1990-1991
Il 5 novembre 1990 Il Congresso degli USA, "grazie" all'impegno del
senatore Bob Dole, approva la legge 101/513, che sancisce la
dissoluzione della Jugoslavia attraverso il finanziamento diretto di
tutte le nuove formazioni "democratiche" (nazionaliste e secessioniste;
cfr. Sarah Flounders su "NATO in the Balkans"). A fine mese un rapporto
della CIA "profetizza" che la Jugoslavia ha solamente pochi mesi di
vita... la notizia viene diffusa dalle agenzie di stampa occidentali e
viene pubblicata il 29 novembre, giorno della Festa Nazionale della RFSJ
(si celebra la fondazione della Repubblica avvenuta a Jajce, in Bosnia,
nel 1943; cfr. http://www.marx2001.org/crj/IM/tempo90.gif e
http://www.marx2001.org/crj/IM/stampa90.jpg).
* "LA JUGOSLAVIA E' L'UNICO PAESE DELL'EST EUROPEO CHE STIA
SIGNIFICATIVAMENTE RIDUCENDO IL SUO DEBITO ESTERO..." Il discorso
pronunciato dall'ex-ambasciatore statunitense in Jugoslavia, John D.
Scanlan, il 22 luglio 1990.
* "QUANTI PAESI CI SARANNO IL EUROPA DOPO IL 1992?" L'editoriale del New
York Times del 31 ottobre 1990, nel quale viene commentata la legge
101/513 del Senato USA che blocca tutti i rapporti economici con la RFS
di Jugoslavia ed impone di considerare separatamente le repubbliche
federate in base al grado di "democraticita'" riconosciuto dal
Dipartimento di Stato degli USA.
* "LA STRATEGIA DEI CROATI E' CHIARA: STANNO BOMBARDANDO IL MONDO DI
INFORMAZIONI..." Un articolo di Petar Makara sull'inizio della campagna
di disinformazione strategica ai danni del pubblico mondiale, mirata a
consentire la secessione della Slovenia e della Croazia.
(materiali distribuiti dalla mailing list STOPNATO -
http://stopnato.listbot.com/cgi-bin/subscriber?Act=view_archive&list_id=stopnato
)
---
"LA JUGOSLAVIA E' L'UNICO PAESE DELL'EST EUROPEO CHE STIA
SIGNIFICATIVAMENTE RIDUCENDO IL SUO DEBITO ESTERO..."
Banquet Address by U.S. Ambassador to Yugoslavia,
John D. Scanlan July 22, 1990
Tonight, I would like to address the problem of the bad public image
that Yugoslavia in general,
and Serbia in particular, now tends to receive in the American Media.
The typical story on
Yugoslavia these days tends to have a theme that I would characterize
as: good Slovene--bad
Serb--poor Albanian. The most egregious recent example of this is the
story on Yugoslavia
which appeared in the August issue of National Geographic. The author
of the article takes at
face value, and quotes, anti-Serb comments of Albanians, Slovenes,
Macedonians, and Croatians,
most of whom are not particularly authoritative but represent
man-on-the-street opinions. He
does
not balance these by comments of Serbs except in one instance where he
quotes the angry
reaction of an Old Serbian friend of his about seccesionist sentiments
the author heard in
Slovenia. The author clearly seems toidentify much more comfortably
with Slovenes, Croatians,
Macedonians, and Albanians than with Serbs. About the only nod to
Serbian history is the
author's appreciation of the emotions Kosovo stirs in Serbs because of
the battle of Kosovo Polje
in 1389 and the subsequent centuries of occupaton of Serbia by the
Turks.
The sad part about this particular article is that the author
obviously knows something about
Yugoslavia but not enough to put events into proper perspective, and,
given the large and
influential role of the National Geographic, he is misleading literally
millions of Americans.
American ignorance of Yugoslavian history, culture, and geography is
by and large broad and
general. And why not, it is a very complicated story. Most Americans
do not know that Slovenes,
Croatians, Serbs, Montenegrins, and Macedonians are all Slavic peoples
with similiar languages.
Most Americans do not know that there are almost as many Albanians
living in Yugoslavia as in
Albania and that 90 percent of the Albanians in Yugoslavia are Moslems
who are able to practice
their religion freely in Yugoslavia, but not in Albania. Most Americans
do not know that the
Albanians in Yugoslavia enjoy the same civil and human rights as all
other Yugoslavs and have
infinitely more freedom in Yugoslavia than the Albanians in Albania, the
last Stalinist state
in Europe. Most Americans do not know that Albanian is a legal language
in the Kosovo and that
all Albanian children in the Kosovo attend Albanian language schools all
the way through
university, and Pristina is one of the largest universities in Europe in
terms of numbers of
students. Most Americans do not know that the largest and most modern
library and repository of
Albanian literature and culture is in Yugoslavia, in the city of
Pristina, not in Albania, and that that
library is one of the largest and finest libraries in Yugoslavia. Most
Americans do not know that
Serbia is the only republic of Yugoslavia that had two autonomous
regions carved out of it by the
Yugoslav constitution of 1974, when there was just as much justification
for carving out of Croatia
an Autonomous Region of Lika to recognize the more than half million
Serbs living there or an
Autonomous Region of Istria to recognize the large Italian minority
living there. I could go on
endlessly about what most Americans
do not know, but should know, before they make judgemental statements
about relations between
the ethnic groups that make up Yugoslavia.
I do not mean to suggest that there have not been human rights
abuses in Yugoslavia. There
have been many well documented cases of human rights abuses of Yugoslavs
by one ethnic group
by Yugoslavs of another ethnic groups or, more commonly, by Yugoslav
officials, and since we
have made human rights a strong and conscious element of our foreign
policy, we should not
hesitate to condemn human rights violation whenever and wherever we find
them. But we should
be totally objective in doing so and, in a powder ked of ethnic
divisiveness such as Yugoslavia
represent today, we should be extremely cautious to avoid the appearance
of tilting for or against
any ethnic group, particularly when emotions are as high as they are
today in Kosovo. As a
government, I think we have done so and I wish at this point to read to
you the official statement
of the Department of State issued on June 29, 1990.
"We are deeply concerned about rising tensions in the province of
Kosovo, in the Yugoslav
Republic of Serbia. Rooted in a long history, the conflict between
ethnic groups living in the area
threatens the well-being of all the people of Kosovo, Serbia, and
Yugoslavia.
