politico.eu

Serbia's latest would-be savior is a modernizer, a strongman — or both

Matthew Karnitschnig

BELGRADE — Depending whom you ask, Aleksandar Vučić is either Serbia’s last great hope to become a modern European democracy or a strongman-in-waiting whose autocratic tendencies threaten to destabilize the Balkans.

A one-time ultranationalist who played chess with the Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladić and served as information minister under the nineties wartime leader Slobodan Milošević, the Serbian prime minister presents himself these days as a reformer committed to leading his country into the EU. Europe, tired of the turmoil that rocked the region for the better part of two decades, wants to believe him and has put Belgrade’s membership application on the top of the accession pile.

Vučić is expected to emerge the clear victor in parliamentary elections later this month. The latest polls suggest his Serbian Progressive Party and its allies may even win an outright majority. The big question — for both the Balkans and Europe — is what he plans to do with that power.

His detractors warn that he is building an Orbán-like political machine at both the national and local level, quelling dissent by maintaining a tight grip on the country’s media.

“What’s his game? I don’t know, but it’s not good for democracy in Serbia,” said Jelena Milić, director of the Belgrade-based Center for Euro-Atlantic Studies, a liberal think tank.

Love him or hate him, it’s difficult to deny that the 46-year-old Vučić has become the region’s key political actor. By keeping a lid on regional tensions from Kosovo to Bosnia, Vučić has managed to win the confidence of key leaders in the U.S. and Europe.

‘We are fed up with being the bad guys of the world’

During his visit to Berlin in September, Angela Merkel applauded Vučić’s “courageous decisions” on Kosovo, adding that his openness to compromise had given Serbia’s EU aspirations an “important impulse.”

Sitting in his Belgrade office last week, Vučić, dressed casually in jeans and a sport coat over an open gingham shirt, returned the compliment. “I consider her to be the true leader of Europe and I’m not ashamed to say that,” he said matter-of-factly.

During the lengthy discussion, Vučić, an imposing figure of about two meters, appeared both confident and relaxed. Time and again, he insisted that his only agenda was to firmly anchor Serbia in Europe.

“My political philosophy is to bring the economy to the top of our priorities, which means to have political stability to do all necessary reforms,” he said.

Nationalist roots

Nearly 20 years after NATO bombs rained on Belgrade, the country’s economy remains weak. Economic output per head was just above $5,000 in 2015, putting Serbia, a country of just over 7 million, alongside the likes of Iraq and Libya. Amid the Balkan wars and persistent domestic tensions, Serbia’s economy never completed the transition from the communism of the Yugoslav period to a market economy. Unemployment is about 20 percent and the state sector remains the dominant employer in the country. Though the government is in the process of privatizing state-owned companies, many are too inefficient to attract buyers.

Nonetheless, Serbia has made progress in restructuring its economy to bring its debt under control in recent years, winning high marks from the International Monetary Fund and others. Economic growth, at 0.8 percent last year, is modest but has beat expectations. If all goes according to plan, the economy should grow by more than 2 percent this year, Vučić predicts, above the IMF’s forecast of 1.75 percent.

More important, the changing environment is attracting sorely needed foreign investment, from Ikea to Hilton to Chinese infrastructure companies. Just last week, China made an offer to acquire a state-owned steel plant, a crucial deal that could secure thousands of jobs in the beleaguered sector.

Given that trajectory, it might be difficult to understand why critics both in Serbia and in neighboring countries distrust Vučić’s motives.

“I consider her to be the real leader of Europe”  — Aleksandar Vučić says of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. “And I’m not ashamed to say that.”

The answer lies in his past as an extremist. In his early twenties, Vučić joined the Serbian Radical Party, an ultranationalist group to the right of Milošević that wanted to carve a “Greater Serbia” out of the ruins of Yugoslavia. He became a protégé of Vojislav Šešelj, the party’s leader who just last month was acquitted of war crimes in The Hague.

As minister of information in 1998, Vučić cracked down on critical journalists, imposed hefty fines on publishers that didn’t fall into line and even banned some foreign media, moves he now says he regrets.

Vučić broke with Šešelj in 2008, joining a group of other pro-EU Radical Party officials, including current president Tomsislav Nikolić, to form the Progressive Party.

‘I’ve admitted my mistakes’

In the years that followed, Vučić, who famously declared in parliament in 2007 that his home would always be a “safe house” for suspected war criminal Mladić, gradually became more conciliatory. While he never fully renounced his nationalist ideology, he condemned the Srebrenica massacre and acknowledged Serbia’s shared responsibility for the Balkan wars. He visited Srebrenica for commemorations twice last year, returning for a second visit in November after being forced to flee by a rock-throwing mob during his first trip.

“I do my best to be very realistic,” he said. “I’m not ashamed of my past, but I’ve admitted my mistakes, publicly.”

Today, he credits that metamorphosis for his political success.

“Many people felt the same,” he said. “They believe in me today because they had the same feelings, the same political attitudes, the same political stance and now they are different. We are changed.”

There’s no question Vučić’s conservative pro-EU message has resonated amongst Serbs.

A walk through central Belgrade helps explain why. For all Serbia’s progress, the country still has one foot firmly planted in its past. Reminders are everywhere. Just a block from Vučić’s office stands the bombed out shell of the former defense ministry, a prime target of the NATO bombings in 1999 that successive governments have left in ruins as a reminder of that conflict with the West. Along Knez Mihailova, Belgrade’s main shopping street, vendors hawk pro-Mladić T-shirts that read: “What’s the General afraid of? God and nothing else.”

For more than a decade after Milošević was overthrown in 2000, Serbia was controlled by reform-minded democratic parties. Many Serbs saw the democrats as the country’s salvation after the wars and isolation of the Milošević era.

It was a tumultuous period, marked by the assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić in 2003 and other crises. Many Serbs were also left disillusioned by widespread government corruption.

In 2012 parliamentary elections, Vučić’s Progressives captured 24 percent of the vote, finishing first. A few weeks later, Progressive party founder Nikolić was elected Serbian president, further bolstering the party’s position.

After another round of parliamentary elections in 2014, the Progressives doubled their support to nearly 50 percent, giving them a majority of the seats in parliament and making Vučić prime minister.

EU or Russia?

Despite his dominant position, Vučić called elections two years ahead of schedule in January, seeking a fresh four-year mandate. Months earlier, he hired another political renegade — former British Prime Minister and Labour leader Tony Blair — to advise him. Vučić’s aim is to secure another full term before he implements the deep job cuts and fiscal measures necessary to retool Serbia’s economy. His hope is that Serbia will be poised to join the EU by the time the government’s next term ends in 2020.

That may be wishful thinking. The Commission has made it clear it’s in no rush to admit new members, but the EU’s general disarray and political infighting may ultimately prove to be the bigger obstacle.

The risk is that keeping Belgrade on hold will push it deeper into the arms of Russia.

Russian investment in Serbia is modest compared to that from the EU. Still, polls show Serbs consistently regard Moscow as Serbia’s most important ally. Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Serbia in 2014 to celebrate Belgrade’s liberation from the Nazis in 1944 by the Red Army. The commemoration, which included the country’s largest military parade in decades, was even pushed forward a few days to accommodate Putin’s schedule.

While Serbs generally have a positive view of the EU, their connection to Slavic, Orthodox Russia has a more visceral, almost mystical quality.

That tendency appears particularly strong among younger people. Though most young Serbs believe both living and democratic standards are higher in the EU than in Russia, a clear majority would welcome a Russian military presence in the country and would support Moscow’s foreign policy, according to a recent Ipsos study of 18-35 year-olds.

