|
ECONOMIC TERRORISM
By Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is known to bully developing countries,
imposing strong doses of
"deadly economic medicine" while saddling governments with spiraling external
debts. In complicity with
Washington, the IMF often meddles in cabinet appointments in debtor countries.
In Korea in the turmoil of
the 1997 Asian crisis, the Finance Minister --sacked for allegedly "hindering
negotiations" with the IMF--
was replaced by a former IMF official.1 In Turkey, also in the wake of
an IMF-style financial meltdown
(March 2001), the Minister of Economy was substituted by a Vice-President
of the World Bank. 2
But what has occurred in Yugoslavia sets a new record in the abusive practices
of the Washington-based
international financial bureaucracy: the arrest of a head of State of a
debtor nation --demanded by its main
creditors-- has become "a pre-condition" for the holding of loan negotiations.
While the 31st of March 2001 was Washington's deadline date for the arrest
of President Slobodan
Milosevic by the DOS government, another ultimatum was set for transferring
the former head of State to
the jurisdiction of the NATO-sponsored Hague Tribunal (ICTY). In the words
of Secretary of State Colin
Powell:
"the US administration's support for an international donors' conference
where Yugoslavia is hoping for up
to $1 billion to help rebuild would depend on continued progress in full
cooperation with the [Hague]
tribunal."3
A State Department spokesman further clarified "that the United States
has the power to stop the
conference from going ahead in the early summer if Washington is not satisfied."4
Meanwhile, the Hague
Tribunal has threatened to take the matter before the UN Security Council,
if President Milosevic is not
rapidly transferred to its jurisdiction. 5
WITHHOLDING FINANCIAL "AID"
Very timely: At the height of the Yugoslav presidential elections (September
2000), "enabling legislation"
was rushed through the US House of Representatives. Washington had forewarned
Kostunica --pursuant to
an Act of Congress (HR 1064)-- that unless his government fully complied
to US diktats, financial "aid"
would be withheld. The IMF and the World Bank had also been duly notified
by their largest shareholder,
namely the US government, that:
"the US Secretary of the Treasury [would] withhold from payment of the
United States share of any
increase in the paid-in capital of [the IMF and World Bank] an amount equal
to the amount of the loan or
other assistance [to Yugoslavia].6
Meanwhile, Washington had demanded the setting up of an office of the Hague
Tribunal (ICTY) in
Belgrade as well as modifications to the legal statutes of Yugoslavia.
The latter --to be rubber-stamped by
the Parliament-- would place the ICTY Tribunal above the jurisdiction of
Yugoslavia's national legal system.
It would also allow the ICTY to order on NATO's behest, the arrest of thousands
of people on trumped up
charges.
RELEASING KLA TERRORISTS
US officials had also intimated that the prompt release of KLA "freedom
fighters" serving jail terms in
Serbia was to be regarded as an "additional pre-condition" for the granting
of financial assistance:
"State Department officials later told UPI that among other steps the United
States was looking for, were
Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica to begin returning Albanians captured
during the 1999 Kosovo
conflict to Kosovo and for an acceptance of the war crimes tribunal's jurisdiction
inside Serbia where
numerous indicted suspects still enjoy immunity."7
An "Amnesty Law" was rushed through the Yugoslav parliament barely a month
before Washington's
March 31st deadline.8 While the victims of the war are persecuted and indicted
as war criminals, the
Kostunica regime --on Washington's instructions-- has released Kosovo Liberation
Army (KLA) criminals
(linked to the drug mafias) who committed atrocities in Kosovo.
Meanwhile, these criminals have rejoined the ranks of the KLA, now involved
in a new wave of terrorist
assaults in southern Serbia and in neighboring Macedonia. The evidence
amply confirms that these terrorist
attacks are supported and financed by Washington.9
"ECONOMIC NORMALIZATION" Without further scrutiny, the Western media touts
the holding of a
donors' conference as "a necessary step" towards "economic normalization"
and the "reintegration" of
Yugoslavia into the "family of nations". Public opinion is led to believe
that the "donors" will "help"
Yugoslavia rebuild. The term "donor" is a misnomer. In fact the donors'
conference is a meeting of bankers
and creditors mainly from the countries which bombed Yugoslavia. Their
intent is to not only to collect
money from Yugoslavia, but also to gain full control and ownership of the
Yugoslav economy.
