From: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com (abolition-usa-digest) To: abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: abolition-usa-digest V1 #123 Reply-To: abolition-usa-digest Sender: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-abolition-usa-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk abolition-usa-digest Monday, May 3 1999 Volume 01 : Number 123 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 19:54:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Timothy Bruening Subject: (abolition-usa) NATO Drops Uranium, On Serbs And Albanians I am trying to write a letter about the use by NATO of bombs containing Depleted Uranium (DU) on Yugoslavia. I would entitled it "NATO Drops Uranium, On Serbs And Albanians". Please send me information and a sample letter about the use of DU on Yugoslavia. Is DU being used on Yugoslavia? If so, what newspaper stories and other sources can I site about the use of DU on Yugoslavia? What media reports have there been on this subject? - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 03:26:42 EDT From: DavidMcR@aol.com Subject: (abolition-usa) Really Crucial / Yevtushenko/Yugoslavia ( For those who missed it, this column is, in my view, one of the best statement of the human - and political side - of this struggle and this tragedy. I am grateful to the CoC net for putting it out on their list. I really do urge people to read it through. Peace, David McReynolds #1 New York Times May 1, 1999 [for personal use only] History Returns to the Scene of Its Crime By YEVGENY YEVTUSHENKO Yevgeny Yevtushenko, a poet, is a professor of literature at Queens College and a former member of the Soviet Parliament. This was translated by Albert C. Todd. Not long ago I received a letter from Israel from the parents of a boy they had named Babi Yar. Through their son's name the parents wanted people to remember what happened at that ravine near the city of Kiev in 1941. But today, from the photograph of their son, two dark eyes stared out at me like the smoking coals on television from Kosovo and Belgrade. Like Raskolnikov, history returns to the scene of its crime -- to the Balkans, where World War I began with a shot fired at Archduke Ferdinand. Today, it seems to me that this Israeli boy has either an Albanian or a Serbian face. Selective solidarity -- Western or Russian -- is blind. I can hardly believe my eyes when I see some of Russia's most demagogic politicians express their knee-jerk one-sided solidarity. How can one trust their sincerity when they pound their fists on behalf of Serbia, yet show no solidarity whatsoever with Albanian refugees, nor even their own people -- war veterans with their hands out huddled in underground passageways, teachers and doctors who haven't been paid for half a year, miners crashing their helmets on the pavement without a response. Still, for many Russians, beyond the two peoples' similar languages and Orthodox religion, and beyond the many Serbian-Russian mixed marriages, true solidarity with the people of Serbia runs deep. During World War II, the feats of Yugoslav partisans in their struggle against Fascism inspired not only our soldiers but also our poets -- a whole anthology of Russian poetry about Yugoslavia could easily be compiled. Recently, when I heard a NATO spokesman placidly and icily name the city of Kragujevac as a target, I shuddered because this city was a symbol of the Yugoslav nation's heroic confrontation with Hitler's occupation. Yugoslavia was equally heroic in its opposition to Stalin's regime, but that resistance was never transformed into hatred toward Russians. In the late 1940's, Soviet propaganda branded Yugoslavia a traitor. But this slur never took root with the Russian people. In 1948, my father took me to the Moscow Circus, where a clown had an enormous dog wearing a Yugoslav Marshal's cap, a bundle of gigantic fake state dollars stuck in his teeth. "Hey, Tito, you mongrel, let go of them!" the clown screamed, laughing shrilly at his vulgar joke. But the audience kept deadly silent -- the Russian people's respect for their Yugoslav comrades in arms in the struggle against Fascism was too great to laugh at. "How disgusting -- let's get out of here," my father said loudly as he got up. And suddenly, from every seat, fathers and mothers got up and led their children out. In the 1950's, the writer Orest Maltsev received the Stalin Prize for his novel "The Yugoslav Tragedy," which lampooned the partisan movement in Yugoslavia. When Stalin died and Khrushchev made peace with Tito, naturally the reprinting of "The Yugoslav Tragedy" ceased. Maltsev became impoverished. In the store where he went from time to time for a bottle of the cheapest vodka and canned sardines, people