Milić, of the Center for Euro-Atlantic Studies, says Vučić does nothing to counter Moscow’s influence. Serbia did not join the EU and U.S. in imposing sanctions against Moscow for its annexation of Crimea. Milić says Russia’s soft power, which she calls the “invisible hand” in Serbian politics, is growing. Šešelj and other far-right groups advocate closer ties with Russia. Their message is transported across Serbian social media by dozens of supposedly grass-roots pro-Moscow organizations that have sprouted in recent years.

Milić says her own institute, which favors a pro-NATO course, has had its servers taken down by hackers. She was recently given police protection after receiving threats.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic | John Macdougall/AFP via Getty Images

“People are sentimental about Russia but are pragmatic,” explains Bojan Klačar, an analyst with the Center for Free Elections and Democracy, a non-partisan group that monitors and analyzes the country’s political scene.

Vučić said he saw no reason why Serbia’s close ties to Moscow should be an obstacle on its way to the EU.

“Yes, we would like to preserve traditionally good relations with Russia …but our priority, speaking about foreign policy, is to be on the EU path,” he said.

‘Self-censorship widespread’

If nothing else, Vučić and his party have brought Serbia a semblance of stability. Though the liberal parties that preceded the Progressives laid the groundwork for Serbia’s EU aspirations, it was Vučić who formally set the ball rolling by beginning the accession process in 2014.

Nonetheless, his detractors say the stability has come at the cost of democratic values, in particular a free press. In recent years, the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has repeatedly complained about physical assaults against critical journalists, as well as hacker attacks directed at a number of media websites.

“Media outlets and journalists continued to face pressure from politicians and owners over content and editorial policies,” democracy watchdog Freedom House concluded last year.

This week, a reporter from Serbia’s public broadcaster in the Vojvodina region was suspended and had her salary cut for asking about Vučić’s ultranationalist past.

Vučić tweeted “all of those who punish journalists, supposedly in my name, should be ashamed of themselves.” But Serbian reporters say such reprisals are far from rare. In Brussels, officials downplay such concerns. Given the continued tumult in the region, Serbia looks to be a relative sea of calm.

“The EU is interested in the stability of the region and he delivers,” said Ljubica Gojgić, a prominent Serbian broadcast journalist. “From the point of view of Brussels, they couldn’t hope for a better partner.”

While acknowledging Vučić’s shortcomings, in particular his sensitivity to criticism, EU officials say they see no viable alternative. By appealing to both nationalists and reform-minded pro-EU voters, Vučić is in a unique position to move the country forward, they argue.

So far, he has given them little reason to doubt his sincerity. Not only has he stayed true to Serbia’s reform course, he has also helped keep the peace in the Balkans. On Kosovo, he proved to be more willing to compromise than the liberals in power before him.

During the refugee crisis in the Balkans last year, Serbia was a model of cooperation. After Hungary closed its border, Belgrade shuttled refugees to the Croatian frontier, ensuring the refugees safe passage.

In the interview, Vučić said his biggest worry was the rise of extremism in the region, especially in and around Bosnia. The recent Hague verdicts have reopened old wounds on all sides.
“Who knows what spark might ignite Bosnia,” he said.

In Serbia, Šešelj’s acquittal has made it all but certain that his Radical Party, which was shut out in the last elections, will win seats in parliament.

On the campaign trail in recent days, Vučić has warned that the nationalists could even regain power. Given his huge lead in the polls, the comments appear to be a spirited attempt to get out the vote.

Some analysts say the return of the ultranationalists could end up helping Vučić by making his party appear more measured.

The risk is that after regaining a platform in parliament, the extremists will return the national debate to a narrative of Serbian victimhood. Vučić said he’s determined to keep that from happening.

“We need a good reputation,” he said. “We are fed up with being the bad guys of the world … we want to just be a normal boring country in 10 or 20 years.”

 

newsweek.com

Panama Papers: Who was behind the investigation into elite's tax havens?

By Paul Lashmar On 4/4/16 at 8:16 AM

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

With the Panama Papers exposé perhaps we can now say the fortress walls of offshore secrecy are finally cracking. Such havens allow corruption and tax avoidance to take place on a massive international scale by some of the richest and most powerful people on Earth. Meanwhile, the poor get poorer.

Western politicians have huffed and puffed about clamping down on offshore havens but in reality their collective breath would not have knocked over a little piggie’s straw house let alone bastions of vested interest. It is thanks to investigative reporters, whistleblowers and unprecedented international media collaboration that the matter is being forced.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

The advocacy group Global Financial Integrity reports that illegal channelling of profits offshore cost developing countries nearly US$6 trillion between 2001 and 2010. As Facebook posters like to remind us, one percent of the world’s population owns half the wealth and they like to hoard it.

But finally things may be changing. We are being treated to the third major offshore data leak in as many years. The first was the Cayman Islands tax leak in 2013 that exposed a huge number of major figures worldwide as holding accounts in the tiny island—a British dependency—in secrecy.

Then there was the great HSBC leak which revealed that the company’s Swiss private bank had helped wealthy account holders from other nations to dodge huge sums of due tax. Now it is the turn of Panama—an excellent place to park large sums of money.

The Panama investigation has again featured a network of like-minded journalists in a range of countries. The network has been built up over a series of multinational collaborations. Among the organisations involved are The Guardian and BBC TV’s Panorama programme, which have a longstanding relationship with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) which is at the heart of this operation. The material is reported to have been leaked to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung from the database of Mossack Fonseca, the world’s fourth biggest offshore law firm.

As the cracks appear in the once invincible wall of tax haven secrecy, it must be dawning on the rich and powerful that their privacy is no longer guaranteed. The opening reports of the Panama Papers focus on a US$2bn trail to Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia. But we can expect coming days to bring revelations about many more people. The last thing the rich and powerful who have offshore bank accounts want is publicity about them. Their questions must be “where next” and “which havens remain safe?”

Secret banking paradise

What is important about Panama’s financial services industry? If you tap “Panama offshore” into Google you get a long list of adverts offering to set up a Panama offshore (secret) bank account for you.

For those wanting to establish a really secret tax avoidance scheme it is not good enough just to pick one offshore tax haven—say the British Virgin Islands or the Cayman Islands. You need a series of interlocking offshore accounts in different jurisdictions to guarantee anonymity. British Virgin Islands is good for setting up companies and the Caymans provides extremely discreet bank accounts. Meanwhile Panama is tax exempt and stonewalls requests for company information from investigators in the rest of the world.

Offshore companies incorporated in Panama—and the owners of the companies—are exempt from any corporate taxes, withholding taxes, income tax, capital gains tax, local taxes, and estate or inheritance taxes, including gift taxes.

Panama has more than 350,000 secretive International Business Companies (IBCs) registered: the third largest number in the world after Hong Kong and the British Virgin Islands. Alongside incorporation of IBCs, Panamanian financial services are proactive in forming tax-avoiding foundations and trusts, insurance, and boat and shipping registration. Violation of financial secrecy is punishable by prison.

Panama ranks at 14th position on the 2015 Financial Secrecy Index. But it remains a jurisdiction of particular concern. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Pascal Saint Amans summed up the problem recently: “From the standpoint of reputation, Panama is still the only place where people still believe they can hide their money.”

The Tax Justice Network says that “until now Panama has been fairly indifferent to reputational issues, but the increased attention that Panama receives will inevitably raise concerns among the punters that Panama is no longer able to effectively protect the identity of the crooks and scammers attracted by its dodgy laws and equally dodgy law firms.”

TJN says Panama has long been the recipient of drugs money from Latin America, plus ample other sources of dirty money from the US and elsewhere—it is one of the oldest and best known tax havens in the Americas. In recent years it has adopted a hard-line position as a jurisdiction that refuses to cooperate with international transparency initiatives.