Meanwhile, national laws have been revised to facilitate sweeping privatization.
Serbia's large industrial
complexes and public utilities are to be restructured and auctioned off
to foreign capital. In other words,
rather than "helping Yugoslavia", the donor conference --organized in close
consultation with Washington
and NATO headquarters in Brussels-- would set the stage for the transformation
of Yugoslavia into a
colony of the Western military alliance.
Yugoslavia's external debt is in excess of $14 billion of which $5 billion
are owed to the Paris Club (i.e.
largely to the governments of NATO countries) and $3 billion to the London
Club. The latter is a syndicate
of private banks, which in the case of Yugoslavia includes some 400 creditor
institutions. The largest part of
Yugoslavia's commercial debt, however, is held by some 16 (mainly) American
and European banks which
are members of an "International Coordinating Committee" (ICC) headed by
America's Citigroup and
Germany's giant WestDeutsche Landesbank. Other big players in the ICC include
J. P. Morgan-Chase and
Merrill Lynch.
The ICC --which operates discretely behind the scenes-- ultimately call
the shots regarding debt
negotiations, privatization and macro-economic therapy. In turn, the IMF
bureaucracy acting on behalf of
both the commercial and official creditors has called for "a restructuring
of FRY's external debt on
appropriate terms" underscoring the fact that fresh money can only be approved
"following the regularization
of arrears." 10 What this means is that Belgrade would be obliged to recognize
these debts in full as a
condition for the negotiation of fresh loans as well as settle pending
succession issues regarding the division
of the external debt of the FRY with the "successor republics."
FICTICIOUS MONEY
While token "reconstruction" loans are envisaged, vast amounts of money
and resources will be taken out of
Yugoslavia. In fact, most of the promised "reconstruction" money is totally
fictitious.
A $208 million 'bridge loan" granted by Switzerland and Norway (January
2001 was used to reimburse the
IMF. In turn, the IMF had granted $151 million to Belgrade in the form
of a so-called "post-conflict
assistance" loan. But this "aid" was tagged to reimburse Switzerland and
Norway, which had coughed up the
money to settle IMF arrears in the first place:
"The [IMF] Board approved a loan [of] ˆUS$151 million under the IMF's policy
on emergency post-conflict
assistance in support of a program to stabilize the FRY's economy and help
rebuild administrative capacities.
Of this amount, the [Belgrade] authorities will draw US$130 million to
repay the bridge loans they received
[from Switzerland and Norway] to eliminate arrears with the IMF."11
The illusion is conveyed that "money is coming in" and that "the IMF is
helping Yugoslavia." In fact, what
remains after the IMF "has reimbursed itself" is a meager influx of 21
million dollars. And broadly the same
fictitious money arrangement has been put in place by the World Bank, which
has ordered that $1.7 billion in
arrears "be cleared" before the granting of fresh loans.
In this regard, Belgrade will be granted a so-called "loan of consolidation"
from the World Bank to reimburse
the $1,7 billion debt it owes to the World Bank. Little or no money will
actually enter the country. In the
words of Central Bank governor Mladan Dinkic:
"[this] will pave the way for Yugoslavia's return to the World Bank. `In
the first three years, we will receive
the so-called AIDA status, which the World Bank gives to the poorest countries;
[this] is the most favorable
arrangement possible, with a longer grace-period and minimum interest,
which will allow our economy to pay
off the [$1.7 billion] debt and create conditions for receiving new loans".12
More generally, the "reconstruction" money will line the pockets of international
creditors and multinational
corporations (with trinkets for DOS cronies) while putting the entire Yugoslav
economy on the auction
block. Assets will be sold at rock-bottom prices under IMF-World Bank supervision.
