear threat on
the part of a military organization.

Here again the Western powers agree on the imposition of capitalist law a=
nd
the extreme pillage of the ex-socialist countries. But each intends
to draw the chestnuts out of the fire to its own advantage.

Objective No. 3: Weaken Russia to Plunder Asia

Why does the West want to dominate and subdue Russia? First, because it i=
s a
tempting prize: its potential in raw materials adds up to $140
trillion.

Next, and above all, to prevent Moscow from competing in the region.
Paul-Marie de la Gorce, the expert of Le Monde Diplomatique, explains:
"The American policy toward Russia is conceived and applied to prevent it
from reconstructing around itself a power able to again play a
decisive role on the international scene."10

The West is fully on guard against any return to socialism. Derycke, the
Belgian Foreign Minister declared in 1996, "The West supports Yeltsin
because it is the policy of the last resort. A return to communism would =
be
a problem."11

But the West also guards against even a bourgeois Russia that would presu=
me
to a policy of national independence. In reality, the war
unleashed against Yugoslavia in 1991 is also a war against Russia to depr=
ive
it of an ally and access to the Mediterranean.

The problem is that if the West humiliates Yeltsin too openly, it will pl=
ay
into the hands of the Communists and nationalists. The result is un
delicat exercice d'equilibrisme.

In the short term, they support their friend Yeltsin. In the middle run,
they prepare a war against Russia. The former US Secretary of Defense
Caspar Weinberger wrote a book to show that the United States must prepar=
e
itself to wage several wars. His basic argument is, "If Moscow
manages to dominate the Caspian Sea (and its oil), that victory would be,
for the West, more important than the expansion of the West."12

The capitalist catastrophe in Russia is obvious. Logically. Why would the
West create a powerful economic rival for itself? On the contrary,
wages must be low in order for the profits of the multinationals to be hi=
gh.
Hence the risk of revolt. Hence the threat of NATO.

Thus Russia is actually the principal "enemy". Washington, Berlin, London=
,
Paris, and Brussels are agreed on that. But even in this situation,
the snags between "allies" do not disappear. Au contraire.

In 1996, the American Wall Street Journal complained, "Mr. Kohl is no lon=
ger
satisfied to allow the United States to set the tone of German
relations with Russia. It has become completely clear that Germany's alli=
es
no longer control its relations with Russia."13 The celebrated US
strategist Kissinger raises the alarm: "If we fail to expand NATO to the

east, it could lead. . . to the danger of secret agreements between Germa=
ny
and Russia."14

Actually, the United States and Germany try to manipulate each other.
Washington wants an obedient Europe that will help it control Russia. If
Europe becomes too strong, Washington fears that it will control Russia o=
r
ally with it. Berlin and certain of its allies want to profit from
American military power to boss Russia. But Germany hopes to more and mor=
e
play the sole horseman in the region.

Behind this game of liar's poker is revealed the main stakes of a great
competition between capitalist powers: who will control what the US
strategist Brzezinski calls "Eurasia"? 75% of the world's population, 60%=
 of
its economic production. Whomever controls it dominates the
world. We will return to this in a following article.

Objective No. 4: NATO, Gendarme of the World

To realize the above objectives, the West needs an army. And military bas=
es
(and a docile public opinion, hence manipulated). There has been
a problem here since 1990. Theoretically, NATO should go on unemployment
since it was supposedly founded to face the Soviet menace, gone
at the present.

Ah well, not at all! Since 1991, NATO has defined a strategy still more
aggressive: it will be the gendarme of the totality of the capitalist wor=
ld.
Its charge is to make the dictates of the multinationals respected
everywhere. Its own documents announce the preparation of military
aggressions along three axes:

1. Against East Europe and Russia.

2. Against the Arab-Mediterranean world (three zones are explicitly cited=
:
Algeria, Egypt, and the Middle East).

3. Against the whole of the Third World, in fact, under the most diverse
pretexts ("terrorism", "arms of mass destruction", etc.) 15

The most important is to encircle Russia. Thus NATO annexed three reputed=
ly
"sure" countries (Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic), and it
launched a "partnership" with other countries looking to take control of
their armies. They gave the Russians a little carrot but carefully left i=
t
out. This is normal: they are the target. Ukraine got American credits in
order to isolate Russia. Nuclear arms have been placed at the doors of
Moscow-for a "safer world", they tell us.