In Jeffrey Robinson’s 2003 examination of tax havens: The Sink: Terror, Crime and Dirty Money in the Offshore World, a US Customs official is quoted as saying:

The country is filled with dishonest lawyers, dishonest bankers, dishonest company formation agents and dishonest companies registered there by those dishonest lawyers so that they can deposit dirty money into their dishonest banks. The Free Trade Zone is the black hole through which Panama has become one of the filthiest money laundering sinks in the world.

The investigators

The emergence of a multinational network of journalists prepared to take on these secret havens has at its heart the investigative journalist Gerald Ryle, who spent 26 years working as a reporter and editor in Australia and Ireland, including many years at The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age newspapers.

A quietly spoken man, he uncovered some of the biggest stories in Australian journalism, winning four prestigious Walkley Awards including the Gold Walkley, Australia’s highest award for journalism.

While working for the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia, Ryle was told by a source he would receive an significant package which could be the biggest story of his career.

I still remember the day it arrived, there was just the office manager there, I just hugged her and thanked her and walked back to my office. I pulled the package open and there was a hard drive inside.

At first he did not know what it all meant but it became clear that it was an enormous cache of details of confidential emails, documents and files from the offshore world. From what could be made of the scattered and vastly disorganised material, Ryle later recalled his thoughts.

I know it is a potential goldmine but I don’t actually know what I’m looking at, I’m not sure how valuable it is.

Ryle knew it was information from the secretive offshore world, was authentic and that the next step was to organise extracting the data in some kind of meaningful format. A chance to have access to the resources needed for this type of operation became available when Ryle was offered a job heading the International Consortium of Investigative journalists (ICIJ) in Washington DC.

Founded in 1997, ICIJ was launched as a project of the Centre for Public Integrity to extend the centre’s style of watchdog journalism, focusing on issues that do not stop at national frontiers: cross-border crime, corruption, and the accountability of power.

Teamwork

With the consortium’s resources available to him, Ryle started to organise an international effort to structure the information so that journalists worldwide could analyse and find big names and stories from the data on a safe and secure platform in an efficient and ordered way.

Within 24 hours of publication of details of Cayman Island tax havens in April 2013, the Guardian was filled with stories from a collaboration with the International Consortium of Investigative journalists (ICIJ). The tie-up also included the BBC in the UK, Le Monde in France, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Norddeutscher Rundfunk in Germany, The Washington Post, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and 31 other international media partners.

According to the ICIJ, 86 journalists from 46 countries used both hi-tech data crunching and traditional reporting to sift through emails and account ledgers covering nearly 30 years. One of the biggest hits for the ICIJ was on Azerbijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev, after he and members of his family were revealed as shareholders in at least four offshore companies. It is against Azerbaijani law to be involved in business while in power. By September 2013, journalists from 190 countries had produced stories from the database about prominent citizens who had hidden offshore accounts.

HSBC leak

Then in February 2015 a team of journalists from 45 countries opened to public scrutiny secret bank accounts maintained for criminals, traffickers, tax dodgers, politicians and celebrities. Secret documents in the data batch revealed that global banking giant HSBC profited from doing business with arms dealers, the ICIJ reported. The leaked files, based on the inner workings of a Swiss private banking arm of HSBC, related to accounts holding more than $100 billion. They provided a rare glimpse inside the super-secret Swiss banking system.

The documents, obtained by the ICIJ via the French newspaper Le Monde, showed the private banking arm had dealt with clients who were engaged in illegal behaviour.

In February 2015, after being informed of the full extent of the reporting team’s findings, HSBC gave a conciliatory response, telling ICIJ: “We acknowledge that the compliance culture and standards of due diligence in HSBC’s Swiss private bank, as well as the industry in general, were significantly lower than they are today.”

Later that year ICIJ was given access to the largest data haul so far—some 11m documents covering accounts held by the rich across the globe. The follow-up stories are breaking now and will fill news bulletins for months—maybe years. It is proof—if any were needed—of the need for investigative journalists to hold the powerful to account.

Paul Lashmar is a senior lecturer in Journalism at the University of Sussex

 

Dvor - Massacre of mentaly sick people in hospital... Danish documentary movie

 

This  Danish documentary movie  (in Danish, Serbian and in part of English) was removed from Serbian T.V. not to offend Croatian States?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9RXqbcA0TQ

A Yugoslavian Fantasy: 24th versus 149th Place

journal-neo.org

A Yugoslavian Fantasy: 24th versus 149th Place | New Eastern Outlook

Author: Phil Butler

In an alternative universe, what if Yugoslavia still existed? NATO’s expansion, the Cold War still being waged, the so-called democratic western nations destroying freedoms in the name of democracy, we’re already living World War III. At this crucial juncture in history, it’s absolutely imperative that we examine what has transpired the last 25 years. Yugoslavia and western intervention there, is perhaps the best place to begin. This article calls to question the peace that might have been. More importantly, it calls to question whether or not peace was ever a democratic goal.

Can you imagine Europe today with Yugoslavia as a key player among nations? I can. Yugoslavia was in fact, one of the greatest cultural and human experiments in history. Formed in the crucible that was the conflict in between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, Yugoslavia melded together people’s of both cultures, and in ways not seen since the time of Alexander the Great’s assimilation of peoples after immense conquest. The experiment, if I may call it that, lasted a little over half a century. The ideal was, to form a single state for all southern Slavic peoples. While Yugoslavia’s creation was partly a geo-strategic move on the part of Britain and France, in order to restrain or block Germany, the underlying idealism was sound and just. The provisions of the so-called “Corfu Declaration” called for what amounted to a constitutional monarchy not unlike England’s. Rights and suffrage, and core principles of something known as the Illyrian movement, were promising aspects of early Yugoslavia. Even though King Alexander would eventually suspend the constitution and elections, the melding of ethnic groups and cultures still showed promise. War, political machinations, internal and external pressures preyed heavily always on this fledgling world power. As has been the case in many such experiments, ultimately authoritarian rule became the necessity, even desirable.

To end the history lesson, when the national hero turned Dictator and world celebrity, Josip Tito was firmly in control, Yugoslavia played on the world stage. Then when his power waned, opposing forces found their foothold. No scholars or politicians speak of it today, but Tito’s part in establishing the Non-Aligned Movement of nation states was magnanimous and extremely significant, especially for the people who now live in Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, and the other former Yugoslav regions. I’ll get into this further along, but for now it seems important to outline this Non-Aligned Movement’s ideals.

The NAM’s foundations were built in Belgrade in 1961 by the initial ideas of Tito’s Yugoslavia; India’s first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru; Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno; Egypt’s second president, Gamal Abdel Nasser; and Ghana’s first president Kwame Nkrumah. To be concise here, maybe reflecting one of NAM’s greatest proponents, Cuba’s Fidel Castro. In a speech given during the Havana Declaration of 1979, Castro laid out the real purpose behind NAM, saying the movement should strive for:

“The national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries” in their “struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference or hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics”

So essentially, the NAM was to be an independent movement of nations in between the great powers, with the idea of negating the Cold War was in novel and interesting one. Of course the major powers engaged in this new political and idealistic warfare had at their core strategy, the inclusion of every one of these fledgling independents. As we see today, the battle goes on to fragment, divide and render powerless, countries and peoples everywhere on the globe. This can be seen most easily in the carving up of the former Yugoslavia, and in the fact the resulting states have shown no inclination to be part of NAM now. Instead, the EU and NATO have been the gravitational pull that moves Croatia and the others. We see the prevalence of “Cold War” strategy in the fact Belarus and Azerbaijan are the only two members of the Movement in Europe, Azerbaijan and Fiji being the most recent entrants, having joined back in 2011. However, the 2012 NAM Summit saw higher attendance than any previous year, a bit of a sign of our crisis time now, I expect. With a declared purpose of “world peace”, and fundamental rights and integrity as its dogma, NAM was and is a valid theoretical mediating framework. But let me return to the fantasy case for Yugoslavia now.