The meager proceeds
of forced privatization --in which only foreign "investors" will be allowed
to bid-- will then be used to pay
back the creditors, who happen to be the same people who are buying up
Yugoslavia's assets.
And who will appraise the "book value" of Yugoslavia's industrial assets
and supervise the auction of State
property? The large European and US merchant banks and accounting firms,
which also happen to be acting
on behalf of their corporate clients involved in bidding.
DEADLY ECONOMIC MEDICINE
Fictitious reconstruction money, however, is only granted on condition
Yugoslavia implements economic
"shock therapy." The donor-sponsored program is predicated on "destruction"
rather than "reconstruction".
Under the disguise of "economic normalization", the IMF, the World Bank
and the London-based European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) have been given the mandate
to dismantle through
bankruptcy and forced privatization what has not yet been destroyed by
the bombers.
In this process, political terror and "economic terror" go hand in hand.
The evidence amply confirms that the
IMF-World Bank's lethal economic reforms imposed in more than 150 developing
countries have led to the
impoverishment of millions of people. In a cruel irony, bitter economic
medicine and token financial
assistance are presented as "the rewards" for transferring President Milosevic
to the jurisdiction of the
Hague Tribunal.
While the present IMF program is a "continuation" of the deadly economic
reforms first imposed on federal
Yugoslavia in the 1980s (and then on its "successor republics"), it promises
to be far more devastating.13
The Group of 17 economists (G-17) --which controls the Ministry of Finance
and Yugoslavia's Central Bank
(NBJ)-- are in permanent liaison with the IMF, the World Bank and the US
Treasury. A "letter of Intent"
outlining in detail the economic therapy to be imposed on Yugoslavia by
the DOS government had in fact
been drawn up in secret negotiations with the creditors before the September
2000 presidential elections.
Mladjan Dinkic --who now holds the position of Governor of the National
Bank of Yugoslavia (NBJ)
(Central Bank)-- had stated that one of the first things they would do
under a Kostunica presidency would
be to implement economic "shock therapy":
"Immediately after taking the office, the new government shall abolish
all types of subsidies. This measure
must be implemented without regrets or hesitation, since it will be difficult
if not impossible to apply later, in
view of the fact that in the meantime strong lobbies may appear and do
their best to block such measures...
This initial step in economic liberalization must be undertaken as a "shock
therapy" as its radical nature does
not leave space for gradualism of any kind."14
The G-17 does not hide the fact that one of its main objectives consists
in breaking social resistance to the
economic restructuring program:
"Any future democratic regime is likely to face substantial public resistance
to privatization and the
socio-economic reforms that will accompany it. In the short term, the insolvency
and restructuring of
Serbian enterprises is likely to generate unemployment or wage cuts for
many employees. The servicing of
debts and fiscal adjustments are likely to require cuts in public expenditure
and the introduction of potentially
unpopular new taxes and levies. The purchase of Serbian firms by wealthy
domestic and foreign investors
may also generate resentment, especially as it will represent a radical
break with the former Yugoslav
tradition of workers' or "social" ownership. Nationalist and anti-reformist
groups are likely to mobilize
popular resistance by exploiting these problems. This form of political
opposition would limit the scope for
introducing effective economic reform and privatization."15.
FREEZING WAGES
The IMF program --put into full swing in the wake of the September 2000
elections-- calls for the adoption
of "prudent macroeconomic policies and bold structural reforms", In IMF
lingo, "bold" invariably means the
application of "shock treatment" while "prudent" means carefully designed
and uncompromising austerity
measures.16. Upon assuming office, the Kostunica government --under IMF
instructions-- has deregulated
the prices of basic consumer goods and frozen the wages of working people.17
A new Labor Law setting
the minimum wage at 35 percent of the average wage was rubber-stamped by
the Yugoslav parliament. In
other words, with rising prices coupled with the deindexation of wages
ordered by the IMF, the new
legislation allows the real minimum wage to slide to abysmally low levels.18
Credit has been frozen to local businesses and farmers. Interest rates
have already skyrocketed. With the
end of the economic sanctions, the IMF has also demanded that import barriers
be removed to facilitate the
dumping of surplus commodities on the domestic market leading to the bankruptcy
of domestic producers. In
turn, energy prices are to be totally deregulated prior to the privatization
of public utilities, State oil refineries,
coal mining and electricity.