The strategic forces of NATO have been totally restructured: "We must be =
in
a position to move our forces from one region to another,"
declared Gen. Galvin, head of NATO in 1991.16 Thus, at the same moment th=
at
it claimed triumph, capitalism prepared aggressions against more
and more "enemies".

Behind the reform of NATO also hide the rivalries between the United Stat=
es,
Germany, and France. In 1995, Ruhe, the German War Minister,
warned: "The NATO treaty must be replaced by a new treaty between the
European Union and the United States. Europe must be able to
intervene strategically as a world power at the side of the United
States."17

The British review Searchlight analyses this subtle chess game: "The Fren=
ch
government hopes to contain Germany in the short term via the
Eurocorps and the army of the West European Union. The United States and
Great Britain have another idea: maintain Germany in a
subordinate position through a persistent NATO presence in Europe and a
larger engagement of Bonn in the affairs of NATO. At this time,
Bonn plays intelligently on the two opposites and pretends to be in favor=
 of
both."18

Effectively, Germany plays on two levels: one foot in NATO, one foot
outside. It systematically reinforces its army (see chapter 5 of my book,
Poker menteur. [Liar's Poker-tr.] The aim: to systematically get a foot i=
n
the international military scene. Its Army Minister declares: "War has
become again a political means. In the future we must be capable of
resolving conflicts likewise by military means."19

Controversy raged in 1995. Germany and France wanted to share the militar=
y
command of NATO but the United States intended to keep its
monopoly. Kinkel, the German Foreign Minister, proclaimed: "In the long t=
erm
it is neither in the European interest, nor in the American interest
to call on the aid of our American friends each time that something goes
wrong somewhere."20 Translation of this polite but hypocritical
language: "Our American rivals must not meddle in Europe."

The American "friends" got the message. A US diplomat replied, "I cannot
imagine a situation in which the Americans would not feel involved.
If a real threat arises anywhere in the world, we will be there."21
Translation of this, as well, so-polite and so-hypocritical language: "Ou=
r
German rivals must not complain about U.S. world leadership. That include=
s
Europe."

Why do the Americans want to tighten the grip of NATO on Europe? To obstr=
uct
the creation of a European army that would be their rival. In
1991 Wolfowitz, a Pentagon expert, wrote: "Our status as the only superpo=
wer
must be perpetuated by a military force sufficient to dissuade
any nation or group of nations from defying the supremacy of the United
States."22

And to be perfectly clear, Wolfowitz stipulates what he means: "discourag=
e
[the advance industrial nations] from challenging our leadership . . .
and thwart the emergence of an exclusively European security force."23 Th=
is
is very clear: "allies" are at the same time "enemies".

Behind the war against Yugoslavia hides an undeclared war against Russia.
And also the possibility on day of a world conflict between the
capitalist great powers themselves.

1 Die Zeit, March 96. =95 2 Frankfurter Allgemeine, 15 June 92. =95 3 ) L=
e Monde
Diplomatique, November 95, p. 22. =95 4 Michel Collon, Poker menteur,
1998, EPO, p. 133. =95 5 idem p. 132. =95 6 idem, p. 137. =95 7 Unicef, "=
Poverty,
Children and Policy, Central and Eastern Europe in transition," report n=B0=
3
- - 1995. =95 8 Noam Chomsky, "What Uncle Sam Wants" =95 9 Revue de l'Otan,=
 June
91, p. 28-29. =95 10 Le Monde Diplomatique, March 94. =95 11 Le Soir,
14 December 91. =95 12 AK,

(Allemagne), 23 September 92. =95 13 Wall Street Journal, 23 February 96.=
 =95 14
Welt am Sonntag, 12 January 97. =95 15 Poker menteur, chapter 8. =95 16
Revue de l'Otan, August 92, p. 23. =95 17 Solidaire, 13 December 95. ( =95=
 18
Searchlight, "Reunited Germany", 1994, p. 31. =95 19 Der Spiegel, n=B0 5 =
- -
1995. =95 20 International Herald Tribune, 4 June 96. =95 21 Idem. =95 22=
 Poker
menteur, p. 116. =95 23 Idem.

Posted May 1, 1999



- -
 To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

------------------------------

End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #123
***********************************

-
 To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "[e-mail]"
 with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message.
 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.