"We believe this conflict can only be resolved through peaceful,
democratic dialogue and
respect for the dignity and human rights of alll citzens of the
province. It cannot be solved by
violence, intimidation, or the threat or use of force by any party. We
call upon the people and the
government of Serbia to respect and protect the rights of all Albanians
living in the Republic of
Serbia, especially Kosovo. By the same token, we call upon the Albanian
population in Kosovo to
respect and protect the rights of all resident Serbs and Montenegrins
and others.
"It is for the people of Yugoslavia alone to decide under what
constitutional arrangements they
wish to live. The United States continues to support the unity,
independence, and territorial
integrity of Yugoslavia. We hope that the people of Yugoslavia, of all
national and ethnic groups,
will live together on the basis of mutual respect, democratic pluralism,
and the principles
enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and CSCE process. It is incumbent
on the ethnic majority of
each republic and province to guarantee the security and fundamental
human right of all national
and ethnic minorities living within the territory.
"Since World War II Yugoslavia has, on the whole, provided a
commendable example of
national, cultural, and ethnic harmony in a multinational state. We
hope Yugoslavia can continue
this proud tradition."
If the position of our government is clear, balanced, and objective,
then why is the media
coverage of events in Yugoslavia seemingly so prejudiced in favor of
some and against others? I
would have to say that I believe Yugoslavia in general, and Serbia in
particular, have not been
particularly adept in public relations. That is one reason. I think
another reason is that we have
forgotten that Yugoslavia has been independent of the Soviet Union
since 1948 and has pursued
its own national brand of communisim, and that it is, in fact, very
different from the former
Warsaw Pact client states of the Soviet Union who now have liberated
themselves to one degree
or another. Yugoslavia liberated itself from the Soviet Union but not
from communism under much
more difficult
circumstances in 1948. And we were wise enough to come to Yugoslavia's
aid quickly and
substantially, seeing it as in our own national interest to promote
fissures in the Soviet bloc.
Yugoslavia is now handicapped by the fact that its communist party,
having successfully
portrayed itself at home and abroad as indigenous and independent from
more than 40 years,
enjoys more credibility and domestic support than the Soviet installed
and directed East European
parties. The latter all crumbled rapidly during 1989, while the
Yugoslav party, which has its own
firmly
entrenched domestic base, has displayed more staying power. This
prompts many foreign
observers to conclude, incorrectly in my view, that Yugoslavia is less
interested in political and
economic reform than the Warsaw Pact European countries. This is, of
course, not at all true. In
a sense, Yugoslavia invented perestroika and glasnost and since Tito's
death in 1980 has been
seeking in fits and starts to reform its political and economic systems.
The process has moved
more slowly than we would have hoped, to the extent that most Americans
are prepared to believe
that Yugoslavia has not yet liberated itself as Warsaw Pact countries
have. Indeed, I have been
asked by people who should have know better, "When is Yugoslavia going
to follow the pattern of
Hungary, Poland, and other East European countries?
The only truly objective detailed and insightful account of the
current situation in Yugoslavia
which I have read recently was a series of two articles in the New York
Review of Books written
by Michael Scammell, who is a professor of Russian Literature at Cornell
University. Scammell
does a brilliant job of presenting the nationalistic and political
ferment together with detailed
historical background republic by republic, from north to south. He
points out that since the end of
World War II, Serbs were the leaders in democratic thought and movements
until the last two or
three years when the Slovenes moved to the fore, followed belatedly by
the Croatians. Scammel's
view is that while the democratic opposition remained just as strong in
Serbia as in Slovenia, the
dispute over Kosovo permitted the Serbian communist party to seize the
initiative by directing
nationalistic sentiments against the Albanians. The Serbian dissidents
were thus upstaged and
outflanked by Milosevic, who exploited the issue in order to strengthen
the party at the expense of
the opposition. But Scammell goes on to quote Yugoslavia's most famous
longstanding dissident
Milovan Djilas as having told Scammell that he too first approved of
Milosevic because he
Milosevic had smashed the old Titoist myths of brotherhood and unity
that were holding
Yugoslavia back. He had liberated the consciousness of the Serbian
people and was quite right to
make Kosovo
and Vodvodina subservient to Belgrade, even though it meant sending in
troops. Scammell than
quotes Kosta Cavoski as having told him that Milosevic is righting a
national wrong. Cavoski said
that communists everywhere, and especially Yugoslavian communists, have
exploited national
questions for their own ends and have crushed national interests. The
Serbs suffered under this
policy more than other people in Yugoslavia. While Djilas and Cavoski
told Scammell that they
believed Milosevic's style is authoritarian and his tactics unduly
rough, they did not consider him
to be a neo-Stanlinist or neo-fascist. Djilas said no arrests of
dissenters are being made in
Serbia itself, and although Milosevic controls 90 percent of the press,
the press is more outspoken
than it was. The intellectual atmosphere in Serbia is freer than it has
ever been. Philosophers,
sociologists, and writers are freer now than they were even before the
war.
The objective, extremely well-informed observer, Scammell, is
optimistic that Yugoslavia will
survive. As he puts it, "It seems inevitable that the federal basis of
Yugoslavia will be
reexamined and renegotiated in some form or other." I will cast my lot
with Scammell. I
personally believe that recentralization is out of the question. But I
am confident that a more
viable form of federation or confederation will be worked out for the
simple reason that at the end
of the day, Yugoslav leaders north and south will recognize that going
it alone is not a very good
option for any of them economically or politically. The complexities of
sorting out the ethnic
mixtures, dividing up
the commom property, and the prospect of facing the world as individual,
much smaller political
entities will chill secessionsist fervor when the decision time comes.
Scammell's article is by far the more profound and his predictions
for the future is based on
solid scholarship, but unfortunately, the New York Review of Books has a
very small readership
compared to the National Geographic. And our daily press and the
television sound bytes also
tend to report and exaggerate bad news from Yugoslavia.
On the economic front there is a lot of good news, but our daily
press by and large ignores it.
Yugoslavia is the only East European country that is currently
significantly reducing its foreign
debt. The debt had been reduced from $20 billion four years ago to $16
billion now, with the
expectation of another 2-3 billion reduction by the end of the year.