In turn, drastic cuts in the social security and pension funds of the Republic
of Serbia are envisaged, which
would virtually lead to their collapse (See IMF Program, op cit). The restructuring
of social programs is a
carbon copy of that imposed in neighboring Bulgaria, where pensions paid
out to senior citizens plummeted in
1997 to $3 as month.19
ENGINEERING THE COLLAPSE OF THE DINAR
The most lethal component of the IMF program, however, is the so-called
"managed float" of the exchange
rate which --according to IMF Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer--
is implemented "to better reflect
market conditions". 20
Yugoslavia's central bank foreign exchange reserves are of the order of
$500 million, the external debt is in
excess of $14 billion. Under agreement with the IMF, money (in the form
of "precautionary loan") would be
granted to replenish the foreign exchange reserves of the Central Bank
with a view to supporting the dinar.
Moreover following the Brazilian pattern, the dinar would also be artificially
propped up by extensive
government borrowing from private banking institutions at exorbitant interest
rates thereby fuelling the
internal public debt. 21
In the absence of exchange controls restricting capital flight, central
bank foreign exchange reserves would
eventually be depleted. In other words, when the "borrowed reserves" are
no longer there to prop up the
currency, the dinar collapses. In the logic of the "managed float", the
dollars borrowed under an IMF
precautionary fund arrangement, would be reappropriated by international
creditors and speculators once the
dinar slides, leading to a further expansion of Yugoslavia's external debt.
In fact, this policy is largely instrumental in triggering hyperinflation.
The national currency would become
totally worthless. In other words, prices would go sky high following the
collapse of the national currency. In
turn, wages would be frozen on IMF instructions as part of an "anti-inflationary
program" and the standard
of living would plummet to even lower levels. And Yugoslavs are already
impoverished with two thirds of
the population (according to UN sources acknowledged in the IMF report)
with per capita incomes below 2
dollars a day.
Itˆs the same financial scam that the IMF applied in Korea, Indonesia,
Russia, Brazil and more recently
Turkey.22 In this process, various speculative instruments (including "short
selling" of currencies) were
applied by international banks and financial institutions to trigger the
collapse of national currencies. In
Korea, debts spiraled in the wake of the currency crisis. As a result,
the entire economy was put on the
auction block and several of Korea's powerful conglomerates were taken
over by American capital at
ridiculously low prices.
In Russia, the ruble became totally worthless following the implementation
of an IMF program. The float of
the ruble applied in 1992 under IMF advice was conducive in less than a
year to a one hundred fold (9900%)
increase in consumer prices. Nominal earnings increased ten fold (900%),
the collapse in real wages in 1992
was of the order of 86 percent. In subsequent years, real earnings continued
to plummet precipitating the
descent of the Russian people into extreme poverty.23
More generally, the IMF program creates a framework for collecting as well
as enlarging the debt through
the manipulation of currency markets. It is worth mentioning, in this regard,
that barely a few weeks before
the arrest of President Milosevic, Turkey was subjected --following the
destabilization of its currency-- to
the most brutal economic reforms leading virtually over night to the collapse
of the standard of living. Under
IMF ministrations, interest rates in Turkey had shot up to a modest 550%.