Looking at the breakup of Yugoslavia in retrospect, framing what is Washington geo-strategy everywhere takes solid form. The Clinton administration’s actions at that time have been parlayed and propagandized with the same Orwellian “doublethink” the public is mystified with today. Reading Washington think tank propaganda like that of the Brookings Institute reveals this. In “Decision to Intervene: How the War in Bosnia Ended” from 1998, author Ivo H. Daalder begins:

“While many have written eloquently and passionately to explain Washington’s—and the West’s—failure to stop the ethnic cleansing, the concentration camps, and the massacres of hundreds of thousands of civilians, few have examined why, in the summer of 1995, the United States finally did take on a leadership role to end the war in Bosnia.”

The truth is a much simpler reality. No one needed a think tank to discover why President Bill Clinton hesitated to intercede in Bosnia. Clinton was in fact, continuing the policies of his predecessor, George Bush the senior, to destabilize the Yugoslavian socialist success. We know now that US covertly trained insurgents played a vital role in fragmenting the region via an organization known as the Atlantic Brigade, which fought in the Kosovo war at the side of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), numbering some 400 armed fighters (Also see Christian Science Monitor 1999). There’s not space within this report to reveal the subterfuge and death dealing that came about because of US proxy wars in the former Yugoslavia. I will direct the reader to an expert.

The decorated soldier and award winning journalist, Colonel David Hackworth (November 11, 1930 – May 4, 2005) was a war hero and defender of truth for the thousands and millions blown to pieces by these wars. “Hack”, as he was often called, was one of the most decorated soldiers in history having worn; 2 Distinguished Service Crosses, 10 Silver Stars, 8 Bronze Stars, 8 Purple Hearts, and 34 Air Medals, to name a few. A journalist for Newsweek and others, “Hack” was in the former Yugoslavia at the critical moment. This piece by him shines light on the lies the American people were told about Bush’s and Clinton’s war there.  Comparing US policy in the former Yugoslavia to that of Vietnam, Hackworth uses the case of Sgt. Richard Casini, a recon trooper in Kosovo who stepped on a mine. In this singular incident, we see what we know now as a “ritual” of lying propaganda to mislead Americans and the world. When the boy’s dad was notified of his son’s injuries, “Your boy is being flown to Germany on the general’s jet,” was the news he got. Unfortunately, “Hack” was contacted later by Sgt. Casini, who had lost a foot, and learned how the boy had been flown to the hospital on a cargo plane wedged in between crates.

David Hackworth is gone now, he succumbed to cancer a few years back. The legacy of “soldiers against war” goes on, only with different proponents like those at Veterans Today and elsewhere. As for Bill Clinton’s playing at reluctance in the region once known as Yugoslavia, the sordid history of genocide and graft seems endless now. Another story I found, the tale of a Frenchman who trained with the Atlantic Brigade, it calls to mind Ukraine, Libya, and Syria of late. You see “patterns” lead us to the truth more often than not, ask any criminal profiler. The ghastly killing fields of the legitimate country of Yugoslavia, the investments in carving up the pieces left over, stain the hands of US presidents, British lords, and neo-Nazi German industrialists.

In an interview with a French mercenary names “Jacques’, Jean-Luc Porte reported back in 1999 how the US backed “Atlantic Brigade” was formed up. The skin head killer of Serbs and Croatians, by his own admission, outlines for us how fascism and Nazis akin to those seen in Ukraine of late, made up a killing brigade effecting the dismemberment of a former great nation. Wounded, rethinking his service to the cause, the Frenchman who joined other multinationals in Albania bore the mark of “HOS for Ustashis,” a proud brand of Croatian Nazis who joined the Germans in World War II. Not unlike the Banderites of the Ukraine crisis, the various proxy wars in the Balkans were manned by lethal killers from abroad. And top American officials knew full well the breed of murderers they pulled the strings on in Kosovo and throughout the Balkans. Yugoslavia, you see, became the template for Afghanistan and Iraq, Arab Spring, and the current anti-Russia onslaught. The names of Madeleine Albright, Javier Solana, General Wesley Clark and others continue to reverberate. In the former Yugoslavia the friends of key players in government planned a literal carving feast of potential creditor nations and investment bonanzas. The tale of this genocide in the name of democracy is almost too awful to speak of. Most of the people of these nations were set back 200 years, into a kind of medieval existence without hope. The only glimmer of possibility for most former Yugoslavians is quite naturally, the EU and its NATO protectors.

As I write this American, Brit and German planners are already carving up Syria. This Rand Corporation plan is not surprisingly clinical, even matter of fact, about partitioning a sovereign state. For those unaware, Rand Corporation is the Big Brother of all hegemonic think tanks. If you see it in print from these guys, the US military industrial complex invested money in it – period. Certainly there was genocide on both sides of the Albania-Kosovo conflict, as well as the other wars in the Balkans. This is not the point really, for the totality of catastrophe is what I am focused on. First of all the people of the united Yugoslavia no longer have any real voice. Secondly, the breakup of that nation has led to the death or dislocation of millions now. This is another story. But my “fantasy” Yugoslavia should be an eye opener. Let me conclude.

Yugoslavia was built on an idea that Southern Slavs would not remain a weak and divided people. A united nation of Yugoslavia was not easy prey for imperialist intentions like we see taking place today. It is a fact, that after World War II, socialist Yugoslavia became something of a European success story. Between 1960 and 1980 the country had one of the most vigorous growth rates in the world: a decent standard of living, free medical care and education, a guaranteed right to a job, one-month vacation with pay, a literacy rate of over 90 percent, and a life expectancy of 72 years. To my knowledge, not one of the Balkans states that were created can claim half this prosperity. It was this prosperity which caused western interests to want to destroy Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia’s multi-ethnic citizenry also had affordable public transportation, housing, and utilities. The not-for-profit economy was mostly publicly owned, not exactly the poster child for western democratic love obviously. The county could not be allowed to compete with Germany, France, and especially Britain, and the London and Luxembourg bankers could not extract their billions in a socialistic system. Yugoslavia had to die, and the Reagans, Bushs, and Clintons helped make it happen. Award winning author, political scientist, and Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, D.C., Michael Parenti has outlined the Yugoslavia disaster many times. According to Parenti, the U.S. goal has been to transform the Yugoslav nation into a Third-World region:

• incapable of charting an independent course of self-development;
• a shattered economy and natural resources completely accessible to multinational corporate exploitation, including the enormous mineral wealth in Kosovo;
• an impoverished, but literate and skilled population forced to work at subsistence wages, constituting a cheap labor pool that will help depress wages in western Europe and elsewhere;
• dismantled petroleum, engineering, mining, fertilizer, and automobile industries, and various light industries, that offer no further competition with existing Western producers.

Does this strategy sound familiar? Remember the Rand Corporation plan for Syria. Were Ukraine, Donbass, and Crimea understood before the Euromaidan? What is the plan for Russia? This is where the metal meets the meat my friends. In the Balkans catastrophe the West demonized the Serbs. In Libya it was Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, in Syria it is Assad, and the pattern goes on with Vladimir Putin as the biggest trophy head to put on some banker’s den wall. If that sounds contrite, I am sorry, this is the world we live in now. By the power of sleeping American citizens drugged stupid with worthless trinkets of super-capitalism – the world is being taken over by tyrants.