Inflation has been stopped and
reduced from a rate of almost 2000 percent last December to 31percent
this year to date and is
currently at a stable rate of 0 percent. Foreign currency reserves are
sharply up to a level of
approximately $7 billion. And the process of market oriented
privatiztion is proceeding far more
rapidly in Yugoslavia than in other East European countries. There has
been a very positive
development of new
democratic, independent labor unions throughout the country. And so
on. But you don't read
about these events in the daily press.
While we surely have every right to criticize the lack of media
objectivity with regard to
Yugoslavia, and the Serbs, I personally think we must also recognize
that the burning issue for the
future of Yugoslavia and Serbia is a viable solution to the Kosovo
problem. I don't pretend to have
any special wisdom on the subject. But I don't think the 1974
constitution was the answer. And I
think the citizens of the northern republics of Yugoslavia should
acknowledge that in the
mid-1980's they ignored the anguished pleas of thousands of Serbs and
Montengrins in the
Kosovo for attention to their concerns about their personal well-being
and security. And Iam
convinced that there must be an open and genuine dialogue in and about
the Kososo between
Serbs and Albanians in order for a viable solution to be found.
I have visited the Kosovo on many occasions, as early as 1955 as as
recently ast late 1988. I
have met repeatedly with Albanian and Serbian leaders there, including
several who are currently
actively engaged, and I believe that with the proper encouragement and
support from every corner
of Yugoslavia and from Yugoslavia's foreign friends, a solution can be
found. But this process
will never get off the ground if one party to the dispute is repeatedly,
incorrectly, and unfairly held
to be solely at fault. The modern Kosovo problem as been created by all
Yugoslavs. Let them join
together, with malice towards none and charity toward all, to solve the
problem. It is in their
common interest, and in ours, that they do so.
-
Editor's Note: The reader should keep in mind that this address was
delivered four years prior to
the publication of this book.
[John D. Scanlan served as US Ambassador to Yugoslavia in the late
1980s]
---
"QUANTI PAESI CI SARANNO IL EUROPA DOPO IL 1992?"
New York Times editorial Oct. 31, 1990.
"How many countries will there be in Europe after 1992? Seven,
according
to the bitter gibe circulating in Croatia: the European Community and
the six
republics that now make up Yugoslavia. Things could turn out that way
if
Slobodan Milosevic and his Communist cohorts in Serbia continue to hold
back
constitutional and *economic change* and stir up ethnic tension.
Ever since Slovenia and Croation elected non-communist governments
and
moved to *free the economy*, Mr. Milosevic has accused them of trying to
break up Yugoslavia. Slovenia and Croatia deny any separatist intent
but
want to turn Yugoslavia into a loosened confederation of sovereign
republics.
That would weaken the power of the Serbs ...
Yugoslavia's best hope lies in moving forward into Europe. But if
Belgrade resorts to force [to preserve the union] the door to Europe
will
slam shut. That's a firm message for the European community to send
now.
Washington can underscore this warning with one of its own: Any more
violence means no more aid.
... But it would be rash to cut off U.S, aid now, as Senator Alfonse
D'Amato has proposed. That would exacerbate Yugoslavia's economic
distress
-- and national passions. Voting down Mr. D'Amato's measure still
leaves
Yugoslavia on notice that aid is in jeopardy unless democratic change is
allowed to proceed in peace.
---
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/makara/fromthe2.htm
From the forthcoming Emperor's Clothes book, "Ten years of lies that
fooled the
world" -
Lying about Slovenian Secession , 1991
by Petar Makara (9-10-00)
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
In June, 1991 Slovenia announced it had seceded from Yugoslavia and
proceeded to seize
Yugoslav customs stations. The Western media then broadcast news of a
barbaric attack by
vicious Yugoslav troops, beaten back by brave Slovenians. But those
stories were pure fiction.
There was no such attack. Total casualties in this war were: 3 dead
Slovenian irregulars and 33
Yugoslav soldiers, executed after they surrendered. The Yugoslav troops
in Slovenia had not been
issued live ammunition, and this was public knowledge at the time.
Only one mainstream Western source admitted the stories were lies. That
was the 'European' in
its July 19-21, 1991. Note the date: barely one month after Slovenia
declared their intention to
secede, thus starting the first Yugoslav war of secession. The title of
the story was: "Lies win
Balkan war of words." It was written by Simon Freeman. Emperor's Clothes
has a photo copy of
the original. This is fortunate, for the article cannot be found on the
Internet using either the Lexis
or Google search engines.
The article is worth reading carefully because it at once exposes how
lies were used early on to
demonize the Serbs and at the same time implicitly supports some of the
propaganda it is
exposing.
The article has this subtitle:
"Yugoslavia has rediscovered the old adage that truth is the first
casualty of war.
Simon Freeman reports from Zagreb [Croatia] and Ljubljana
[Slovenia] where the
protagonists are involved in a fierce fight to capture the
attention of the world's
media."
It begins by talking about the Croat government's understanding of the
value of propaganda:.
[Quote] "The Croats' strategy today is clear. They are bombarding
the world with
information, which is usually so petty that it seems that it must
be true. But this is
an illusion; it is impossible to check most of these reports
precisely because the
clashes were so minor that, even if they happened, they left no
mark. And, in
between the recital of these so-called facts, the Croats toss
quite incredible
allegations; this week's favourite is to claim, straight-faced,
that the Serbs have
hired assassins from the Romanian Securitate.
[Quote continued] "Zagreb has launched this propaganda blitz after
carefully
analysing how the Slovenians managed to outmanoeuvre Belgrade in
the fight for
international sympathy. The Croats realised that the decisive
engagements, which
virtually guaranteed Slovenia's independence, took place in the
pages of the
foreign media and, even more important, in the news bulletins of
the major
television networks." [End quote.]
In fact, the Croatian leaders 'realised' nothing at all, nor did the
Slovenes 'outmaneuver' Belgrade.
The secession of these countries was planned and coordinated by the US
and German elites,
working through various agencies, including the CIA and BND. They
trained their proxy forces in
Croatia and Slovenia and then opened the pages of the mass media which
they controlled to
accept their proxies' propaganda.
How much maneuvering is required to win a media war when the Slovenes
and the mass media are
controlled by the same forces?
The Western conquerors divided the job of getting out misinformation.
The proxies in Slovenia and
Croatia were to craft lies, as best they could. The Western media was to
bring the lies to market.
The article goes on to say that "the Serbs" (meaning, the Yugoslav
Federation) are learning the
lesson that you have to use the Western media but that they are slow
students:
[Quote] "They have a leader, Slobodan Milosevic, whose brand of
stubborn
nationalism and hardline marxism is a public relations disaster.''
