I recently came across some samples of the propaganda leaflets dropped by Nato on Yugoslavia during the 1999 bombing campaign.
Of course the crude propaganda written on Nato’s leaflets can easily be discredited. For instance one leaflet claims that Nato tried everything to achieve a peaceful solution in Yugoslavia, whereas anyone conversant with the Ramboulliet document will know that what Nato wanted was not a just and peaceful resolution but a complete capitulation by the FRY. Nevertheless the leaflets not only serve as historical documents but also reveal the thinking and aims of the aggressors.
The warning to ‘get out of Kosovo’, contained in several of the leaflets, is stated as if Kosovo was not an integral part of Serbia and Yugoslavia itself and that theYugoslavs were the actual invaders rather than the inhabitants.
Also the demonisation of Slobodan Milosevic prevalent in many such leaflets highlights the fact that Nato were using the name Milosevic as a substitute for the name Yugoslavia.
In October 1991 Britain’s Lord Carrington called the leaders of the Yugoslav republics to a meeting in The Hague, Netherlands. The discussions within the EU at this time revolved around three possible outcomes to the Yugoslav ‘problem’. 1) For its structure to stay as it was. 2) For certain republics to secede. 3) Complete dismantling.
Unusually no agenda was supplied to the Yugoslav delegation prior to their attendance. Once at the meeting the delegation was surprised to encounter not only Carrington but also all the foreign ministers of the EU. They were told that there was to be discussions on only one of the possible options, namely, the complete dismantling of Yugoslavia.
The EU ministers all spoke in favour of this option, as did the majority of the heads of the republics. With unanimous agreement at this point for his proposal Carrington turned to listen to the last speaker, Slobodan Milosevic. Mr Milosevic rose to his feet and said, and I paraphrase, ” Gentlemen, you did not contribute to the creation of Yugoslavia, you did not contribute to the building of Yugoslavia, and you have no right to call for its dismantling. I can not agree to this over the heads of the people of Yugoslavia and now I am returning home.” With this he picked up his papers, turned and walked out of the meeting.
This reinforced the European powers belief that in order to destroy the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia they would also have to destroy Slobodan Milosevic.
Thus the name Milosevic became synonymous with the name and existence of Yugoslavia.
Mr Milosevic understood very well that small, economically weak mini-states could only ever be mere vassals under the control of the major powers. What was being negotiated away at Carrington’s meeting was any real meaning of sovereignty and independence.
A revealing anecdote to the above meeting is the role played at this time by the United States. According to British Foreign Office sources the Americans had told the Europeans that the EU should take the initiative in this period and that the US would play a secondary role and merely follow whatever decisions the EU made.
The Europeans were to find out later that at the same time as the US was proposing this line they were simultaneously funding and arming the Bosnian Muslims.
It is sometimes extremely difficult to ascertain which is the more corrupt, deceitful and criminal body, the EU or the US government.
The Propaganda Continues.
Psychological warfare does not necessarily stop when the bombing ends.
The pro-western media now dominant in Yugoslavia and throughout Eastern Europe play a crucial role in spreading disinformation and fear. Indeed station B92 should surely be more accurately named as Serbia’s CNN. And it is striking to see that the rewriting of Yugoslav history is now emanating from Belgrade itself.
Furthermore the charges used against Milosevic of ‘isolating Serbia’ find an echo today in the propaganda used against Radical Party leader Tomislav Nikolic, namely that an election victory for Nikolic would ‘isolate Serbia’ from the rest of Europe, a charge that no doubt played a role in the recent presidential elections, narrowly won by the pro-US market reformer Boris Tadic.
More than half of the people eligible to vote didn’t, obviously their reasons can only be guessed at. However over forty-percent of those that did vote backed Mr Nikolic, clearly not persuaded by western propaganda to take the road of further market reforms and an orientation to the big business club known as the European Union. To their credit they saw a vote for Mr Nikolic as a stand for self-determination and national sovereignty and a snub to the imposition of the New World Order.
Despite the approval of the western elite the victory of Boris Tadic will solve none of the basic economic and political problems facing Serbia today. The road being taken by the pro-US elements inside the country cannot but bring further hardship to the general population.