But what if Yugoslavia had survived? What if the great ethnic-socialist experiment had worked? It’s safe to say our world would be totally different today. For one thing, the EU with the Non-Aligned Movement of nation states (NAM) operating within its current boarders would be less potent, far less influential geo-politically. All of Europe might have led to Belgrade, and from there into the six republics now fighting for crumbs from Brussels. To galvanize how my fantasy Yugoslavian nation might look, I’ll leave you with the relative economic situations of current Balkans states, and the Yugoslavia GDP in 1991, positioned at 24th among world nations. As former President Ronald Reagan used to say; “Are you better off?”

As of 2015, Bosnia and Herzegovina is 112th economically, and conditions are worsening. Still the poor Bosnians think joining the EU will solve all problems. Croatia is currently 76th in the world economically, but Bloomberg just named the country one of the 10 worst on Earth. Macedonia ranks 130th, with agriculture being the only real industry, unemployment in the country is above 30%. Montenegro, despite the sheer beauty of the tiny country, is 149th among world nations. Like some other former republics, Montenegro believes EU ascension will solve everything. Serbia is ranked 87th in GDP, and seems more stable in many regards than her contemporaries. Slovenia ranks 81st in GDP, and is for some a potential miracle if tourism and other industries continue to grow there.

From a personal perspective, I recall a moment of prosperity in the former Yugoslavia, the 1984 Olympics at Sarajevo. Those were the first Winter Olympics ever held in a Communist nation, as I recall. The torch relay through Dubrovnik, then Split, Ljubljana, Zagreb, and countless other Yugoslavian cities, culminated in a proud moment in Sarajevo. The names of the gold medal athletes there have become blurred in my mind now, but the little wolf mascot Vučko, created by the Slovenian painter Jože Trobec is framed in my mind’s eye for some reason. A cartoon here in Yugoslavia at the time, the little wolf represented the people of these Balkans nations well. Wolves are prominent in Yugoslavian fables, they are the embodiment of courage and strength and the also symbolize winter. And as I type these final letters, I think about what the courageous and strong people of Yugoslavia might have won had their destinies not been interrupted by outsiders? All I know is, 24th place is a far cry from 149th in the Olympics. As for Yugoslavia, that nation is gone forever.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 45

 

rt.com

Is NATO sprawl aggravating a ‘Serbian Spring’?

A symbolic treaty between NATO and the Serbian government has spurred mass demonstrations and calls for an alliance with Russia. With pending elections offering a choice between bad and worse, the frustrated populace is channeling the spirit of 1941.

Last week, the Serbian parliament voted overwhelmingly to ratify a treaty with NATO’s Support and Procurement Organization (NSPO). President Tomislav Nikolic signed it into law on Friday. On Saturday, thousands of protesters marched through the capital, shouting slogans against NATO and calling on Russia for help.

Some have even compared the treaty with NATO to the old Kingdom of Yugoslavia entering the Tripartite Pact in March 1941; back then, a popular revolt against the Pact triggered a long-planned military coup and enraged Hitler to the point where he delayed the attack on the Soviet Union to “wipe Yugoslavia off the map.”

What gives? According to Serbian military experts, the agreement merely creates “logistical interoperability” between Serbia and the alliance. It is the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), signed by the previous government and ratified by this one last March, that actually allows NATO personnel free passage across Serbia and immunity from taxes, fees and prosecution. Yet the NSPO deal may be the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

Read more

Serbian outrage stems from being under NATO’s heel over the past two decades, from the alliance’s intervention in the Yugoslav wars, to the bombing of Serbia in 1999 and the subsequent occupation of its province of Kosovo. NATO powers have been at the forefront of demanding Serbia recognize Kosovo’s “independence,” declared in 2008.

“Our policy is clear,” Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic argued, “Serbia is an independent, sovereign state that wishes to cooperate with both the Russian Federation and NATO.”

The response of most Serbians to this is, frankly, unprintable. First elected on a platform of patriotism, the increasingly unpopular Vucic has spearheaded a policy of capitulating to the endless demands from the EU, US and NATO, while tempering it with symbolic gestures of friendship towards Russia. Opportunities for Serbia to profit from its neutrality by trading with Russia usually get ruined by the government’s sanctioning of fraud and dirty tricks – such as labeling EU apples as Serbian to duck the agricultural sanctions.

Read more

Even if Vucic is some sort of genius statesman, balancing Serbia precariously between Moscow and Washington – as some cautious columnists have argued – after four years of this kind of behavior, the general public simply does not believe it any more.

Vucic himself has a habit of praising the “Protestant work ethic” and telling the Serbs to “be more like Germans.” It does not help that his “reformation” from a Radical to a Progressive – literally, as those were the names of his parties – was midwifed by the US, and that he is widely perceived as but the latest in a long line of stooges at the helm of Serbia, ever since the October 2000 coup that served as the template for all “color revolutions” thereafter.

In the upcoming general election in April, Serbians will have a choice between Vucic and those who think he is not capitulating to NATO fast enough. The few parties that oppose the country’s slow digestion by the NATO-EU Leviathan could not even get into parliament. They have alleged voter fraud, but even if there was none, almost all the media in the country are owned by pro-NATO interests, and blast their messages accordingly.

Read more

 

One of the more cynical arguments in favor of the latest pact is that Serbia “needs NATO to protect the Serbs” in Kosovo. Critics swiftly countered that it was NATO who delivered the province to the terrorist KLA, causing the exodus of a quarter of a million non-Albanians; it was NATO who failed to protect Serb villages, churches, and cemeteries, desecrated or dynamited or torched by the hundreds since 1999; and it was NATO that for three days in March 2004 failed to stop the 50,000-strong mob from rampaging across the province. Were it not for NATO, the residents of Kosovo would not need ’protecting’ from the KLA to begin with.

Allying with Russia would make Serbia a target, NATO partisans argue, adding that the country needs to join NATO to avoid another 1999. “We’re either at the table, or on the menu,” says Vuk Draskovic, once considered a nationalist and now a fervent member of the NATO cult.

Many Serbs point out the same reasoning was used by the government that tried to capitulate to Hitler in 1941. “We were never a Russian client, yet we’ve been in NATO’s sights for over two decades now,” wrote one dissident blogger. “I can’t see how it could get any worse.”

Friday’s killing of two Serbian diplomats – held as hostages by Islamic State terrorists in Libya – by US bombs only underscores this insane logic of insisting that one’s tormentor is really a benefactor, which the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman rightly compared to the “Stockholm syndrome.”

So, Saturday’s protest was not about a minor administrative treaty, but about a decades-long train of lies and abuses. It was a cry for help from a people who believed the seductive lie that the 1990s were their fault and that NATO, EU and “liberal democracy” would fix everything, only to realize that everything they touched turned to ash. These people have watched with horror as the West used Serbia’s surrender to justify the invasions of Iraq and Libya and support fanatics in Syria and Ukraine. But the latter two examples also showed them that resistance is not futile – not anymore.

Nebojsa Malic, for RT

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

 

huffingtonpost.com

Why Serbia is Strengthening its Alliance with Russia

On January 11, 2016, Russia's Deputy Prime Minister, Dmitri Rogozin announced Moscow's intention to arm Serbia with sophisticated weaponry, including S-300 surface-to-air missiles. Belgrade's decision to deepen military cooperation with Russia caused controversy in Brussels, as Serbia in recent months has taken tangible steps towards accession to the European Union.