WAR DAMAGES
The IMF has acknowledged in its report that the damage caused by NATO bombings
is of the order of 40
billion dollars.24 This figure does not take into account the losses in
Yugoslavia's GDP resulting from years
of economic sanctions, nor does it account for the loss of human life and
limb, the human suffering inflicted
on an entire population, the toxic radiation from depleted uranium and
the environmental devastation amply
documented by Yugoslav and international sources. 25 Ironically, this study
on war damages was
coordinated by G-17 Mladjan Dinkic and Miroslav Labus who now hold key
positions in the DOS
government. Since his appointment to the position of central bank governor,
Dinkic has not said a word
about "war damages" in his discussions with Western creditors. 26
LUCRATIVE RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
No "compensation" for war damages let alone debt relief has been contemplated.
In a cruel twist, a large
part of the fresh loans --which Yugoslavia will eventually have to reimburse--
will be used to rebuild what
was destroyed by the bombers. Moreover, under the World Bank-EBRD system
of international tender,
these loans are in fact tagged to finance lucrative contracts with construction
companies from NATO
countries:
"the big winners [are the Western] telecommunications companies, construction
firms, banks and shipping
concerns who can rebuild the Danube River bridges, power plants and refineries
destroyed by NATO
airstrikes. While European companies, already busy with Balkan projects,
have a home-court advantage,
U.S. companies such as infrastructure specialists Brown & Root [a subsidiary
of Vice President Dick
Cheney's company Halliburton Oil], AES and General Electric could get a
piece of the action." 27
And what will these companies do? They will sub-contract will local firms
and/or hire Yugoslav engineers
and workers at wages below one hundred dollars a month. In other words,
the borrowed money promised to
Belgrade for "reconstruction" will go straight back into the pockets of
Western banks and MNCs. In turn,
the so-called "prioritization of expenditures" imposed by the IMF means
that the State (i.e. Yugoslavia's own
money) would be footing the bill for clearing the Danube and rebuilding
the bridges, essentially "subsidizing"
the interests of foreign capital. Moreover, IMF "conditionalities" --which
require drastic cuts in social
expenditures-- would prevent the government from allocating its budget
to rebuilding schools and hospitals
hit during the bombing campaign.
THE COSTS OF THE AIR CAMPAIGN
Accusing the Serbian people and the former head of State of the crimes
committed by the aggressor is
intended to instill a sense of fear and collective guilt on an entire Nation.
But there is something else which has so far not been mentioned: Washington's
design is to hold President
Milosevic responsible for the War not as an individual but as the country's
head of State, with a view to
eventually collecting war reparations from Yugoslavia.
In other words, if the former head of State were to be indicted by the
Hague tribunal, the country could be
held "legally responsible" not only for the costs of NATO's "humanitarian
bombs", but for all the military and
"peacekeeping" expenses incurred since 1992.
In fact, an army of accountants and economists has already evaluated --on
NATO's behest-- the costs of
the air campaign and the various "peacekeeping operations". In this regard,
the U.S. share of the costs of
the bombing, "peacekeeping" and "refugee assistance" solely in fiscal year
1999 was estimated at $5.05
billion. The amounts allocated by the Clinton Administration to pay for
the war and the refugees in FY 1999
were of the order of $6.6 billion. So-called "emergency funding" appropriated
by Congress for operations in
Kosovo and other defense spending in FY 1999 totaled $12 billion. Moreover,
the Department of Defense
estimates the costs of deployment of American occupation forces and civilian
personnel stationed in Bosnia
and Kosovo since 1992 to be of the order of $21.2 billion.28
In other words, indicting President Milosevic on trumped up charges raises
a fundamental question of
legitimacy. It sanctions the bombings as a humanitarian operation. It not
only absolves the real war criminals,
it also opens up the avenue for the indictment of Yugoslavia as a nation.
The former head of State is indicted; the people are collectively indicted.
What this means is that NATO
could at some future date oblige Yugoslavia to pay for the bombs used to
destroy the country and kill its
people.