would point fingers at him and say, "God punished him for Yugoslavia." For a long time Yugoslavia was the most prosperous and independent socialist country -- or at least that's how it appeared to us in Russia. Only later, after Tito's death and the collapse of the Yugoslav federation, which turned out to have been held together only by his "anti-Stalin Stalinist will," did we begin to understand that not everything was so pure and just in the land of our Yugoslav brothers in arms. Have today's NATO countries, which, like Russia, fought Fascism alongside the Yugoslavs, forgotten our common wartime struggle? If they have, they can rest assured that Russians have not. No sooner had the NATO bombs begun to fall on Yugoslavia than the skeleton of the old war was awakened by the explosions. This was a remarkable gift to our cheap showman-nationalist, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and other "professional patriots," who rushed to use the ribs of the skeleton like a war drummer's sticks. The West should not be surprised when ideas like the science fantasy of a union among Russia, Belarus and Serbia take hold. It seems to me that the leaders of the NATO countries, in deciding to bomb Serbs in order to save Albanians, have inexcusably not thought through many of the realities of the Yugoslav situation. One such reality is that even if NATO troops succeed in kicking out Slobodan Milosevic's Government and installing a more obedient one in its place, the result might be an exhausting, partisan war, the traditions of which the Yugoslavs have preserved since at least World War II. The shame of the Balkan situation lies with some political cynics, Russian, Western and Yugoslav, who play the Kosovo card, not on behalf of the Serbian or Albanian people but only for their own prestige, preservation of power or demonstration of hegemony. Take note that with rare exception many have a pro-Serbian or pro-Albanian position. But in my opinion the only correct position is simultaneously pro-Serbian and pro-Albanian; that is, pro-human. We must not confuse people with extremists. During the conflict in Bosnia one charming Serbian woman, who teaches philosophy at an American college, ceased being intelligent in my eyes as soon as she began to speak about Bosnians: "These dirty Bosnians are all wild animals. . . . They must all be destroyed." Wolf fangs seemed to show from her beautiful lips. But within a month I talked with a Bosnian graduate student at another university and wolf fangs appeared when she began speaking about Serbs. Do not demonize any nation because someone may begin to demonize your own. So be more cautious with the Balkans. The endless procession of completely innocent Albanian refugees moving across the television screen appeals to the mercy of humanity. But the burning houses of completely innocent Serbs appeal to it also. It is tragic that Russia and America watch two completely different wars on television, although it is one and the same war. In the American television version the Serbs are simply guilty of everything, and in the Russian version the Americans are. Years ago, when Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn spoke out against the Soviet authorities, his every half word was printed in the first columns of American newspapers. But now no one in the United States is rushing to print his words about the bombing in Yugoslavia: "A beautiful European country is being destroyed, and civilized governments brutally applaud. But desperate people, abandoning their bomb shelters, come out to the destruction like a living chain for the salvation of the Danube bridges. Isn't that a classic Greek tragedy?" But the truth is summed up not only in this, but also in a barely alive old Albanian woman being pulled over the snow in a plastic garbage bag just to drag her out of the Kosovo hell into Montenegro, and in the old Serbian woman who stands at night on a bridge with a target on her sunken chest inviting bombs from the sky, and in the three American military prisoners with their quite little-boy faces beaten and bloody. Be more careful with the Balkans! >> - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 21:27:59 EDT From: DavidMcR@aol.com Subject: (abolition-usa) Washington Post: Why Russians Say Nyet In a message dated 5/3/99 4:35:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,=20 jim_forest@compuserve.com writes: <<=20 1999.05.02 Washington Post =20 The Talk of Moscow: Why They Say Nyet =20 By Roy A. Medvedev =20 Sunday, May 2, 1999; Page B01 =20 MOSCOW-No single event in the past 50 years has provoked such elemental and fierce emotions in Russia as NATO's bombing of Serbia. Polls here show that 95 percent of Russian citizens condemn the Western alliance's