Serbian president Tomislav Nikolic has insisted that Serbia's strengthened alliance with Russia will not compromise its EU membership aspirations. But difficulties in balancing relations between the increasingly hostile European and Russian blocs, and long-standing tensions over Kosovo's status are significant roadblocks to eventual Serbian EU membership.

Serbia's contradictory foreign policy strategy of simultaneously expanding linkages with Russia and the EU can be explained by two main factors. First, Serbia's views on state sovereignty align more closely with Russian perspectives than the Western consensus. This normative synergy caused Belgrade to implicitly support Russian conduct towards Ukraine and Turkey. Second, Russia, to combat its international isolation and to partially offset the breakdown of relations with Turkey, is offering Serbia the opportunity to bolster its economic and military development, without the conditions typically imposed by Western economic institutions.

Serbia and Russia: Normative Partners on State Sovereignty

Since the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, Serbia has defied the Western consensus on state sovereignty, by arguing that Kosovo is an "integral" part of its territory. This contrasts with the 23/28 EU member states and 24/28 NATO members who have recognized it as an independent country.

Russia has consistently supported Serbia's position on Kosovo. In 2008, Vladimir Putin warned that the legitimization of Kosovo's declaration of independence would destabilize the international system. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described unrest in Tibet, and Albanian autonomy demands in Macedonia as pernicious consequences of Kosovo's de facto secession from Serbia. The Kremlin's view that the EU was violating international law and Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo, and placing ethnic Serbian enclaves at risk of violence, consolidated the long-standing Russia-Serbia partnership.

The 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea gave Serbia an opportunity to reward Russia for its resolute support for Belgrade's position on Kosovo. Initially, however, Serbia's position appeared unclear. Immediately after the annexation, Serbian Prime Minister Alexander Vucic emphasized his country's support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This solidarity built on the deep cultural, economic and humanitarian partnership between Serbia and Ukraine, that was highlighted by former Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko's 2009 statement supporting Serbia's WTO membership aspirations. Vucic's statement matched Viktor Yanukovych's 2010 opposition to Kosovo's independence, to uphold international law and avoid an Abkhazia-style frozen conflict in the Balkans.

But Serbia's refusal to impose sanctions on Russia and right-wing political leaders' open support for Crimea's re-incorporation with Russia diluted the credibility of Vucic's commitment. Belgrade has provided informal military assistance to pro-Russian separatists in Donbas, with Serbian paramilitaries fighting openly in Donetsk. Many European policymakers believe that Serbia regards Crimea's union with Ukraine after 1991 to be an illegal action analogous to Kosovo's unilateral secession. As Russia is a vital international partner supporting Serbia's position on state sovereignty, Serbia pledged its unerring loyalty to Moscow to reaffirm its historic alliance, even though this pact could greatly complicate its EU accession.

More recently, Serbia expressed rhetorical solidarity with Russia after Turkey's November 2015 shoot-down of a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 plane that was allegedly flying over Turkish airspace. President Nikolic blamed the incident on Turkey, claiming that the Turkish military had frequently violated the airspace of Greece and Syria with impunity, and questioned the credibility of Turkey's commitment to counter-terrorism.

Serbia subsequently sought to cool tensions with Turkey, by emphasizing the two countries' economic partnership and by offering mediation assistance in the Turkey-Russia dispute. But these diplomatic overtures obscure the shared suspicion of NATO military activities between Belgrade and Moscow, which revealed itself in Nikolic's condemnation of Turkish actions. The distrust engendered by NATO's bombing of Serbian territory during the 1999 Kosovo War partially explains Nikolic's unwillingness to accept NATO's argument that Turkey had a legitimate right to self-defense against Russia, and has caused Serbia to view Russia as a more trustworthy military partner.

The Economic Foundations of Serbia's Partnership with Russia

Since the imposition of Western sanctions against Russia in 2014, the Kremlin has tightened its economic linkages with Serbia. Serbia remains heavily dependent on Russian energy exports, as 80% of its gas imports come from Russia. Russia has exploited this dependency by charging Serbia $340 per thousand cubic meters of natural gas, a rate that is considerably higher than what Moscow charges Hungary and Ukraine. While Serbia has actively courted Western investment to improve its energy infrastructure, its lack of alternative short-term energy partners has forced it to accept Russia's pricier exports.

To offset Serbian qualms over Russia's dominance of the Serbian gas market, Russia has invested considerably in Serbia's economic diversification and development. This assistance became particularly important after February 2012, when the IMF temporarily suspended its loan deals with Serbia as retaliation for Belgrade's refusal to comply with IMF targets. After Serbia's IMF dispute, Russia expanded investment in Serbia's infrastructure. Putin pledged the expansion of the South Stream pipeline in 2012 and offered to lend Serbia $800 million for a railway track between Belgrade and Pancevo.

Russia's provision of credit to Serbia during a period of tension with the Western economic establishment also extended to the heavy industry and defense sectors. Russia established a humanitarian center in Southern Serbia to facilitate Serbia's purchase of Russian military equipment. The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) regarded these deals as steps towards making Serbia a Russian corner in Europe, akin to Cyprus.

The Serbian state media's coverage of investment flows has also benefited Russia's image amongst the Serbian people. Substantially more attention given to Russian development aid relative to EU funds in the years after Slobodan Milosevic's demise in 2000, caused 47% of Serbians to regard Russia as its main economic backer compared to 28% for the EU in 2014. This statistic was misrepresentation of reality, as the EU provided substantially more economic assistance to Serbia than Russia after the devastating spring 2014 floods.

The Serbian public's increased recognition of the value of the EU assistance over the course of 2015 could explain Russia's recent expansion of ties with Belgrade. As Moscow finds itself increasingly isolated internationally, Putin wants to entrench the idea of a Russia-Serbia special relationship at a time when an increasing proportion of Serbians believe that European integration is the ideal way forward for their country.

Russia's strained relations with Turkey following the shoot-down crisis could also benefit the Serbian economy. The Russian state media fuelled speculation in January 2016 that Russian automobile exports to Turkey could be re-routed to Serbia. Russia could also expand trade with Serbia's agriculture market to gain access to produce that Turkey has been banned from selling to Russian markets. As Serbia's economy is still undergoing a recovery from a 2013-2015 recession that reduced its productivity by 10% , short-term Russian investment is very appealing for Serbian policymakers.

In light of the economic benefits associated with Serbian trade with Russia and the compatibility of the two countries on sovereignty norms, it is unsurprising that Serbia is tightening its partnership with Russia simultaneously with its pursuit of EU accession. The crises in Ukraine and Turkey have tested the viability of Serbia's foreign policy balancing act, and Belgrade's refusal to commit to one side during a period of hostile EU-Russia relations leaves its economic prospects hanging in the balance.

 

sputniknews.com

Mass Anti-NATO Protest Held in Serbia (VIDEO)

Sputnik

Europe

19:24 20.02.2016(updated 20:52 20.02.2016) Get short URL

BELGRADE (Sputnik) – Patriotic activists of the Republic of Serbia gathered in front of the Russian Embassy in Belgrade to express peaceful opposition to their country’s cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on Saturday. 

Up to 2,000 people carrying Serbian and Russian flags gathered outside the Russian mission in the Serbian capital, according to unofficial estimates. Many expressed indignation over the death of two Serbian diplomats kidnapped last November who were killed in US airstrikes on Libya on Friday.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LRiaXe2yCTE

That day, Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic signed a confirmation of his country’s cooperation plan with the Western alliance. Serbian lawmakers ratified a diplomatic immunity agreement and logistical support for NATO representatives on February 12.

Serbia was among the former Yugoslav republics to be invited to join NATO’s Partnership for Peace program – the alliance’s pre-membership program – in 2006.