There is nothing fundamentally new in this process. Under the British Empire,
it was common practice not
only to install puppet regimes but also to bill the costs of gunboat operations
to countries, which refused to
sign a "free trade" agreement with Her Majesty's government. In 1850, Britain
threatened to send in its "gun
boats" ---equivalent to today's humanitarian air raids-- following the
refusal of the Kingdom of Siam
(Thailand) to sign a free trade treaty with Britain (equivalent to today's
"letter of intent" to the IMF). While
the language and institutions of colonial diplomacy have changed, the similarity
with contemporary practices
is striking. In the words of British envoy Sir James Brooke (equivalent
to today's Richard Holbrooke):
"The Siamese Government is hostile-- its tone is arrogant-- its presumption
unbounded... Should these just
[British] demands firmly urged be refused, a force should be present, immediately
to enforce them by a
rapid destruction of the defenses of the river. Siam may be taught the
lesson which it has long been tempted,
--a better disposed king placed on the throne, and an influence acquired
in the country which will make it of
immense commercial importance to England... [Note the similarity in relation
to Yugoslavia] Above all, it
would be well to prepare for the change and to place our own kind on the
throne. This prince [Mongkut] we
ought to place on the throne and through him, we might, beyond doubt, gain
all we desire. And the expense
incurred [of the military operation] would readily be available from the
royal treasury of Siam."29
Replace the head of State, impose "free" trade, bill the country for the
military operation!
PRECEDENTS OF WAR REPARATIONS: VIETNAM AND NICARAGUA
In fact in the case of Vietnam --which won the war against US aggression--
Hanoi was nonetheless obliged
to pay war reparations to the United States, as a condition for the lifting
of economic sanctions in 1994.
Although the historical circumstances were quite different to those of
Yugoslavia, the pattern of IMF
intervention in Vietnam was in many regards similar. The decision to lift
the sanctions on Vietnam was also
taken in the context of a donors' conference. "Some two billion dollars
of loans and "aid" money had been
pledged in support of Vietnam's IMF sponsored reforms, yet immediately
after the Conference another
separate meeting was held, this time "behind closed doors" in which Hanoi
was obliged to fully reimburse the
debts incurred by the US installed Saigon military government."30 By fully
recognising the legitimacy of
these debts, Hanoi had in effect accepted to repay loans that had been
utilised to support the US War effort.
Moreover, Hanoi's acceptance had also totally absolved Washington from
paying war reparations to
Vietnam totalling $4.2 billion as agreed at the Paris Peace Conference
in 1973.31
NICARAGUA: "FREEDOM FIGHTERS" AND IMF ECONOMIC MEDICINE
Similarly the 12 billion dollars "reparations" that the US had been ordered
to pay to Nicaragua by the Hague
International Court of Justice (ICJ) were never paid. In 1990, following
the installation of a pro-US
"democratic" government, these reparations --ordered by the ICJ-- were
erased in exchange for
"normalization" and the lifting of sanctions. In return, Washington approved
a token $60 million in
"emergency aid" which was of course conditional upon the payment of all
debts and the adoption of the most
deadly IMF economic shock therapy:
"The United States provides severance pay to government workers fired under
the U.S.-mandated [IMF
structural adjustment] program to reduce the size of Nicaragua's government.
Among the results:
Nicaragua's social security budget has been slashed from $ 18 million to
$ 4 million while unemployment has
risen to about 45 percent. Health spending has dropped from $86 per person
[per annum] five years ago to $
18 [in 1991 in the year following the elections]. Pensions for disabled
war veterans have been frozen at $
6.50 per month while food prices have risen [1991] to nearly U.S. levels.
In the words of a State
Department official 'The US is committed to rebuilding Nicaragua, but there's
only a limited amount you can
do with development aid.'"32
Yet the US did not hesitate in spending billions of dollars to finance
nine years of economic embargo and
war in which Washington created and funded a paramilitary army (the Contras)
to fight the Sandinista
government. Heralded by the Reagan administration and touted by the media
as "freedom fighters", the
Contras insurgency was financed by drug money and covert support from the
CIA. And in fact the same
pattern of covert support using drug money was applied to financing the
Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
with a view to destabilizing Yugoslavia. William Walker, head of the OSCE
mission to Kosovo in the months
preceding the 1999 war, was responsible together with Coronal Oliver North
in channeling covert support to
the Contras which ultimately led to the downfall of the Sandinista government
and its defeat in "democratic"
elections in 1990.