[End quote]
Note the propaganda hidden in this sentence. In the early stages of the
breakup of Yugoslavia, the
West tarred the Serbs with being "the last Communists on Planet Earth."
This particular
propaganda slogan was launched by the Croatian Catholic Church.
Then the article talks about the "cleverness" of the Slovene
propagandists:
[Quote] "The Slovenes cleverly portrayed themselves as
clean-limbed, tanned
churchgoers who only wanted to live peacefully and democratically
in their Alpine
idyll of mountains, lakes and meadows
[Quote] "The Serbs, on the other hand, the Slovenes suggested [and
the West
readily published], were ruthless communists. They were dirty,
unshaven brutes
who dropped cluster bombs on innocent civilians. They came from
the east, which
had always sought to inflict its intolerance, religious fanaticism
and alphabet of
squiggly lines on Europe.
[Quote] "These were grotesque caricatures, of course, but, thanks
to the brilliant
propaganda campaign in Ljubljana [capital of Slovenia], they have
taken hold of the
public imagination in the West, turning a complex struggle into a
straightforward
battle between the forces of light (Slovenes and Croats) and
darkness (Serbs).
The nerve-centre of this propaganda operation was an underground
conference
complex deep below the streets of Ljubljana. Here, a few dozen
officials from the
Slovenian Ministry of Information, backed up by young,
multilingual patriot
volunteers, worked tirelessly to service more than 1,000
journalists.
[Quote] "Inside this bunker the information flowed fast and
efficiently in an
atmosphere oddly similar to that found in a press centre at an
Olympic Games; the
results - tanks hit, shots fired, prisoners taken - were given
every hour. The
Slovenes needed a bloody, dramatic conflict to ensure the world
did not loose
interest. So they showered the media with details of battles that
had often never
taken place.
[Quote] Sometimes the Slovenes would enliven the day with
revelations which
were either ficticous or irrelevant...
[Quote] "...It was possible to report the war without ever
venturing above the
ground. Indeed, since it required an honours degree in
orienteering to negotiate the
labyrinth of roadblocks, many journalists opted [or were ordered?]
to remain
underground. But, for those who did venture into the sunlight, the
bunker war often
seemed a fantacy. For example, the world heard of a major battle
at Jezersko, a
small border post an the frontier with Austria. This greatly
surprised the Slovene
militiamen at Jezersko, who told me a few days later that the army
had fired a few
shots, taken the post and then, faced with Slovene reinforcement,
retreated
happily down the mountain. No one was hurt" [End quote]
Olympic Games indeed. The author counts on Olympian ignorance among his
readers. Some
thoughts on this excerpt:
1) He is telling us that Slovenes, for the first time in the
history of warfare, have
discovered that it is good to present themselves positively and
the enemy negatively. This
is astonishing. Even Hitler tried to present himself positively -
thus he launched World
War II by staging an incident which made it appear that Polish
border guards had attacked
Germany. And Hitler said he was fighting unshaven, dirty
communists also.
2) WHY did Western reporters sit in secessionists bunker and
present only the
secessionist side of the story when in fact the media of the
Federal Government of
Yugoslavia was also issuing daily news reports, and accurate ones
(i.e. that the stories
about fighting were lies). Why didn't Western reporters go out and
investigate to see who
was telling the truth? Why did these reporters happen to take the
side of secessionists
who described themselves in terms painfully similar to those used
by WWII Nazis? Why
did they refuse to give fair hearing to the news of a recognized,
sovereign country, one of
the founders of the United Nations, a country which had been on
friendly terms with the
West for many years?
3) Since when do Western reporters sit in a bunker while reporting
on a war? Haven't they
gone out and reported far tougher situations? The war in Slovenia
was feeble. The end
count of casualties was 3 dead Slovenian irregulars and 33
executed Yugoslav Federal
Army soldiers who had no ammunition (!) and surrendered. A total
of 36 people dead.
Some war! The casualty level of a bus accident. What happened to
so called Western
"investigative journalism" ?
4) The article says: "It required an honours degree in
orienteering to negotiate the
labyrinth of roadblocks [in Slovenia]" Baloney. Go and try to find
Slovenia on the map.
Hard isn't it? A country smaller than Connecticut. I guess these
journalists, with their true
"interest" in events, would be get lost in their Slovenian hotel.
With all those great and
terrible roadblocks and savage obstacles they wouldn't find a
bathroom.
5) Did ONLY the Slovenes have "young multilingual patriot
volunteers" ready to spread
their view of events? See how the image of clean-limbed young
Slovenes is presented
even here, where it is supposedly debunked! Are Serbs never
multilingual? Are they never
beautiful?
The author then presents his moral, which appears in the pages of the
'European' in large type:
[Quote] "Exaggerations will do nothing to heal the divisions which
are ripping the
country apart." [End quote]
Upside down and backwards, because in fact it is precisely the
exaggerations put forth by the
Western media which were the instrument for allowing Western involvement
in Yugoslavia -
justifying economic and military support for the secessionists,
sanctions against multiethnic
Yugoslavia, expulsions of Serbs, moderate Muslims and others who wanted
to hold it together, the
reintroduction of huge numbers of expatriate Croatian Ustashe fascists,
the disarming of
Yugoslav loyalists through introduction of UN troops, and the bombing of
loyalist forces, in Bosnia
and later Serbia and Montenegro.
Savagery was introduced from the West. Without the West, the Slovenian
and Croatian fascists
would never have had a chance in Yugoslavia.
-
Further reading....
1) "Germany and the US in the Balkans- a Careful Coincidence of National
Policies?" by T.W.
Carr at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/carr/carr.html
2) "What Does NATO Want in Yugoslavia?" by Sean Gervasi at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/gervasi/why.htm
If you find emperors-clothes useful, we can use your help...
(The Soros Foundation does NOT fund Emperors Clothes.)
We rely on volunteer labor and donations. Our expenses include: Internet
fees, Lexis, our Internet
research tool, and phone bills. We use the phone a lot for interviews
and to discuss editorial
changes.
Every month hundreds of thousands of people read articles from Emperor's
Clothes. By making a
contribution you will be helping to spread the word.
To make a donation, please mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box
610-321, Newton, MA
02461-0321. (USA)
Thanks for reading and for helping!
