state: a country that is economically, politically, or militarily dependent on
another country" (Webster’s 10th). That was a rather polished definition by
the political elite around 1918. In today’s real world the expressions
"vassal state" or "occupied territory" are more honest. Even
the term "vassal" (humble dependant) is weak. "Occupied" is
closer to the truth. The case of Greece as a US "occupied territory",
since 1947, is an enlightening example (see Commentary of June 16, ’99). Let us
take a more recent example: Lieutenant Colonel Michael Ellerbe, "The
commander of a (US) army unit that beat, threatened and abused civilians in
Kosovo (from September 1999 through March) has been selected for a plum
assignment at the Army War College, keeping him on track for possible promotion
to general." (International Herald Tribune, IHT, Oct. 20, ’00). This is
characteristic behaviour by an occupying army. Any further comment is redundant.
do the US elite strive to occupy the world? "President Bill Clinton and
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright deserve credit for applying the realistic
principle that projecting power is a prerequisite for the spread of one’s
values. In the 1930s, it was the Nazis who were applying military pressure and
supported local political parties in the Balkans with money, intelligence,
printing presses and other aid. Not surprisingly, fascist ideals were then
ascendant." (Robert D. Kaplan, senior fellow at the New America Foundation,
in the IHT of Oct. 7-8, ’00). Is the content of Mr. Kaplan’s text (not to
mention the example chosen) unbelievable? Not at all. George Kennan, of the US
State Department, expressed the same "ideals" in 1947! The consistence
of the "ideals" of the US intellectual elite is admirable.
is it all about (US) values? Not exactly.
120 BC and 146 BC the Romans constructed the Egnatia ( pronounced:
egg-nah-tee-a, with the accent on -tee-). Egnatia was a road that basically
connected Rome to Constantinople (Istanbul), a small part of it, in the Adriatic
sea, was crossed by boat. to the Albanian port of Durres and from there reached
Salonica and finally Constantinople, by land.
1970 the US-supported Greek junta initiated the design of the New Egnatia, which
now started from Igoumanitsa, a Greek port south of Durres, reached Salonica and
from there, more or less, followed the alignment of the Roman Egnatia. The
design of the New Egnatia, a multilane modern highway, was assigned to McDonald
Engineering, a US engineering company. In reality, the design was done by Greek
engineers, as subcontractors, under the control of the US firm. The next few
years the New Egnatia will be ready.
New Egnatia this West-East transportation axis is very important in itself. Yet,
if the New Egnatia is connected to an existing North-South axis, the highway
that transverses in sequence Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and meets
Egnatia in the vicinity of Salonica, then the resulting transportation system is
extremely important (to the US) as an access route to the Middle East oil, and
maybe the Caspian oil. The only section of the system that was missing was the
one through Serbia. Not anymore.
completion of the Egnatia system could be one of the "benefits" that
the US gains from the birth of the new client state of Yugoslavia. Furthermore,
it seems that Salonica, "Greece’s bustling northern seaport (which) has
become a commercial and cultural center for (the) neighbouring countries,"
in the words of George Papandreou, the Greek Foreign Minister, seems to be a
crucial part of the US (grand) plans to "debalkanize the Balkans,"
besides the safeguarding of oil. Naturally, the cultural values of the
debalkanized Balkans would be those of George W. Bush, Al Gore, Madeleine
closing paragraph of the June 16, 1999 Commentary said: "When the US
decides that it is time to have ‘peace’ in Kosovo-Yugoslavia, then this means
that the US is ready to initiate the familiar cycles of benign-harsh occupation
of these areas. The PROXY military leadership and the PROXY political managers
MAY ALREADY have been chosen by the US. The physical destruction of both areas
from the bombing is already depressing. However, equally depressing is the fact
that these populations will soon lose their dignity by entering the cycle of US
occupation." (Emphasis added.)
Kostunica, or Djindjic, or General Pavkovic, etc the "chosen proxy"?
That is irrelevant. The US grand plans are to be followed, period. Even if
Kostunica, a "moderate nationalist," proclaims that "The United
States has done too much meddling in our (Serbia’s) internal affairs," or
that. "people in Yugoslavia (want) to live in a state ‘that is not a
vassal," that has no meaning. Again, the relevant historical example comes
from the Greek experience; Andreas Papandreou, father of George, above, won the
confidence of the Greeks (and the elections in 1981) by exploiting their strong
anti-Americanism, while offering what the US demanded (military bases, etc).
However, if Kostunica is an honest person, he is in trouble. He will not last
the above constitute an estimate of the roles of the US and Yugoslav elite, what
was the role of the population of Yugoslavia (mainly of Serbia) and what is it
going to be from now on? They had Milosevic and the US bombing; they had enough.
They reached the point of ‘inat’, an attitude "which carries a touch of
angry, even self-destructive resistance’, (according to the translation of the
word by Steven Erlanger of the N.Y. Times, IHT, Oct. 4, ’00). (Note; The word ‘inat’,
a Turkish word, is a ‘legacy’ to the languages of the peoples of the Balkans by
the Ottomans, during their centuries long occupation of these peoples. In Greek
‘inat’ has a similar meaning as above.) The Serb population was angry and
is going to happen from now on is not difficult to guess. Again, the Greek
example, of a US client state, is a rather good approximation, no matter what
the Serb population want. And what the Serbian population want is clearly
expressed by the slogan on a button worn by a Serb teenager: "ne dam popedu"
(I will not give away my victory to no one).
very important question is: Why the Serb army and the Serbian police did not
fire against the demonstrators? In 1973 the Greek army and the Greek police
massacred the uprisen students and civilians. What might be the difference? The
individuals (world-wide) that choose the army or the police as a profession,
are, basically, persons with very "flexible" and oportunistic
conscience. ( Put in a more colourful language, pigs are pigs all over the
world.) Yet, there is a difference between the Serbian ones and the Greek ones.
The Greek have already secured their patron; the US (a seemingly permanent
empire). Therefore, they can shoot and kill, if that is in the interest of the
patron, as was the case with the Greek students on November 17, 1973. The
Serbian are in the process of securing the favour of the US patron, so they did
not shoot, because they knew that that was in the interest of the courted
patron. (Note: My view is that the US has already infiltrated the Serbian
important factor in the birth of the Yugoslav US client state is the role of
religion, namely the Serbian Christian Orthodox Church and the significant
political weight of this Church. It seems that there is an urgent need to
research the role and the patrons of the Christian Orthodox Churches in the
Balkans, starting with the Greek one.
two pieces of information that might prove to be important in the future:
On October 7, two days after the uprising in Serbia, a Yugoslavian by the Name
of Vladimir Bokan, was executed in Athens with 29 bullets. The killing took
place two and a half hours after Bokan publicly denounced the Milosevic regime
on a Greek TV channe.l. Bokan, a multimillionaire at 40, according to the Greek
press was a close friend of the Yugoslavian pathological killer Arcan and the
manager of the enormous property of Marko, the son of Milosevic.
Again according to the Greek press, Carla del Ponte (spelling?), the prosecutor
of the Tribunal at the Hague, visited Athens secretly during the week of October
23 -29, 00, and asked for the help of the Greek Supreme Court in her efforts to
locate the money that Milosevic has stashed in Greece and in Cyprus.
one can say that Milosevic believed in the supreme value of any western
Corporate Chief Executive Officer: profit, i. e. personal gain.