THE ROLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMPENSATION COMMISSION (UNCC)
Another case is that of Iraq which --in the wake of the Gulf War-- was
obliged to pay extensive war
reparations. The United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) was set
up to process "claims" against
Iraq. Thirty percent of Iraqi oil revenues in the "oil for food program"
are impounded by the UNCC to pay
war reparations to governments, banks and corporations. The UNCC "has awarded
more than $32 billion [in
claims], and more than $9.5 billion has been paid out under the food-for-oil
regime."33
These precedents are important in understanding the war in Yugoslavia.
Although no official statement has
been made by NATO, the framework and bureaucracy of the UNCC could at some
future date be
extended to collecting war reparations from Yugoslavia. The UNCC's claim
procedures are based on a
1991 UN Security Council resolution which establishes Iraq's liability
for the Gulf war under international
law.
In the case of Yugoslavia, President Milosevic is accused by the Hague
tribunal for "crimes against
humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war", 34. Following the
Iraqi precedent, a decision of the
Hague Tribunal concerning President Milosevic could constitute the basis
for the formulation of a similar
UN Security Council Resolution establishing the liability of the government
and people of Yugoslavia for the
"direct loss, damage to foreign governments, nationals and corporations",
including "the costs of the air
campaign." 35
REWRITING HISTORY
Recent events have shown how realties can be turned upside down by the
aggressor and its propaganda
machine. NATO's intent is to blatantly distort the course of events and
manipulate the writing of modern
history. It is therefore essential that the Yugoslav people remain united
in their resolve. It should also be
understood that the "demonisation" of the Serbian people and of President
Slobodan Milosevic alongside the
triggering of ethnic conflicts is intended to impose the "free market"
and enforce the New World Order
throughout the Balkans.
Internationally, the various movements against IMF-World Bank-WTO reforms
must understand that war
and globalization are inter-connected processes. Applied around the World,
the only promise of the "free
market" is a World of landless farmers, shuttered factories, jobless workers
and gutted social programs with
"bitter economic medicine" under IMF-WB-WTO custody constituting the only
prescription. Moreover,
militarization increasingly constitutes the means for enforcing these deadly
macro-economic reforms.
Yugoslavia's struggle to preserve its national sovereignty is --at this
particular juncture in its history-- a part
of the broader movement against the New World Order and the imposition
throughout the World of a
uniform neo-liberal policy agenda under IMF-World Bank-WTO supervision.
Behind these organizations
--which routinely interface with NATO-- are the powers of the US and European
financial establishments
and the Western military-industrial complex.
ENDNOTES
1. Agence France Presse , 19 November 1997.
2 Quest Economics Database. West LB Emerging Trends, 8 March 2001, Agence
France Press, 16 March
2001.
3. Statement of Secretary of State Colin Powell quoted in International
Herald Tribune, Paris, April 4, 2001
4. International Herald Tribune, op. cit.
5. B 92 News, Belgrade, 3 May 2001.
6. US House of Representatives, Bill HR 1064, section 302, September 2000,
at
http://www.house.gov/house/Legproc.html., click 106th Congress and enter
bill number.
7. UPI, 2 April 2001
8. New York Times, 27 February 2001.
9. See Michel Chossudovsky, Washington Finances Ethnic Warfare in the Balkans",
Emperors Clothes,
April 2001.
10. See IMF, IMF Approves Membership of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
and US$151 Million in
Emergency Post-Conflict Assistance, http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2000/pr0075.htm.
11. See IMF, IMF Approves Membership of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
and US$151 Million in
Emergency Post-Conflict Assistance, http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2000/pr0075.htm.