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Il 5 novembre 1990 Il Congresso degli USA, "grazie" all'impegno del
senatore Bob Dole, approva la legge 101/513, che sancisce la
dissoluzione della Jugoslavia attraverso il finanziamento diretto di
tutte le nuove formazioni "democratiche" (nazionaliste e secessioniste;
cfr. Sarah Flounders su "NATO in the Balkans"). A fine mese un rapporto
della CIA "profetizza" che la Jugoslavia ha solamente pochi mesi di
vita... la notizia viene diffusa dalle agenzie di stampa occidentali e
viene pubblicata il 29 novembre, giorno della Festa Nazionale della RFSJ
(si celebra la fondazione della Repubblica avvenuta a Jajce, in Bosnia,
nel 1943; cfr. http://www.marx2001.org/crj/IM/tempo90.gif e
http://www.marx2001.org/crj/IM/stampa90.jpg).
* "LA JUGOSLAVIA E' L'UNICO PAESE DELL'EST EUROPEO CHE STIA
SIGNIFICATIVAMENTE RIDUCENDO IL SUO DEBITO ESTERO..." Il discorso
pronunciato dall'ex-ambasciatore statunitense in Jugoslavia, John D.
Scanlan, il 22 luglio 1990.
* "QUANTI PAESI CI SARANNO IL EUROPA DOPO IL 1992?" L'editoriale del New
York Times del 31 ottobre 1990, nel quale viene commentata la legge
101/513 del Senato USA che blocca tutti i rapporti economici con la RFS
di Jugoslavia ed impone di considerare separatamente le repubbliche
federate in base al grado di "democraticita'" riconosciuto dal
Dipartimento di Stato degli USA.
* "LA STRATEGIA DEI CROATI E' CHIARA: STANNO BOMBARDANDO IL MONDO DI
INFORMAZIONI..." Un articolo di Petar Makara sull'inizio della campagna
di disinformazione strategica ai danni del pubblico mondiale, mirata a
consentire la secessione della Slovenia e della Croazia.
(materiali distribuiti dalla mailing list STOPNATO -
http://stopnato.listbot.com/cgi-bin/subscriber?Act=view_archive&list_id=stopnato
)
---
"LA JUGOSLAVIA E' L'UNICO PAESE DELL'EST EUROPEO CHE STIA
SIGNIFICATIVAMENTE RIDUCENDO IL SUO DEBITO ESTERO..."
Banquet Address by U.S. Ambassador to Yugoslavia,
John D. Scanlan July 22, 1990
Tonight, I would like to address the problem of the bad public image
that Yugoslavia in general,
and Serbia in particular, now tends to receive in the American Media.
The typical story on
Yugoslavia these days tends to have a theme that I would characterize
as: good Slovene--bad
Serb--poor Albanian. The most egregious recent example of this is the
story on Yugoslavia
which appeared in the August issue of National Geographic. The author
of the article takes at
face value, and quotes, anti-Serb comments of Albanians, Slovenes,
Macedonians, and Croatians,
most of whom are not particularly authoritative but represent
man-on-the-street opinions. He
does
not balance these by comments of Serbs except in one instance where he
quotes the angry
reaction of an Old Serbian friend of his about seccesionist sentiments
the author heard in
Slovenia. The author clearly seems toidentify much more comfortably
with Slovenes, Croatians,
Macedonians, and Albanians than with Serbs. About the only nod to
Serbian history is the
author's appreciation of the emotions Kosovo stirs in Serbs because of
the battle of Kosovo Polje
in 1389 and the subsequent centuries of occupaton of Serbia by the
Turks.
The sad part about this particular article is that the author
obviously knows something about
Yugoslavia but not enough to put events into proper perspective, and,
given the large and
influential role of the National Geographic, he is misleading literally
millions of Americans.
American ignorance of Yugoslavian history, culture, and geography is
by and large broad and
general. And why not, it is a very complicated story. Most Americans
do not know that Slovenes,
Croatians, Serbs, Montenegrins, and Macedonians are all Slavic peoples
with similiar languages.
Most Americans do not know that there are almost as many Albanians
living in Yugoslavia as in
Albania and that 90 percent of the Albanians in Yugoslavia are Moslems
who are able to practice
their religion freely in Yugoslavia, but not in Albania. Most Americans
do not know that the
Albanians in Yugoslavia enjoy the same civil and human rights as all
other Yugoslavs and have
infinitely more freedom in Yugoslavia than the Albanians in Albania, the
last Stalinist state
in Europe. Most Americans do not know that Albanian is a legal language
in the Kosovo and that
all Albanian children in the Kosovo attend Albanian language schools all
the way through
university, and Pristina is one of the largest universities in Europe in
terms of numbers of
students. Most Americans do not know that the largest and most modern
library and repository of
Albanian literature and culture is in Yugoslavia, in the city of
Pristina, not in Albania, and that that
library is one of the largest and finest libraries in Yugoslavia. Most
Americans do not know that
Serbia is the only republic of Yugoslavia that had two autonomous
regions carved out of it by the
Yugoslav constitution of 1974, when there was just as much justification
for carving out of Croatia
an Autonomous Region of Lika to recognize the more than half million
Serbs living there or an
Autonomous Region of Istria to recognize the large Italian minority
living there. I could go on
endlessly about what most Americans
do not know, but should know, before they make judgemental statements
about relations between
the ethnic groups that make up Yugoslavia.
I do not mean to suggest that there have not been human rights
abuses in Yugoslavia. There
have been many well documented cases of human rights abuses of Yugoslavs
by one ethnic group
by Yugoslavs of another ethnic groups or, more commonly, by Yugoslav
officials, and since we
have made human rights a strong and conscious element of our foreign
policy, we should not
hesitate to condemn human rights violation whenever and wherever we find
them. But we should
be totally objective in doing so and, in a powder ked of ethnic
divisiveness such as Yugoslavia
represent today, we should be extremely cautious to avoid the appearance
of tilting for or against
any ethnic group, particularly when emotions are as high as they are
today in Kosovo. As a
government, I think we have done so and I wish at this point to read to
you the official statement
of the Department of State issued on June 29, 1990.
"We are deeply concerned about rising tensions in the province of
Kosovo, in the Yugoslav
Republic of Serbia. Rooted in a long history, the conflict between
ethnic groups living in the area
threatens the well-being of all the people of Kosovo, Serbia, and
Yugoslavia.