actions in the Balkans. Last weekend's NATO summit, at which leaders spoke of their intent to embrace military missions beyond its members borders, received a uniformly negative response: Was NATO suggesting it might intervene in Georgia, Chechnya or other hot spots in the former Soviet Union? =20 The national indignation here is so strong that it is becoming an important factor in Russia's foreign and domestic policy and may even influence the outcome of the conflict. University students and schoolchildren, members of football clubs and sports associations are drawn into daily protests. People who used to be apolitical now participate in demonstrations and, until the Russian government prevented it, threw eggs and bottles at the U.S. Embassy. =20 Hundreds of Russian volunteers are already in Serbia; thousands are en route; and several thousand more are prepared to follow them. Not only former paratroopers and officers, but also generals and commanders of military districts say they are prepared to defend Serbia. Col. Gen. Viktor Chechevatov, commander of Russia's largest military district, recently announced that he is ready to lead the expeditionary corps to Serbia if necessary. What has produced this elemental howl of rage, supported both by opposition and pro-Western politicians? =20 Nobody here believes talk about the determination to prevent a "humanitarian catastrophe." The bombs and missiles have=20 simply hastened and deepened the humanitarian tragedy and strengthened doubts about the advantages of Western civilization. If Western civilization proves itself by such methods, what can the Arab world, Africa, China or India think of it? =20 What is clear to political scientists, commentators and analysts alike is that the long history of religious and ethnic conflict between Orthodox Serbs and Albanian Muslims in Kosovo will not be resolved by bombs falling on Belgrade, Pristina or the bridges over the Danube. Some analysts here have tried to explain the conflict by arguing that the United States and NATO want to try out their new, precise weaponry under military conditions. Other more serious theories assert that NATO, having lost its purpose after the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union disintegrated, is simply looking for new ways to justify its existence. Geopoliticians argue that the war in the Balkans is=20 intended to show the world that only one military superpower--the United States--remains. =20 These and other theories circulate among politicians, diplomats,=20 military strategists and analytical observers. But none of them=20 suffices to explain the angry response of ordinary Russians. Their violent reaction stems not from political logic but from human feelings. The reasons for their indignation are various, and I will list only those that seem to me to be most important, taking account of the Russian national consciousness and psychology, our historical traditions, and our understanding of justice, honor and dishonor. =20 * The strong strike the weak. Many strike one. Nineteen powerful countries--of which three, the United States, Great Britain and France, are great military powers--are striking targets in Serbia and even in Montenegro, which is not in conflict with anyone. This spectacle reaches us here by television and radio and in newspapers, and it is unacceptable to the Russian understanding of justice. The participation of Turkey and Germany--whose historic guilt before the Serbian people, not only in this century but before, is far from forgotten--adds to the anger. =20 * The armed strike the unarmed. Without modern aviation or new forms of antiaircraft weapons, the Serbs are practically defenseless against NATO's missiles and bombs. NATO pilots and sailors risk little; they are beyond danger; they go unpunished. There are hundreds of dead and wounded on the Serbian side; Serbia's industry is destroyed. But there is not a single dead or wounded NATO soldier. From the point of view of Russian people, this unequal conflict isn't even a war, it's a massacre. =20 * A Slav, Orthodox country is being destroyed. It was Russia that helped Serbia attain its independence from the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. In all the European wars of the past 300 years, Serbia has been Russia's ally. It was because of Serbia that Russia went to war against Austria-Hungary in 1914. Serbia has never opposed Russia, and it remains our ally outside the former Soviet Union. All Russians know this from their history lessons at school. =20 * Serbia is being beaten to humiliate and teach Russia a lesson. There is a strong conviction among Russians that the senseless destruction of Dresden by the Western allies in 1945 and the use of atomic bombs against Japan later