James Petras in a recent article (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/PET406B ) outlined the results of this road as seen in other countries over the last fifteen years. His findings are worth quoting at length:
In Poland, the former Gdansk Shipyard, point of origin of the Solidarity Trade Union, is closed and now a museum piece. Over 20% of the labor force is officially unemployed (Financial Times, Feb. 21/22, 2004) and has been for the better part of the decade. Another 30% is “employed” in marginal, low paid jobs (prostitution, contraband, drugs, flea markets, street venders and the underground economy). In Bulgaria, Rumania, Latvia, and East Germany similar or worse conditions prevail: The average real per capita growth over the past 15 years is far below the preceding 15 years under communism (especially if we include the benefits of health care, education, subsidized housing and pensions). Moreover economic inequalities have grown geometrically with 1% of the top income bracket controlling 80% of private assets and more than 50% of income while poverty levels exceed 50% or even higher. In the former USSR, especially south-central Asian republics like Armenia, Georgia, and Uzbekistan, living standards have fallen by 80%, almost one fourth of the population has out-migrated or become destitute and industries, public treasuries and energy sources have been pillaged. The scientific, health and educational systems have been all but destroyed. In Armenia, the number of scientific researchers declined from 20,000 in 1990 to 5,000 in 1995, and continues on a downward slide (National Geographic, March 2004). From being a center of Soviet high technology, Armenia today is a country run by criminal gangs in which most people live without central heat and electricity.
Highlighting how the privatisation process has undermined the public health system in these countries Petras goes on to observe:
A big contributor to the AIDS epidemic are the criminal gangs of Russia, Eastern Europe, the Balkans and Baltic countries, who trade in heroin and each year deliver over 200,000 ‘sex-slaves’ to brothels throughout the world. The violent Albanian mafia operating out of the newly “liberated” Kosova (sic) controls a significant part of the heroin trade and trafficking in sex-slaves throughout Western Europe and North America. Huge amounts of heroin produced by the US allied war lords of “liberated” Afghanistan pass through the mini-states of former Yugoslavia flooding Western European countries.
Opposition.
That membership of the European Union will bring prosperity and end the perceived isolation of a country is a myth. The EU exists as a vehicle for the free movement of capital in its search for ever greater profits. What membership of this organisation does is to open up a country to full foreign penetration of its economy. Much of the privatisation process continuing in Britain emanates from EU directives, most recently for instance the post office and railways. Moreover the convergence criteria demanded by the EU means that a maximum of only 3% of a country’s GDP can be used on public spending. In Britain this signals the phasing out of the NHS, council housing, state education, pensions and general welfare provisions. All will go private with devastating social consequences.
Britain apparently has the fourth strongest economy in the world. What benefits therefore does this ‘strong’ economy bring to the vast majority of the population of Britain? As well as the problems outlined above it is a sobering thought that the personal debt of Britain’s 58 million people is greater than the external debts of Latin America, Asia and Africa combined.
The main beneficiaries of this situation are the banks and financial institutions whose profits over the last year alone have rocketed by over 30%. And it is these same financial institutions, through the current propaganda, that are promising states such as Serbia a future of milk and honey!
Therefore the struggle being conducted in Serbia today, whether consciously or not, is part of a much larger movement worldwide, which is opposing the imposition of the New World Order, and all the misery and poverty that entails for the majority of the world’s population. Moreover the fight for truth and justice that Slobodan Milosevic is engaged in at The Hague is central to that struggle.
Objective and independent reporting of Milosevic and The Hague tribunal is virtually impossible in today’s mainstream media. A small but revealing example of this is the instance when a freelance journalist wrote about the Djindjic assassination for a leading UK newspaper. His article contained several references to Mr Milosevic. He was told that if he wanted his piece to be published he would have to preface the name Slobodan Milosevic with the words ‘the dictator’. The journalist, an honest man, argued that Milosevic had been elected democratically on no less than three occasions so it would be misleading to call him a ‘dictator’. Nevertheless the final published article made reference to ‘the dictator Slobodan Milosevic’. This, I hasten to add, was a so-called ‘liberal’ newspaper, yet it reflected the rules by which any reporting on Yugoslavia is subjected to.
Few people have been as vilified in the western press as Mr Milosevic, yet even fewer people have shown such courage in the face of adversity. For the last two years from The Hague he has consistently defended his country and its people against all attempts by the aggressors to rewrite the history of Yugoslavia. When you compare his heroic stance to that of the government currently in power in Belgrade and to that of the powers behind the illegal Hague tribunal, you cannot fail to reach the conclusion that we are witnessing the contrast between a political giant as opposed to a gang of political pygmies.
In this crucial period in history we are proud to support him.