"We believe this conflict can only be resolved through peaceful,
democratic dialogue and
respect for the dignity and human rights of alll citzens of the
province. It cannot be solved by
violence, intimidation, or the threat or use of force by any party. We
call upon the people and the
government of Serbia to respect and protect the rights of all Albanians
living in the Republic of
Serbia, especially Kosovo. By the same token, we call upon the Albanian
population in Kosovo to
respect and protect the rights of all resident Serbs and Montenegrins
and others.
"It is for the people of Yugoslavia alone to decide under what
constitutional arrangements they
wish to live. The United States continues to support the unity,
independence, and territorial
integrity of Yugoslavia. We hope that the people of Yugoslavia, of all
national and ethnic groups,
will live together on the basis of mutual respect, democratic pluralism,
and the principles
enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and CSCE process. It is incumbent
on the ethnic majority of
each republic and province to guarantee the security and fundamental
human right of all national
and ethnic minorities living within the territory.
"Since World War II Yugoslavia has, on the whole, provided a
commendable example of
national, cultural, and ethnic harmony in a multinational state. We
hope Yugoslavia can continue
this proud tradition."
If the position of our government is clear, balanced, and objective,
then why is the media
coverage of events in Yugoslavia seemingly so prejudiced in favor of
some and against others? I
would have to say that I believe Yugoslavia in general, and Serbia in
particular, have not been
particularly adept in public relations. That is one reason. I think
another reason is that we have
forgotten that Yugoslavia has been independent of the Soviet Union
since 1948 and has pursued
its own national brand of communisim, and that it is, in fact, very
different from the former
Warsaw Pact client states of the Soviet Union who now have liberated
themselves to one degree
or another. Yugoslavia liberated itself from the Soviet Union but not
from communism under much
more difficult
circumstances in 1948. And we were wise enough to come to Yugoslavia's
aid quickly and
substantially, seeing it as in our own national interest to promote
fissures in the Soviet bloc.
Yugoslavia is now handicapped by the fact that its communist party,
having successfully
portrayed itself at home and abroad as indigenous and independent from
more than 40 years,
enjoys more credibility and domestic support than the Soviet installed
and directed East European
parties. The latter all crumbled rapidly during 1989, while the
Yugoslav party, which has its own
firmly
entrenched domestic base, has displayed more staying power. This
prompts many foreign
observers to conclude, incorrectly in my view, that Yugoslavia is less
interested in political and
economic reform than the Warsaw Pact European countries. This is, of
course, not at all true. In
a sense, Yugoslavia invented perestroika and glasnost and since Tito's
death in 1980 has been
seeking in fits and starts to reform its political and economic systems.
The process has moved
more slowly than we would have hoped, to the extent that most Americans
are prepared to believe
that Yugoslavia has not yet liberated itself as Warsaw Pact countries
have. Indeed, I have been
asked by people who should have know better, "When is Yugoslavia going
to follow the pattern of
Hungary, Poland, and other East European countries?
The only truly objective detailed and insightful account of the
current situation in Yugoslavia
which I have read recently was a series of two articles in the New York
Review of Books written
by Michael Scammell, who is a professor of Russian Literature at Cornell
University. Scammell
does a brilliant job of presenting the nationalistic and political
ferment together with detailed
historical background republic by republic, from north to south. He
points out that since the end of
World War II, Serbs were the leaders in democratic thought and movements
until the last two or
three years when the Slovenes moved to the fore, followed belatedly by
the Croatians. Scammel's
view is that while the democratic opposition remained just as strong in
Serbia as in Slovenia, the
dispute over Kosovo permitted the Serbian communist party to seize the
initiative by directing
nationalistic sentiments against the Albanians. The Serbian dissidents
were thus upstaged and
outflanked by Milosevic, who exploited the issue in order to strengthen
the party at the expense of
the opposition. But Scammell goes on to quote Yugoslavia's most famous
longstanding dissident
Milovan Djilas as having told Scammell that he too first approved of
Milosevic because he
Milosevic had smashed the old Titoist myths of brotherhood and unity
that were holding
Yugoslavia back. He had liberated the consciousness of the Serbian
people and was quite right to
make Kosovo
and Vodvodina subservient to Belgrade, even though it meant sending in
troops. Scammell than
quotes Kosta Cavoski as having told him that Milosevic is righting a
national wrong. Cavoski said
that communists everywhere, and especially Yugoslavian communists, have
exploited national
questions for their own ends and have crushed national interests. The
Serbs suffered under this
policy more than other people in Yugoslavia. While Djilas and Cavoski
told Scammell that they
believed Milosevic's style is authoritarian and his tactics unduly
rough, they did not consider him
to be a neo-Stanlinist or neo-fascist. Djilas said no arrests of
dissenters are being made in
Serbia itself, and although Milosevic controls 90 percent of the press,
the press is more outspoken
than it was. The intellectual atmosphere in Serbia is freer than it has
ever been. Philosophers,
sociologists, and writers are freer now than they were even before the
war.
The objective, extremely well-informed observer, Scammell, is
optimistic that Yugoslavia will
survive. As he puts it, "It seems inevitable that the federal basis of
Yugoslavia will be
reexamined and renegotiated in some form or other." I will cast my lot
with Scammell. I
personally believe that recentralization is out of the question. But I
am confident that a more
viable form of federation or confederation will be worked out for the
simple reason that at the end
of the day, Yugoslav leaders north and south will recognize that going
it alone is not a very good
option for any of them economically or politically. The complexities of
sorting out the ethnic
mixtures, dividing up
the commom property, and the prospect of facing the world as individual,
much smaller political
entities will chill secessionsist fervor when the decision time comes.
Scammell's article is by far the more profound and his predictions
for the future is based on
solid scholarship, but unfortunately, the New York Review of Books has a
very small readership
compared to the National Geographic. And our daily press and the
television sound bytes also
tend to report and exaggerate bad news from Yugoslavia.
On the economic front there is a lot of good news, but our daily
press by and large ignores it.
Yugoslavia is the only East European country that is currently
significantly reducing its foreign
debt. The debt had been reduced from $20 billion four years ago to $16
billion now, with the
expectation of another 2-3 billion reduction by the end of the year.