that year were demonstrations of strength to Moscow above all. The campaign against Serbia is often seen from the same point of view. Russia only began to rise from its knees in the autumn of 1998 with the appointment of Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov, and to rid itself of worthless, alien politicians who were oriented to the West. Many Russians believe that the destruction of Serbia was conceived as a demonstration of the West's strength and=20 invincibility. It was intended to break Russia's will, to put a stop to the integration process of Slav peoples. These ideas and feelings are particularly strong in the Russian army, in the defense industries and among veterans. But they are being adopted by the entire population. =20 * The West deceived and robbed Russia. Our people were told over and over again about the benefits of democracy and the market economy that the rich Western countries would help Russia construct. That illusion has long since disappeared. In the minds of the impoverished, there is a conviction that the West not only deceived us, but that it robbed Russia, trying to turn it into a source of raw materials. New wealthy Russians, stock market gamblers and financial speculators carried billions of dollars away to the West. Life in Russia became worse, and the country's debts to the West grew several times over. Russia was being squeezed not only out of international politics but also out of the international economy. =20 These arguments, popular among our people, are controversial. But they are worth considering. Although Russia is weakened, it is still strong both as a nation and as a state. Its army may not have enough food to feed its soldiers, but it has great traditions and is armed with modern weapons. Russia's military-industrial potential is still very great. If NATO ground forces and Serbia's neighboring countries are drawn into the war, Russia will certainly break the U.N. embargo against supplying arms to the Balkans. A real union between Serbia, Belarus and Russia is not utopian thinking. =20 Russian citizens are not impressed by NATO talk about the despotism of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Russia lived for centuries under conditions of despotism and political terror. Compared with our dictators, Milosevic seems a pragmatist. He was elected by the Serbian people; Serbia has a multiparty system and practically no political prisoners. =20 No one in Russia defends ethnic cleansing, but it is obvious to all here that external aggression can only make the situation worse. In Russia itself, there are about 3 million refugees who have fled from the ethnic conflicts in Central Asia, Moldova, the Caucasus and Abkhazia. There are 1 million displaced people in Azerbaijan, 500,000 in Armenia, 300,000 in Georgia. But no one thinks that bombs are the best means of returning lost land to these people. =20 In order for NATO to win a war, it will be necessary to smash the will not only of the Serb leaders but of the whole people. Serbia has lived in bondage for longer than it has been free. This small nation in the Balkans cannot be defeated. It can only be destroyed. If NATO does not intend to destroy Serbia, it would be better to stop now, and prevent a more serious war. =20 Roy Medvedev, a Russian historian living in Moscow, is the author of "Let History Judge" (Columbia University Press) and "Khrushchev: The Years in Power" (Norton). This article was translated by Margo Light. =20 =A9 Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company =20 =20 - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 18:46:52 -0700 From: Jackie Cabasso Subject: (abolition-usa) DANGER: US-led NATO bombing pushes Russia back into Cold War posture Kremlin to Bolster Nuclear Stockpile NATO's Airstrikes Are Making Russia Worried, Sources Say David Hoffman Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, April 30, 1999; Page A19 MOSCOW, April 29 -- In a rare meeting of the Kremlin Security Council devoted to nuclear weapons policy, President Boris Yeltsin approved a new blueprint today for beefing up thousands of shortrange or tactical nuclear weapons that were taken out of service unilaterally earlier in the decade, officials said. The decision was announced by the Security Council secretary, Vladimir Putin, who said it had nothing to do with the conflict over Kosovo. But other sources said the decision clearly reflected Russia's growing anxiety about the NATO airstrikes against Yugoslavia and its continuing weakness in conventional, or nonnuclear, weapons. A second document approved today dealt with the entire Russian nuclear weapons complex, Putin said. A third document was described as top secret. Putin also said that Russian weapons designers feel