© REUTERS/ Sabratha municipality media office

It agreed to deepen cooperation with NATO through the Individual Partnership Action Plan in January 2015, which took effect in March 2015, shaping educational and technical cooperation, joint exercises and efforts to form a positive image of the alliance among Serbian society.

NATO carried out a 1999 bombing campaign over Serbia in support of the Kosovo Albanian population.

Serbia is also an observer state in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and an associate member in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

In 2007, Serbian lawmakers adopted a resolution upholding the republic’s neutral status toward military alliances.

Russia views NATO’s eastward expansion as a threat to its national security and a breach of the military bloc’s post-Soviet pledge not to encroach on Russian borders.

 

rt.com

Time to heed warnings of Syriza's ex-finance minister Yanis Varoufakis

After serving in the Georgia Legislature, in 1992, Cynthia McKinney won a seat in the US House of Representatives. She was the first African-American woman from Georgia in the US Congress. In 2005, McKinney was a vocal critic of the government's response to Hurricane Katrina and was the first member of Congress to file articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. In 2008, Cynthia McKinney won the Green Party nomination for the US presidency.

The former finance minister of Greece says people must work to save democracy from capitalism, otherwise the voracious economic system will completely devour the fragile political philosophy, he warned in a recent talk.

I was in attendance at a conference in Beirut last year when it was reported that Syriza, the left-wing Greek party, originally founded in 2004, had just done the impossible—or at least what we all thought was impossible. There was talk about ending austerity measures and Greece leaving the Eurozone: Grexit. Surely, a people's victory in the US was just around the bend?

At that moment, I felt hope that Athens would lead Europe and finally the United States in a people-focused policy that rejected neoliberalism and the nostrums of banksters. Indeed, after Syriza surged in Greece, Podemos made its appearance in Spain; Jeremy Corbyn won the nod for leader of the UK Labour Party; a leftist governing coalition was voted into power in Portugal. Suddenly, it seemed that the people finally had austerity on the run. The events in Europe gave me hope for a resurgence of progressive politicians in the US.

And then the unthinkable occurred: Syriza dashed my hopes when they sat down at the negotiating table with Germany and the banksters to ease terms on the repayment of Greece's debts to the EU. Yes, after the Greek people had voted Syriza into power, and then voted a resounding "No" to austerity policies in a referendum, Syriza was now at the bargaining table, agreeing to their demands. I couldn't believe what I was witnessing: A real-time betrayal of its own values as well as the people by a political party created to be anti-austerity.

I asked those around me, "What part of 'n-o' don't they understand?" Confused and disappointed, I reached out to my favorite experts on these matters, Michael Hudson and Ellen Brown, and they comforted me with the opinion that my instincts were right on the money: Syriza did not have to take the course of austerity that it had chosen.

The year 2015 started with hope as a result of the Syriza victory; it ended with the betrayed Greeks throwing firebombs to protest EU-imposed pension reform while Syriza privatized fourteen airports and sold them to the Germans as part of the bailout scheme.

Meanwhile, internally, Syriza was coming apart over the deal; the angst that I felt as an outsider was also shared by some inside the party. Eventually some members left the party and the government. One of those who left was Yaris Varoufakas, who is still fighting for a more equitable economic system, which will ultimately destroy capitalism if things continue the way they are, he has warned.

In a December TED Talk in Geneva (Capitalism will eat democracy — unless we speak up), Yaroufakas asked the audience to imagine two very high piles of money, one representative of debt and the other of idle cash stashed away by the wealthy. He said that there is approximately $5 trillion dollars sitting around doing absolutely nothing to invigorate the economies of the US the UK and the Eurozone; stagnant wages, unemployment, low aggregate demand, increased pessimism are the end result. He says that this is his main complaint about capitalism.

Read more

 

According to Varoufakis, all of the idle cash sloshing around should be invested into people and the things people need to make the economy grow and enhance their well-being. Investments in technology today can protect the Earth today and tomorrow.

However, the former finance minister did not limit his talk to discussions about the economy. He also waded into the murky depths of politics, where he issued a wake-up call to democracy.

"Capitalism will eat democracy unless the people speak up," he warned.

He told the audience that today's practice of "democracy" preserves the economic sphere for the few and separates it from the political sphere in which the many can participate. This separation of the economic and political spheres has led to, in his words, "the colonizing of the political sphere" by the economic sphere. This, according to Varoufakis, explains why Western democracies no longer work for the people. He believes that power has now migrated from the political sphere to the economic sphere.

I decided to test that theory on the 2016 US Presidential elections, and something unusual emerged: In large measure, individuals of immense wealth are the private backers of the public political personalities vying to win the Presidential election in November 2016.

For example, Marco Rubio has Norman Braman as his closest and most important backer. Hillary Clinton has Haim Saban as one of her top donors; Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire powerhouse who kept Newt Gingrich's presidential aspirations alive long after they were comatose, is still trying to decide which candidate he will back in the Republican primary.

At the same time, billionaire Donald Trump is self-financing his Presidential bid and intimates of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg leaked that he is willing to spend one billion dollars in his still-to-be-announced independent presidential run. This is the kind of relationship about which Varoufakis is speaking. He says that the economic sphere has been cannibalizing the political sphere to such an extent that it is even now undermining itself.

"Capitalism is like a population of predators that are so successful at decimating the prey that they must feed on, that in the end they starve," Varoufakis said during his TED Global talk. "Similarly, the economic sphere has been colonizing and cannibalizing the political sphere to such an extent that it is undermining itself, causing economic crisis."

He concludes that the more capitalism succeeds in taking the demos out of democracy the more inequality will rise and the economy will collapse.

His solution? Put the demos back into democracy and reunite the economic and political spheres with the political sphere in charge. In this space, I have called for the transformation of our economy to align more with our values. I have asked the people to dream again and imagine a better political system that actually solves the problems that confront us all today. I am working now for the elimination of the right versus left paradigm and for all of us to try to wrap our heads around a right versus wrong, values-based way of assessing public policy positions today.

In other words, ask: "Is it right for US policy to still be the greatest purveyor of violence on the planet today, as Dr. King characterized it in the 1960s?" And if we can agree that the answer is "No," then what can we do together to change that? I am willing to work with anyone who wants to change the violence profile of the United States—to the rest of the world and also at home. And therefore, I'm still hoping that Varoufakis's voice, combined with that of the other leftist parties now governing key countries in Europe, will inspire the people of the US to believe in themselves once again and the better, more peaceful future that we can create—together.

Varoufakis has unleashed a warning; I hope many will heed his call.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

 

Obama Changes Tack on Russia, Calls up Putin

Obama Changes Tack on Russia,  Calls up Putin 

 

By M.K. Bhadrakumar on January 14, 2016

http://atimes.com/2016/01/obama-changes-tack-on-russia-calls-up-putin/

 

The US President Barack Obama sprang a New Year surprise on his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin by telephoning him Wednesday night. It was a double surprise since the Russian New Year Holiday Week is ending on Thursday, January 14, and Obama rarely makes such gestures; and, secondly, the call signified a virtual U-turn just a day after the US president had made some unfriendly remarks about the Kremlin's policies and caricatured Russia as undermining the international system.

 

The Kremlin described the Putin-Obama conversation as frank and constructive.  The White House readout make it clear that the two presidents held a detailed discussion on the situation in Ukraine and the Middle East tensions (Syrian conflict and Saudi-Iran rift) and North Korea's dangerous nuclear brinkmanship. It was indeed a substantial phone conversation, signifying a Russian-American constructive engagement.