Inflation has been stopped and
reduced from a rate of almost 2000 percent last December to 31percent
this year to date and is
currently at a stable rate of 0 percent. Foreign currency reserves are
sharply up to a level of
approximately $7 billion. And the process of market oriented
privatiztion is proceeding far more
rapidly in Yugoslavia than in other East European countries. There has
been a very positive
development of new
democratic, independent labor unions throughout the country. And so
on. But you don't read
about these events in the daily press.
While we surely have every right to criticize the lack of media
objectivity with regard to
Yugoslavia, and the Serbs, I personally think we must also recognize
that the burning issue for the
future of Yugoslavia and Serbia is a viable solution to the Kosovo
problem. I don't pretend to have
any special wisdom on the subject. But I don't think the 1974
constitution was the answer. And I
think the citizens of the northern republics of Yugoslavia should
acknowledge that in the
mid-1980's they ignored the anguished pleas of thousands of Serbs and
Montengrins in the
Kosovo for attention to their concerns about their personal well-being
and security. And Iam
convinced that there must be an open and genuine dialogue in and about
the Kososo between
Serbs and Albanians in order for a viable solution to be found.
I have visited the Kosovo on many occasions, as early as 1955 as as
recently ast late 1988. I
have met repeatedly with Albanian and Serbian leaders there, including
several who are currently
actively engaged, and I believe that with the proper encouragement and
support from every corner
of Yugoslavia and from Yugoslavia's foreign friends, a solution can be
found. But this process
will never get off the ground if one party to the dispute is repeatedly,
incorrectly, and unfairly held
to be solely at fault. The modern Kosovo problem as been created by all
Yugoslavs. Let them join
together, with malice towards none and charity toward all, to solve the
problem. It is in their
common interest, and in ours, that they do so.
-
Editor's Note: The reader should keep in mind that this address was
delivered four years prior to
the publication of this book.
[John D. Scanlan served as US Ambassador to Yugoslavia in the late
1980s]
---
"QUANTI PAESI CI SARANNO IL EUROPA DOPO IL 1992?"
New York Times editorial Oct. 31, 1990.
"How many countries will there be in Europe after 1992? Seven,
according
to the bitter gibe circulating in Croatia: the European Community and
the six
republics that now make up Yugoslavia. Things could turn out that way
if
Slobodan Milosevic and his Communist cohorts in Serbia continue to hold
back
constitutional and *economic change* and stir up ethnic tension.
Ever since Slovenia and Croation elected non-communist governments
and
moved to *free the economy*, Mr. Milosevic has accused them of trying to
break up Yugoslavia. Slovenia and Croatia deny any separatist intent
but
want to turn Yugoslavia into a loosened confederation of sovereign
republics.
That would weaken the power of the Serbs ...
Yugoslavia's best hope lies in moving forward into Europe. But if
Belgrade resorts to force [to preserve the union] the door to Europe
will
slam shut. That's a firm message for the European community to send
now.
Washington can underscore this warning with one of its own: Any more
violence means no more aid.
... But it would be rash to cut off U.S, aid now, as Senator Alfonse
D'Amato has proposed. That would exacerbate Yugoslavia's economic
distress
-- and national passions. Voting down Mr. D'Amato's measure still
leaves
Yugoslavia on notice that aid is in jeopardy unless democratic change is
allowed to proceed in peace.
---
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/makara/fromthe2.htm
From the forthcoming Emperor's Clothes book, "Ten years of lies that
fooled the
world" -
Lying about Slovenian Secession , 1991
by Petar Makara (9-10-00)
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
In June, 1991 Slovenia announced it had seceded from Yugoslavia and
proceeded to seize
Yugoslav customs stations. The Western media then broadcast news of a
barbaric attack by
vicious Yugoslav troops, beaten back by brave Slovenians. But those
stories were pure fiction.
There was no such attack. Total casualties in this war were: 3 dead
Slovenian irregulars and 33
Yugoslav soldiers, executed after they surrendered. The Yugoslav troops
in Slovenia had not been
issued live ammunition, and this was public knowledge at the time.
Only one mainstream Western source admitted the stories were lies. That
was the 'European' in
its July 19-21, 1991. Note the date: barely one month after Slovenia
declared their intention to
secede, thus starting the first Yugoslav war of secession. The title of
the story was: "Lies win
Balkan war of words." It was written by Simon Freeman. Emperor's Clothes
has a photo copy of
the original. This is fortunate, for the article cannot be found on the
Internet using either the Lexis
or Google search engines.
The article is worth reading carefully because it at once exposes how
lies were used early on to
demonize the Serbs and at the same time implicitly supports some of the
propaganda it is
exposing.
The article has this subtitle:
"Yugoslavia has rediscovered the old adage that truth is the first
casualty of war.
Simon Freeman reports from Zagreb [Croatia] and Ljubljana
[Slovenia] where the
protagonists are involved in a fierce fight to capture the
attention of the world's
media."
It begins by talking about the Croat government's understanding of the
value of propaganda:.
[Quote] "The Croats' strategy today is clear. They are bombarding
the world with
information, which is usually so petty that it seems that it must
be true. But this is
an illusion; it is impossible to check most of these reports
precisely because the
clashes were so minor that, even if they happened, they left no
mark. And, in
between the recital of these so-called facts, the Croats toss
quite incredible
allegations; this week's favourite is to claim, straight-faced,
that the Serbs have
hired assassins from the Romanian Securitate.
[Quote continued] "Zagreb has launched this propaganda blitz after
carefully
analysing how the Slovenians managed to outmanoeuvre Belgrade in
the fight for
international sympathy. The Croats realised that the decisive
engagements, which
virtually guaranteed Slovenia's independence, took place in the
pages of the
foreign media and, even more important, in the news bulletins of
the major
television networks." [End quote.]
In fact, the Croatian leaders 'realised' nothing at all, nor did the
Slovenes 'outmaneuver' Belgrade.
The secession of these countries was planned and coordinated by the US
and German elites,
working through various agencies, including the CIA and BND. They
trained their proxy forces in
Croatia and Slovenia and then opened the pages of the mass media which
they controlled to
accept their proxies' propaganda.
How much maneuvering is required to win a media war when the Slovenes
and the mass media are
controlled by the same forces?
The Western conquerors divided the job of getting out misinformation.
The proxies in Slovenia and
Croatia were to craft lies, as best they could. The Western media was to
bring the lies to market.
The article goes on to say that "the Serbs" (meaning, the Yugoslav
Federation) are learning the
lesson that you have to use the Western media but that they are slow
students:
[Quote] "They have a leader, Slobodan Milosevic, whose brand of
stubborn
nationalism and hardline marxism is a public relations disaster.''