cramped by the long period in which they have been unable to test nuclear weapons, while other countries use sophisticated computer modeling. Putin said a way had to be found for Russia to evaluate its nuclear stockpile without violating the international agreements banning actual tests. Details of the decision on tactical nuclear weapons were not disclosed, but Putin said Yeltsin had endorsed "a blueprint for the development and use of nonstrategic nuclear weapons." The precise actions were not specified, but some experts and Russian news reports said modernization or rebuilding tactical nuclear weapons was possible. This category of weapons generally includes nuclear shortrange missiles, bombs, artillery shells and submarinebased tactical nuclear weapons. In 1991, Presidents George Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev, in backtoback unilateral announcements after the August putsch here, withdrew large numbers of these tactical nuclear weapons. However, unlike the continentspanning longrange weapons, which are covered by treaties, there was never a formal agreement governing the pullback of tactical nuclear weapons. Russian specialists have been speculating in recent weeks about the possibility of reactivating and modernizing some tactical nuclear weapons in the wake of the Kosovo conflict, and even moving them into neighboring Belarus. However, experts said Yeltsin's latest action could be a prelude to scrapping the BushGorbachev agreement if the war drags on. "The first victim of this bloody crisis will be the BushGorbachev tactical nuclear agreement," said Sergei Rogov, director of the Institute for the Study of the United States and Canada here. It is not clear that Russia has the wherewithal to rebuild or modernize its tactical nuclear weapons, but the mere threat of doing so may be part of the goal of making NATO think twice about the Kosovo conflict. Russia's conventional forces are a shambles, and in recent years its military and security doctrines have emphasized the nuclear deterrent. The strategic nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles also have been going through a sharp decline, driven by obsolescence and lack of money. On tactical weapons, William C. Potter, director of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, Calif., said recently that there are "growing pressures" in Russia to remanufacture or modernize its tactical nuclear weapons force. Although precise numbers are not available, Potter estimated Russian tactical nuclear weapons at 7,740, after the reductions announced by Gorbachev. Copyright 1999 The Washington Post Company http://www.washingtonpost.com ****************************************************** Jacqueline Cabasso, Executive Director WESTERN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION 1440 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, California USA 94612 Tel: +(510)839-5877 Fax: +(510)839-5397 E-mail: wslf@earthlink.net ****************************************************** Western States Legal Foundation is part of ABOLITION 2000 A GLOBAL NETWORK TO ELIMINATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 19:58:32 -0700 From: "David Crockett Williams" Subject: (abolition-usa) Balkan War to Secure Oil Routes as necessary domination? Yugoslavia: A New War for Loot Unlimited News Service Yugoslavia: a New War for Loot by Michel Colon Humanitarian war? No. The NATO bombardments have worsened the situation o= f all the inhabitants of Kosovo-as foreseen, and desired. For NATO needs victims to justify its aggression against a sovereign state, a= nd in complete violation of international law. What are the real objectives of Washington, Berlin, and their consorts? 1. Control oil transport routes. 2. Recolonize and exploit East Europe. 3. Weaken Russia, thus give the West the means to pillage the whole of Asia.= 4. In order to realize the foregoing, impose NATO as the gendarme of the world, starting with assurances of military bases in this strategi= c region. All of these objectives are tied together. The most important, at this point, is the preparation for an attack on Russia. Most important: on each of these objectives, Washington and Berlin are at the same time in unity and in rivalry. Each tries to use the other so it can grab the cake. In short, a new war for loot. A war for the profits of the multinationals= , a war to break the resistance of the peoples. Objective No. 1: Always, the Battle for Oil "The oilfields of Kazakhstan, the gas fields of Turkmenistan, and the enormous offshore reserves of black gold of Azerbaijan, make up a zone that can gain, over the next fifty years, an importance equal to that of = the Persian Gulf today," writes a big German daily.1 Likewise in 1992 the US Senator Dole