 

The Kremlin readout is an unusually detailed one, conveying a high degree of satisfaction, while the White House readout underscored that Obama's intention was to discuss with Putin the "full implementation" of the Minsk agreement on Ukraine "by all parties", to coordinate on the upcoming UN-sponsored roadmap on Syrian transition, and to get Russia on board a unified big-power stance to pressure North Korea.

 

According to the Kremlin's version, Putin stressed the "need for Kiev's full and rigorous observance of the Minsk Agreements", in particular regarding the constitutional amendments that enable local elections to be held in the breakaway regions of Donbass. The White House maintained that on his part, Obama stressed that "the key next step" is about the two sides in Ukraine reaching agreement on the modalities of holding elections in the breakaway regions.

 

The difference over the implementation of the Minsk agreement appears to have narrowed down to a matter of the relative stress the two big powers put on what are indeed two inter-related aspects of the current situation, namely, the constitutional reform and the holding of local elections under the new legislation.

On Syria, Putin brought up "the need to create a broad coalition to fight the Islamic State and other extremist organizations" and on the criticality of avoiding "double standards" in naming the irreconcilable rebel groups that will be kept out of the purview of the peace talks. Interestingly, there was a discussion on military-to-military contacts between the US and Russia "aimed at consolidating efforts" to fight extremist groups in the Middle East.

The two presidents have called for de-escalation of the Saudi-Iran rift. They obviously share the concern that tensions may result in flashpoint at some point. If the Saudi hope was that Washington will be obliged to take sides in the rift, things are moving altogether in a different way. (The ease with which Washington and Tehran defused a potentially ugly stand-off over the detention of 10 American sailors by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards this week suggests a deepening US-Iranian engagement, which cannot be lost on Riyadh.)

 

On North Korea, notwithstanding the cordial ties between Russia and that country, Moscow is backing Washington's tough approach as regards meting out a "harsh international response" (Kremlin's words) to the reported testing of a hydrogen bomb by Pyongyang. Russia, of course, disfavours any precipitate military actions by the US but has reason to feel gratified that the Obama administration has taken the issue to the UN Security Council and is not acting as a lone ranger.

 

What does Obama hope to convey through this rare gesture of phoning up Putin amidst the Russian New Year festivities? Indeed, he felt it prudent on second thoughts not to cause annoyance to Moscow at a juncture when the US badly needs Russia's cooperation to tackle a host of regional issues. In sum, he has hastened to correct the impression he put forth in his 2016 State of the Union Address on Tuesday regarding Russia as a pernicious entity in the international system. Obama signaled the following:

• The US is no longer playing a behind-the-scenes role of inciting its proxy government in Kiev to drag its feet on the full implementation of the Minsk agreement (which is a precondition for the West to lift sanctions against Russia).
• The US stance does "see Syria fundamentally very similarly" with Russia – to use Secretary of State John Kerry's words – and the two countries need to work together in resolving the conflict. Kerry was, perhaps, more explicit after his talks in the Kremlin on December 20: "We (US) are not trying to do a regime change. We are not engaged in a colour revolution".
• The US will not take sides in the Saudi-Iran rift; nor is it seeking to take advantage of a flare-up in sectarian strife in the Muslim Middle East.
• The US recognizes that Russia's cooperation is necessary and useful to pursue a "strong and united international response" to the North Korean regime.

The Kremlin described the Putin-Obama conversation as "frank and constructive". Indeed, differences exist between the US and Russia, including some serious differences such as on NATO's expansion or the US' missile defense system. The Russian experience so far has been that the US played a spoiler's role in Ukraine and has not really come to terms with the stunning reality of Russian military presence in Syria. Besides, there is no let-up whatsoever discernible in the US official media propaganda against Russia, which is very often highly personalized attacks on Putin.

 

However, if Obama has really embarked upon a "constructive" engagement with Putin, the latter can be expected to respond positively. Putin never tires of pointing out that the New Cold War is a choice that Obama needs to make and that Russia by itself is averse to.

 

The coming weeks will be keenly watched as to how the US-Russia engagement actually works on the ground. Both Ukraine and Syria are immediate testing grounds. The local elections in Donbass cannot wait much longer and the ceasefire and the transition in Syria is also on the cards.

 

But looking ahead, the real touchstone will be any incipient signs of the easing of western sanctions against Russia. Any such signs would go a long way to confirm that Obama has had misgivings about his administration's messianic mission to 'punish' Russia, which Russia will never accept, and which can only create more turbulence in a world that is already in turmoil

theremustbejustice.wordpress.com

New Croatian President denies Serb's right to exist

Newly elected Croatian president Kolinda Grabar Kitarovic, who was the candidate of the conservative (i.e. neoUstasha Croatian Democratic Union HDZ, who ethnically cleansed majority of Serbs and finally, with the help of US/NATO, managed to occupy Republic of Srpska Krajina) , at the election on Sunday was not only the choice of the Croatian people, but also of NATO, where she had worked as assistant secretary general.

The election results revealed a strong NATO influence in Croatian, rigid anti Serb, Nazi – like policy, and that the citizen option suffered a defeat in Croatia's  society

"I hope that, despite that negative rhetoric from the 1990 she adopted as well as outbreak of national extremism and chouvinism during the election campaign, the Croatian president will respect the rights of the Serbs,"   leader of the Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) Sandra Raskovic Ivic remarked.

During the war in Croatia, which erupted during HDZ's rule and after its secession from the former Yugoslavia, 404,000 Serbs fled the country, leaving an estimated EUR 30 billion in property.

A huge majority of the refugees have not regained their property , pensions and shares in companies that have been privatised, therefore Serbia should insist on the implementation of the Vienna succession agreement covering the former Yugoslavia, which states that all citizens should be given back the rights they had on December 31, 1990..

Another ' verbal'  incident Kolinda made about Serbian northern province, saying that Vojvodina is a state.

Serbian Flag is "Banned Insignia" In Croatia

Three young Serbs were arrested in Vukovar  for taking photos of themselves in battle fatigues with the flag of Serbia at the entrance to Vukovar and posted the pictures  on social networks on Orthodox Christmas, January 7. 

The Vukovar police filed criminal charges against them on Saturday. Their Crime was: taking picture of themselves with Serbian flag! Meanwhile   Croats en mase shout: 'Za dom spremni'  that is Croatian version of Seig Heil!'

 

Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as usually when NATO and EU member states don't respect basic human rights os Serbs, simply overlooked,  instead of addressing to the EU and UN institutions with request to exert influence on Croatia and force that state to act in civilized manned and respect basic human rights of local Serbs.

The innocent youths were arrested as a bargaining chip in the election campaign and continuation of the political campaign in which anti-Serb attitude constitutes a very important category.

NATO granny enjoys the beach  –  Grabar Kitarovic 

It is scandalous that the Serb youths were arrested just because they took photos with the flag of the Republic of Serbia on Christmas Eve and that the police released that they were arrested because they took photos with banned insignia.

Unfortunately, all this represents continuation of the policy of forceful assimilation of Serbs in Croatia and this needs to be pointed out, Raskovic – Ivic and her party ' The Third Serbia' says, adding that Serbs in Croatia are deprived of their basic human rights, including even the right to property, alphabet and language.

What is obvious is that this former NATO assistant sec. general is elected to continue NATO policy in Balkans, i.e. further blooming of extremism, further fascisation of Croatia, and at the same time,  further humiliation of Serbs and Serbia.

Grey Carter

sources: http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/who_is_who_76170.htm

http://www.telegraf.rs/vesti/1385156-skandal-u-hrvatskoj-srbi-uhapseni-jer-su-se-fotografisali-sa-srpskom-zastavom

http://www.independent.mk/articles/13270/Croatias+New+President+Should+Respect+Serbs+Rights