[End quote]
Note the propaganda hidden in this sentence. In the early stages of the
breakup of Yugoslavia, the
West tarred the Serbs with being "the last Communists on Planet Earth."
This particular
propaganda slogan was launched by the Croatian Catholic Church.
Then the article talks about the "cleverness" of the Slovene
propagandists:
[Quote] "The Slovenes cleverly portrayed themselves as
clean-limbed, tanned
churchgoers who only wanted to live peacefully and democratically
in their Alpine
idyll of mountains, lakes and meadows
[Quote] "The Serbs, on the other hand, the Slovenes suggested [and
the West
readily published], were ruthless communists. They were dirty,
unshaven brutes
who dropped cluster bombs on innocent civilians. They came from
the east, which
had always sought to inflict its intolerance, religious fanaticism
and alphabet of
squiggly lines on Europe.
[Quote] "These were grotesque caricatures, of course, but, thanks
to the brilliant
propaganda campaign in Ljubljana [capital of Slovenia], they have
taken hold of the
public imagination in the West, turning a complex struggle into a
straightforward
battle between the forces of light (Slovenes and Croats) and
darkness (Serbs).
The nerve-centre of this propaganda operation was an underground
conference
complex deep below the streets of Ljubljana. Here, a few dozen
officials from the
Slovenian Ministry of Information, backed up by young,
multilingual patriot
volunteers, worked tirelessly to service more than 1,000
journalists.
[Quote] "Inside this bunker the information flowed fast and
efficiently in an
atmosphere oddly similar to that found in a press centre at an
Olympic Games; the
results - tanks hit, shots fired, prisoners taken - were given
every hour. The
Slovenes needed a bloody, dramatic conflict to ensure the world
did not loose
interest. So they showered the media with details of battles that
had often never
taken place.
[Quote] Sometimes the Slovenes would enliven the day with
revelations which
were either ficticous or irrelevant...
[Quote] "...It was possible to report the war without ever
venturing above the
ground. Indeed, since it required an honours degree in
orienteering to negotiate the
labyrinth of roadblocks, many journalists opted [or were ordered?]
to remain
underground. But, for those who did venture into the sunlight, the
bunker war often
seemed a fantacy. For example, the world heard of a major battle
at Jezersko, a
small border post an the frontier with Austria. This greatly
surprised the Slovene
militiamen at Jezersko, who told me a few days later that the army
had fired a few
shots, taken the post and then, faced with Slovene reinforcement,
retreated
happily down the mountain. No one was hurt" [End quote]
Olympic Games indeed. The author counts on Olympian ignorance among his
readers. Some
thoughts on this excerpt:
1) He is telling us that Slovenes, for the first time in the
history of warfare, have
discovered that it is good to present themselves positively and
the enemy negatively. This
is astonishing. Even Hitler tried to present himself positively -
thus he launched World
War II by staging an incident which made it appear that Polish
border guards had attacked
Germany. And Hitler said he was fighting unshaven, dirty
communists also.
2) WHY did Western reporters sit in secessionists bunker and
present only the
secessionist side of the story when in fact the media of the
Federal Government of
Yugoslavia was also issuing daily news reports, and accurate ones
(i.e. that the stories
about fighting were lies). Why didn't Western reporters go out and
investigate to see who
was telling the truth? Why did these reporters happen to take the
side of secessionists
who described themselves in terms painfully similar to those used
by WWII Nazis? Why
did they refuse to give fair hearing to the news of a recognized,
sovereign country, one of
the founders of the United Nations, a country which had been on
friendly terms with the
West for many years?
3) Since when do Western reporters sit in a bunker while reporting
on a war? Haven't they
gone out and reported far tougher situations? The war in Slovenia
was feeble. The end
count of casualties was 3 dead Slovenian irregulars and 33
executed Yugoslav Federal
Army soldiers who had no ammunition (!) and surrendered. A total
of 36 people dead.
Some war! The casualty level of a bus accident. What happened to
so called Western
"investigative journalism" ?
4) The article says: "It required an honours degree in
orienteering to negotiate the
labyrinth of roadblocks [in Slovenia]" Baloney. Go and try to find
Slovenia on the map.
Hard isn't it? A country smaller than Connecticut. I guess these
journalists, with their true
"interest" in events, would be get lost in their Slovenian hotel.
With all those great and
terrible roadblocks and savage obstacles they wouldn't find a
bathroom.
5) Did ONLY the Slovenes have "young multilingual patriot
volunteers" ready to spread
their view of events? See how the image of clean-limbed young
Slovenes is presented
even here, where it is supposedly debunked! Are Serbs never
multilingual? Are they never
beautiful?
The author then presents his moral, which appears in the pages of the
'European' in large type:
[Quote] "Exaggerations will do nothing to heal the divisions which
are ripping the
country apart." [End quote]
Upside down and backwards, because in fact it is precisely the
exaggerations put forth by the
Western media which were the instrument for allowing Western involvement
in Yugoslavia -
justifying economic and military support for the secessionists,
sanctions against multiethnic
Yugoslavia, expulsions of Serbs, moderate Muslims and others who wanted
to hold it together, the
reintroduction of huge numbers of expatriate Croatian Ustashe fascists,
the disarming of
Yugoslav loyalists through introduction of UN troops, and the bombing of
loyalist forces, in Bosnia
and later Serbia and Montenegro.
Savagery was introduced from the West. Without the West, the Slovenian
and Croatian fascists
would never have had a chance in Yugoslavia.
-
Further reading....
1) "Germany and the US in the Balkans- a Careful Coincidence of National
Policies?" by T.W.
Carr at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/carr/carr.html
2) "What Does NATO Want in Yugoslavia?" by Sean Gervasi at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/gervasi/why.htm
If you find emperors-clothes useful, we can use your help...
(The Soros Foundation does NOT fund Emperors Clothes.)
We rely on volunteer labor and donations. Our expenses include: Internet
fees, Lexis, our Internet
research tool, and phone bills. We use the phone a lot for interviews
and to discuss editorial
changes.
Every month hundreds of thousands of people read articles from Emperor's
Clothes. By making a
contribution you will be helping to spread the word.
To make a donation, please mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box
610-321, Newton, MA
02461-0321. (USA)
Thanks for reading and for helping!
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------