said, "The Gulf War was a symbol of = the American preoccupation for the security of oil and gas reserves. The frontiers of that preoccupation are advancing to the north and includ= e the Caucasus, Siberia, and Kazakhstan."2. The threat is clear. Add to this the most important gold mine in the world (in Uzbekistan), th= e largest deposit of silver (in Tajikistan), note the rumors of uranium, and you understand why Le Monde Diplomatique wrote in 1995: "To capture t= he contracts, no holds are barred."3 No holds, including war-particularly around the pipelines that transport = oil (and soon, gas, of which the importance will grow). Ferocious wars explode around the routes, real or projected, of pipelines: Chechnia, Nagorny-Karabakh, Georgia, Kurdistan. Yes, all means are good to block the people of the region (including Russ= ia) from control of their own riches. Why does Washington support the Taliban criminals in Afghanistan? To control the southern access to t= he oil of Central Asia.4 But the battle to control this wealth rages already between the Western "allies" themselves: "Baku is an oil center of great importance in the eyes of Germany. On the level of raw materials, we must be on the attack.= " Signed: F.W. Christians, Chairman of the Deutsche Bank.5 For this was always the Achilles heel of German imperialism: its lack of raw materials. Hence its constant and very strong tendency to expansionism. But the United States doesn't want to hear that. It wants to keep worldwi= de control of oil. Not for fear of need--it has enough on its own soil-but because, in the event of a new world conflict between great powers, it is essential to be able to deny energy to the adversary. Who wants to rule the world, must control the oil. What is the role of the Balkans in all of this? The oil transport routes must pass by there. From the Caucasus it goes to the Black Sea. Then there are two possibilities. First, the Danube. This very long river (280= 0 km, about 1700 mi.), of great flow, allows the connection of the Black Sea to Northwest Europe. Oil reaches Hamburg and Amsterdam by passage through the Rhine and the Main. Belgrade alone occupies a strategic position on the Danube. This shows why Germany wants to absolut= ely break Yugoslavia.6 A second path is possible: a new pipeline project would cross Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albany, and . . . Kosovo. This enormous project of several billion dollars is supported by the United States. One condition is necessary to realize it: to subdue the local populations. This shows why Washington wants absolutely to impose its military bases in the Balkans. Certainly, to justify the installation of military bases, there is a "nee= d" for a local conflict. We see why several Western powers armed the Croatian nationalists of Tudjman in '91, Muslims in Bosnia in 1993, and Kosovars of the KLA in '98. Those who call themselves firemen need incendiaries. Objective No. 2: Recolonize East Europe In 1989 the West promised East Europe prosperity. Six years later Unicef found: "75 million newly poor in the East. The hardest hit: Bulgaria (half the population is poor), Roumania, Moldova, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, Lettony, Estonia. In these countries are found between 27% and 35% of poor people in 1994, as against 1.55 in 1989."7 Chance? Bad luck? Transition a little too late? Not at all. The West had = no intention at all of keeping its promises, as Noam Chomsky explains: "I think the prospects are pretty dim for Eastern Europe. The West has a plan for it -- they want to turn large parts of it into a new, easily exploitable part of the Third World. There used to be a sort of colonial relationship between Western and Eastern Europe; in fact, the Russians' blocking of that relationship was one of the reasons for the Co= ld War. Now it's being reestablished and there's a serious conflict over who's going to win the race for robbery and exploitation. Is it going to = be German-led Western Europe (currently in the lead) or Japan (waiting in the wings to see how good the profits look) or the United States (trying to get into the act)? There are a lot of resources to be taken, and lots of cheap labor f= or assembly plants. But first we have to impose the capitalist model on them."8 What isn't evident is that the West particularly fears the resistance of = the workers of the East, who have known the advantages of socialism, who have gained traditions of organization and resistance with the Communists. This is why, since 1991, NATO has threatened that, "We will continue to give our support by all means at our disposal to the reform enterprises of the East and to the efforts aiming at creation of market economies."9 This "with all the means