12. Government of Serbia, Serbia Info, Belgrade 2 May 2001,
http://www.serbia-info.com/news/2001-05/03/23335.html.
13 For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, Dismantling Former Yugoslavia,
Recolonising Bosnia,
Covert Action Quarterly, Sprint 1996, available at
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Kosovo-controversies4.html or
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/chuss/dismantl.htm.
14. See Group of 17 "Program of Radical Economic Reforms", Belgrade 1999
at
http://www.g17.org.yu/english/programm/program.htm.
15. New Serbia Forum, "Privatization", Budapest, 13-15th March 2000,
http://www.newserbiaforum.org/Reports/privatisation.htm.
16. The full text of the IMF program is available at
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.cfm?sk&sk=3875.0 The Government's
commitment under the
IMF program is outlined in Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, "Economic Reform
Program for 2001" Belgrade,
December 9th, 2000, http://www.seerecon.org/FRYugoslavia/erp2001.htm, see
also "Synthetic View" of
main economic policy measures at http://www.seerecon.org/FRYugoslavia/epmeasures.pdf.
17. See Michel Chossudovsky, Kostunica Coalition Drives Up Prices and Blames...Milosevic,
October 2000,
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/chuss/triples.htm.
18. See B 92 News, 3 May 2001 at http://www.b92.net/archive/e/index.phtml.
19. IM Program, op cit. On Bulgaria see The Wind in the Balkans, The Economist,
London, February 8,
1997, p.12 and Jonathan C. Randal, Reform Coalition Wins, Bulgarian Parliament,
The Washington Post,
April 20 1997, p. A21.
20. See the Statement of IMF Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer,
December 2000 at
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2000/pr0075.htm.
21. See Michel Chossudovsky, "Brazil's IMF Sponsored Financial Disaster",
Third World Network, 1998 at
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/latin-cn.htm.
22. For details see Michel Chossudovsky, Financial Warfare triggers Global
Financial Crisis, Third World
Network at http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/trig-cn.htm.
23. See Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of Poverty, Zed Books, London
1997, chapter 12.
24. The IMF quotes the G-17 study, "Economic Consequences of NATO Bombardment",
Belgrade 2000 at
http://www.g17.org.yu/english/index.htm.
25. See Michel Chossudovsky, NATO Willfully Triggered an Environmental
Catastrophe in Yugoslavia,
June 2000, at is http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/chuss/willful.htm.
26. See G-17, "Economic Consequences of NATO Bombardment", Belgrade 2000
at
http://www.g17.org.yu/english/index.htm.
27. USA Today, 10 October 2000.
28. GAO : Briefing report to the Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives,
RPTno: gao/nsiad-00-125br, Washington, 24 April 2000.
29. Quoted in M. L. Manich Jumsai, King Mongkut and Sir John Bowring, Chalermit,
Bangkok, 1970, p. 21.
30. See Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalisation of Poverty, op cit., Chapter
8.
31. A. J. Langguth, The Forgotten Debt to Vietnam, New York Times, 18 November
2000, see also
Barbara Crossette, Hanoi said to vow to give MIA Data, New York Times,
24 October, 1992.
32. The Houston Chronicle, 8 December 1991. To consult the International
Court of Justice 1986 Judgement
on "Nicaragua v. United States of America" see: "Military and Paramilitary
Activities in and against
Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (1984-1991)" at
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/Icases/iNus/inusframe.htm, summary at
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions/isummaries/inussummary860627.htm.
33. UPI, 7 December 2000.
34. See the text of 1999 indictment of President Milosevic by the Hague
Tribunal at
http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ii990524e.htm.
35. See the text of UNSC resolution 687 (1991) pertaining to Iraq at http://www.unog.ch/uncc/introduc.htm.
© Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, May 2001. All rights reserved.
Permission is granted to post
this text on non-commercial community internet sites, provided the essay
remains intact and the copyright
note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or other form, contact
the author at
chossudovsky@videotron.ca, fax: 1-514-4256224.
inter@left.ru |