Nikos Raptis

"Client

state: a country that is economically, politically, or militarily dependent on

another country" (Webster’s 10th). That was a rather polished definition by

the political elite around 1918. In today’s real world the expressions

"vassal state" or "occupied territory" are more honest. Even

the term "vassal" (humble dependant) is weak. "Occupied" is

closer to the truth. The case of Greece as a US "occupied territory",

since 1947, is an enlightening example (see Commentary of June 16, ’99). Let us

take a more recent example: Lieutenant Colonel Michael Ellerbe, "The

commander of a (US) army unit that beat, threatened and abused civilians in

Kosovo (from September 1999 through March) has been selected for a plum

assignment at the Army War College, keeping him on track for possible promotion

to general." (International Herald Tribune, IHT, Oct. 20, ’00). This is

characteristic behaviour by an occupying army. Any further comment is redundant.

Why

do the US elite strive to occupy the world? "President Bill Clinton and

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright deserve credit for applying the realistic

principle that projecting power is a prerequisite for the spread of one’s

values. In the 1930s, it was the Nazis who were applying military pressure and

supported local political parties in the Balkans with money, intelligence,

printing presses and other aid. Not surprisingly, fascist ideals were then

ascendant." (Robert D. Kaplan, senior fellow at the New America Foundation,

in the IHT of Oct. 7-8, ’00). Is the content of Mr. Kaplan’s text (not to

mention the example chosen) unbelievable? Not at all. George Kennan, of the US

State Department, expressed the same "ideals" in 1947! The consistence

of the "ideals" of the US intellectual elite is admirable.

So,

is it all about (US) values? Not exactly.

Between

120 BC and 146 BC the Romans constructed the Egnatia ( pronounced:

egg-nah-tee-a, with the accent on -tee-). Egnatia was a road that basically

connected Rome to Constantinople (Istanbul), a small part of it, in the Adriatic

sea, was crossed by boat. to the Albanian port of Durres and from there reached

Salonica and finally Constantinople, by land.

Around

1970 the US-supported Greek junta initiated the design of the New Egnatia, which

now started from Igoumanitsa, a Greek port south of Durres, reached Salonica and

from there, more or less, followed the alignment of the Roman Egnatia. The

design of the New Egnatia, a multilane modern highway, was assigned to McDonald

Engineering, a US engineering company. In reality, the design was done by Greek

engineers, as subcontractors, under the control of the US firm. The next few

years the New Egnatia will be ready.

The

New Egnatia this West-East transportation axis is very important in itself. Yet,

if the New Egnatia is connected to an existing North-South axis, the highway

that transverses in sequence Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia and meets

Egnatia in the vicinity of Salonica, then the resulting transportation system is

extremely important (to the US) as an access route to the Middle East oil, and

maybe the Caspian oil. The only section of the system that was missing was the

one through Serbia. Not anymore.

The

completion of the Egnatia system could be one of the "benefits" that

the US gains from the birth of the new client state of Yugoslavia. Furthermore,

it seems that Salonica, "Greece’s bustling northern seaport (which) has

become a commercial and cultural center for (the) neighbouring countries,"

in the words of George Papandreou, the Greek Foreign Minister, seems to be a

crucial part of the US (grand) plans to "debalkanize the Balkans,"

besides the safeguarding of oil.  Naturally, the cultural values of the

debalkanized Balkans would be those of George W. Bush, Al Gore, Madeleine

Albright, etc.

The

closing paragraph of the June 16, 1999 Commentary said: "When the US

decides that it is time to have ‘peace’ in Kosovo-Yugoslavia, then this means

that the US is ready to initiate the familiar cycles of benign-harsh occupation

of these areas. The PROXY military leadership and the PROXY political managers

MAY ALREADY have been chosen by the US. The physical destruction of both areas

from the bombing is already depressing. However, equally depressing is the fact

that these populations will soon lose their dignity by entering the cycle of US

occupation." (Emphasis added.)

Is

Kostunica, or Djindjic, or General Pavkovic, etc the "chosen proxy"?

That is irrelevant. The US grand plans are to be followed, period. Even if

Kostunica, a "moderate nationalist," proclaims that "The United

States has done too much meddling in our (Serbia’s) internal affairs," or

that. "people in Yugoslavia (want) to live in a state ‘that is not a

vassal," that has no meaning. Again, the relevant historical example comes

from the Greek experience; Andreas Papandreou, father of George, above, won the

confidence of the Greeks (and the elections in 1981) by exploiting their strong

anti-Americanism, while offering what the US demanded (military bases, etc).

However, if Kostunica is an honest person, he is in trouble. He will not last

long.

If

the above constitute an estimate of the roles of the US and Yugoslav elite, what

was the role of the population of Yugoslavia (mainly of Serbia) and what is it

going to be from now on? They had Milosevic and the US bombing; they had enough.

They reached the point of ‘inat’, an attitude "which carries a touch of

angry, even self-destructive resistance’, (according to the translation of the

word by Steven Erlanger of the N.Y. Times, IHT, Oct. 4, ’00). (Note; The word ‘inat’,

a Turkish word, is a ‘legacy’ to the languages of the peoples of the Balkans by

the Ottomans, during their centuries long occupation of these peoples. In Greek

‘inat’ has a similar meaning as above.) The Serb population was angry and

revolted.

What

is going to happen from now on is not difficult to guess. Again, the Greek

example, of a US client state, is a rather good approximation, no matter what

the Serb population want. And what the Serbian population want is clearly

expressed by the slogan on a button worn by a Serb teenager: "ne dam popedu"

(I will not give away my victory to no one).

A

very important question is: Why the Serb army and the Serbian police did not

fire against the demonstrators? In 1973 the Greek army and the Greek police

massacred the uprisen students and civilians. What might be the difference? The

individuals (world-wide) that choose the army or the police as a profession,

are, basically, persons with very "flexible" and oportunistic

conscience. ( Put in a more colourful language, pigs are pigs all over the

world.) Yet, there is a difference between the Serbian ones and the Greek ones.

The Greek have already secured their patron; the US (a seemingly permanent

empire). Therefore, they can shoot and kill, if that is in the interest of the

patron, as was the case with the Greek students on November 17, 1973. The

Serbian are in the process of securing the favour of the US patron, so they did

not shoot, because they knew that that was in the interest of the courted

patron. (Note: My view is that the US has already infiltrated the Serbian

security forces.)

Another

important factor in the birth of the Yugoslav US client state is the role of

religion, namely the Serbian Christian Orthodox Church and the significant

political weight of this Church. It seems that there is an urgent need to

research the role and the patrons of the Christian Orthodox Churches in the

Balkans, starting with the Greek one.

Finally,

two pieces of information that might prove to be important in the future:

–

On October 7, two days after the uprising in Serbia, a Yugoslavian by the Name

of Vladimir Bokan, was executed in Athens with 29 bullets. The killing took

place two and a half hours after Bokan publicly denounced the Milosevic regime

on a Greek TV channe.l. Bokan, a multimillionaire at 40, according to the Greek

press was a close friend of the Yugoslavian pathological killer Arcan and the

manager of the enormous property of Marko, the son of Milosevic.

–

Again according to the Greek press, Carla del Ponte (spelling?), the prosecutor

of the Tribunal at the Hague, visited Athens secretly during the week of October

23 -29, 00, and asked for the help of the Greek Supreme Court in her efforts to

locate the money that Milosevic has stashed in Greece and in Cyprus.

Ultimately,

one can say that Milosevic believed in the supreme value of any western

Corporate Chief Executive Officer: profit, i. e. personal gain.