at our disposal"! A clear threat on the part of a military organization. Here again the Western powers agree on the imposition of capitalist law a= nd the extreme pillage of the ex-socialist countries. But each intends to draw the chestnuts out of the fire to its own advantage. Objective No. 3: Weaken Russia to Plunder Asia Why does the West want to dominate and subdue Russia? First, because it i= s a tempting prize: its potential in raw materials adds up to $140 trillion. Next, and above all, to prevent Moscow from competing in the region. Paul-Marie de la Gorce, the expert of Le Monde Diplomatique, explains: "The American policy toward Russia is conceived and applied to prevent it from reconstructing around itself a power able to again play a decisive role on the international scene."10 The West is fully on guard against any return to socialism. Derycke, the Belgian Foreign Minister declared in 1996, "The West supports Yeltsin because it is the policy of the last resort. A return to communism would = be a problem."11 But the West also guards against even a bourgeois Russia that would presu= me to a policy of national independence. In reality, the war unleashed against Yugoslavia in 1991 is also a war against Russia to depr= ive it of an ally and access to the Mediterranean. The problem is that if the West humiliates Yeltsin too openly, it will pl= ay into the hands of the Communists and nationalists. The result is un delicat exercice d'equilibrisme. In the short term, they support their friend Yeltsin. In the middle run, they prepare a war against Russia. The former US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger wrote a book to show that the United States must prepar= e itself to wage several wars. His basic argument is, "If Moscow manages to dominate the Caspian Sea (and its oil), that victory would be, for the West, more important than the expansion of the West."12 The capitalist catastrophe in Russia is obvious. Logically. Why would the West create a powerful economic rival for itself? On the contrary, wages must be low in order for the profits of the multinationals to be hi= gh. Hence the risk of revolt. Hence the threat of NATO. Thus Russia is actually the principal "enemy". Washington, Berlin, London= , Paris, and Brussels are agreed on that. But even in this situation, the snags between "allies" do not disappear. Au contraire. In 1996, the American Wall Street Journal complained, "Mr. Kohl is no lon= ger satisfied to allow the United States to set the tone of German relations with Russia. It has become completely clear that Germany's alli= es no longer control its relations with Russia."13 The celebrated US strategist Kissinger raises the alarm: "If we fail to expand NATO to the east, it could lead. . . to the danger of secret agreements between Germa= ny and Russia."14 Actually, the United States and Germany try to manipulate each other. Washington wants an obedient Europe that will help it control Russia. If Europe becomes too strong, Washington fears that it will control Russia o= r ally with it. Berlin and certain of its allies want to profit from American military power to boss Russia. But Germany hopes to more and mor= e play the sole horseman in the region. Behind this game of liar's poker is revealed the main stakes of a great competition between capitalist powers: who will control what the US strategist Brzezinski calls "Eurasia"? 75% of the world's population, 60%= of its economic production. Whomever controls it dominates the world. We will return to this in a following article. Objective No. 4: NATO, Gendarme of the World To realize the above objectives, the West needs an army. And military bas= es (and a docile public opinion, hence manipulated). There has been a problem here since 1990. Theoretically, NATO should go on unemployment since it was supposedly founded to face the Soviet menace, gone at the present. Ah well, not at all! Since 1991, NATO has defined a strategy still more aggressive: it will be the gendarme of the totality of the capitalist wor= ld. Its charge is to make the dictates of the multinationals respected everywhere. Its own documents announce the preparation of military aggressions along three axes: 1. Against East Europe and Russia. 2. Against the Arab-Mediterranean world (three zones are explicitly cited= : Algeria, Egypt, and the Middle East). 3. Against the whole of the Third World, in fact, under the most diverse pretexts ("terrorism", "arms of mass destruction", etc.) 15 The most important is to encircle Russia. Thus NATO annexed three reputed= ly "sure" countries (Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic), and it launched a "partnership" with other countries looking to take control of their armies. They gave the Russians a little carrot but carefully left i= t out. This is normal: they are the target. Ukraine got American credits in order to isolate Russia. Nuclear arms have been placed at the doors of Moscow-for a "safer world", they tell us. The strategic forces of NATO have been totally restructured: "We must be = in a position to move our forces from one region to another," declared Gen. Galvin, head of NATO in 1991.16 Thus, at the same moment th= at it claimed triumph, capitalism prepared aggressions against more and more "enemies". Behind the reform of NATO also hide the rivalries between the United Stat= es, Germany, and France. In 1995, Ruhe, the German War Minister, warned: "The NATO treaty must be replaced by a new treaty between the European Union and the United States. Europe must be able to intervene strategically as a world power at the side of the United States."17 The British review Searchlight analyses this subtle chess game: "The Fren= ch government hopes to contain Germany in the short term via the Eurocorps and the army of the West European Union. The United States and Great Britain have another idea: maintain Germany in a subordinate position through a persistent NATO presence in Europe and a larger engagement of Bonn in the affairs of NATO. At this time, Bonn plays intelligently on the two opposites and pretends to be in favor= of both."18 Effectively, Germany plays on two levels: one foot in NATO, one foot outside. It systematically reinforces its army (see chapter 5 of my book, Poker menteur. [Liar's Poker-tr.] The aim: to systematically get a foot i= n the international military scene. Its Army Minister declares: "War has become again a political means. In the future we must be capable of resolving conflicts likewise by military means."19 Controversy raged in 1995. Germany and France wanted to share the militar= y command of NATO but the United States intended to keep its monopoly. Kinkel, the German Foreign Minister, proclaimed: "In the long t= erm it is neither in the European interest, nor in the American interest to call on the aid of our American friends each time that something goes wrong somewhere."20 Translation of this polite but hypocritical language: "Our American rivals must not meddle in Europe." The American "friends" got the message. A US diplomat replied, "I cannot imagine a situation in which the Americans would not feel involved. If a real threat arises anywhere in the world, we will be there."21 Translation of this, as well, so-polite and so-hypocritical language: "Ou= r German rivals must not complain about U.S. world leadership. That include= s Europe." Why do the Americans want to tighten the grip of NATO on Europe? To obstr= uct the creation of a European army that would be their rival. In 1991 Wolfowitz, a Pentagon expert, wrote: "Our status as the only superpo= wer must be perpetuated by a military force sufficient to dissuade any nation or group of nations from defying the supremacy of the United States."22 And to be perfectly clear, Wolfowitz stipulates what he means: "discourag= e [the advance industrial nations] from challenging our leadership . . . and thwart the emergence of an exclusively European security force."23 Th= is is very clear: "allies" are at the same time "enemies". Behind the war against Yugoslavia hides an undeclared war against Russia. And also the possibility on day of a world conflict between the capitalist great powers themselves. 1 Die Zeit, March 96. =95 2 Frankfurter Allgemeine, 15 June 92. =95 3 ) L= e Monde Diplomatique, November 95, p. 22. =95 4 Michel Collon, Poker menteur, 1998, EPO, p. 133. =95 5 idem p. 132. =95 6 idem, p. 137. =95 7 Unicef, "= Poverty, Children and Policy, Central and Eastern Europe in transition," report n=B0= 3 - - 1995. =95 8 Noam Chomsky, "What Uncle Sam Wants" =95 9 Revue de l'Otan,= June 91, p. 28-29. =95 10 Le Monde Diplomatique, March 94. =95 11 Le Soir, 14 December 91. =95 12 AK, (Allemagne), 23 September 92. =95 13 Wall Street Journal, 23 February 96.= =95 14 Welt am Sonntag, 12 January 97. =95 15 Poker menteur, chapter 8. =95 16 Revue de l'Otan, August 92, p. 23. =95 17 Solidaire, 13 December 95. ( =95= 18 Searchlight, "Reunited Germany", 1994, p. 31. =95 19 Der Spiegel, n=B0 5 = - - 1995. =95 20 International Herald Tribune, 4 June 96. =95 21 Idem. =95 22= Poker menteur, p. 116. =95 23 Idem. Posted May 1, 1999 - - To unsubscribe to abolition-usa, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe abolition-usa" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message. ------------------------------ End of abolition-usa-digest V1 #123 *********************************** - To unsubscribe to $LIST, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe $LIST" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.