by Nebojsa Malic The strange visit of Serbian president Boris Tadic to Washington, less than a week after his inauguration, became a backdrop Monday for a new U.S. policy toward Serbia: absolute insistence on extradition of war crimes suspects to the Hague Inquisition.
Demands for extradition have featured prominently in U.S. policy toward Serbia since October 2000, and indeed dominated that policy at times, but they have never before taken it over completely. All the talk of multi-ethnic Kosovo, democratization, stabilization, reform, human rights, rule of law and other such boondoggles seems to have disappeared altogether, in favor of repetitive invocations of the ICTY.
This latest one-note policy is driven less by any interest in justice, and more by a power agenda. It could be that the Bush administration is trying to outflank its Democratic challengers by assuming an even harder line on the Balkans. Whether it is so or not, "war crimes" politics plays a crucial role in legitimizing Imperial intervention in that corner of Europe. This is not about justice. It’s about power.
A Growing Obsession
U.S. and Inquisition demands focus on the two wartime leaders of the Bosnian Serbs, president Radovan Karadzic and general Ratko Mladic. Wire services persistently repeat it is "widely believed" that Karadzic is hiding in eastern Bosnia and Mladic in Serbia, without establishing what "widely believed" actually means. Head Inquisitor Carla Del Ponte certainly believes so, but she is just one person – and short, rather than wide. Also, she is somewhat delusional: her spokeswoman recently accused NATO of deliberately failing to arrest Karadzic.
Nor is Del Ponte the only one obsessed with Karadzic and Mladic. Time magazine reports that Mladic is negotiating his surrender, prompted by U.S. and EU pressure – which sounds like wishful thinking aimed at becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
"Osama bin Serb"
Karadzic and Mladic have become "the world’s most wanted war crimes fugitives" (AP). The search for them has eclipsed even the search for Osama bin Laden, the alleged architect of 9/11. It is a bizarre situation, in which chasing two Bosnian Serbs who never attacked America or Americans is more important than tracking down the alleged mastermind of a major terrorist attack against the U.S. Then again, the very meaning of absurdity has been redefined by the invasion of Iraq…
Consider, though, that bin Laden’s organization actually participated in a jihad against the Bosnian Serbs, with the tacit or even overt support of the U.S. For instance, Khaled al-Harbi, a senior Bin Laden associate who surrendered to Saudi authorities last week, was "paralysed [sic] by a piece of shrapnel which hit him in the back as he was fighting in Bosnia." (The Daily Telegraph)
Though no doubt some accusations of al-Qaeda involvement in the Balkans made over the past three years have been self-serving and exaggerated, much more so are the strident denials of such involvement, made by supporters of Imperial intervention partial to Bosnian Muslims and Kosovo Albanians (both alleged to have al-Qaeda ties).
An Absurd Bargain
Speaking to the press on Monday, Tadic acknowledged that Mladic’s arrest "is the main issue with the international community." However, according to Reuters, Washington offered Tadic a deal: hand over Mladic "in exchange for possibly being allowed to try other key figures at home."
Two questions immediately arise from this. How exactly is the U.S. competent to offer deals on behalf of the supposedly "independent" ICTY? And, by what right does Washington assume the authority to "allow" any country to put its own citizens on trial or not? The obvious answers render the questions rhetorical. The ICTY is evidently answering to Washington and Brussels, not the UN, while the U.S. authority to impose its will on others comes mostly from the barrel of a gun.
All the Wrong Reasons
Further cementing the political nature of the demanded extraditions is the fact that the Empire is not arguing for them on grounds of serving international – or any other kind of – justice, but uses purely utilitarian arguments.
"NATO considers it of great importance to have this region reach stability and to have it integrated into Euro-Atlantic structures," NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said while visiting Belgrade this week. But "chances of establishing closer ties with the alliance depend on [Serbia’s] willingness to arrest and hand over top war crimes suspects…" (AP).
In other words, the motivation for extraditions is the possibility of eventually joining NATO and the EU. Lack of arrests and extraditions of men wanted by the Empire would "block" this integration. But given the true nature of NATO and the EU, why would anyone want to join either?
Bad Prospects
Indeed, why is joining these two institutions considered a pinnacle of human achievement in the Balkans? Why does just about every politician think this is an issue beyond debate?
The European Union evolved from a common market into a bloated bureaucratic monster. A super-state seeking to control every aspect of its subjects’ lives through legislation, reliant on heavy taxes and massive subsidies, the EU has little regard for personal freedom or private property. Contrary to popular belief, the EU is also an enemy of free trade, a key ingredient in economic prosperity.
Originally established to counter the perceived "Soviet aggression" at the dawn of the Cold War, NATO outlived its purpose in 1991. Its intervention in the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s was a desperate attempt to redefine its raison d’etre. It was also a crime against peace (specifically in Kosovo) and involved aiding and abetting of atrocities (committed by its local allies in Bosnia and Kosovo). There is absolutely no valid argument to show that NATO’s intervention in 1999 was not an illegal act of naked aggression; but since today’s world is ruled by power, not law, there is also no court that would dare indict NATO for this.
In a very real sense, NATO has become a "joint criminal enterprise," with the goal of imposing by force political objectives of the United States and its European satellites on unwilling nations. Is this not precisely what the world order established after 1945 declared a crime, and at least nominally endeavored to prevent?
A Nation on Trial
Amidst the furor about Karadzic and Mladic, last Friday the Hague Inquisition issued one more indictment – against Goran Hadzic, leader of the Krajina Serbs (in today’s Croatia). He managed to evade arrest over the weekend, prompting another hysterical outburst by Del Ponte. Yet no one seemed to note that the indictment against Hadzic had far greater implications.
At this point, every single Serb leader of the 1990s, military and political, has been indicted by the ICTY. Every single one! Whether these soldiers and politicians are actually responsible for any crimes against peace or humanity is absolutely irrelevant to the Hague Inquisition; its purpose is to establish the official history of the 1990s in the Balkans on the notion of "Serbian guilt."
Only in this context does the theory of "joint criminal enterprise," which underlies every single indictment of Serbian military and political leaders, make any sense. Also, the "joint criminal enterprise" clearly contradicts the claim that ICTY seeks to establish "individual responsibility" for Balkans atrocities, both legally and semantically. So do the charges based on "command responsibility," self-evidently.
Serb leaders charged by the ICTY are not on trial as individuals, but as representatives of the entire nation. There is no doubt about it any more.
A Tale of Two Lawsuits
Another demand by NATO, hidden amidst the talk of "war criminals," illustrates the mockery that international justice has become in this Age of Empire. In addition to extraditions, De Hoop Scheffer has demanded that Serbia-Montenegro drop its 1999 lawsuit against NATO for aggression. It does stand to reason that Yugoslavia’s successor cannot sue the Alliance and hope to join it at the same time. But dropping the lawsuit would mean accepting the 1999 aggression as legitimate, along with any and all of its consequences. Are the people of Serbia and Montenegro willing to do this, or – more likely – are they entirely unaware of the issue?
Meanwhile, nobody is pressuring Bosnia-Herzegovina to drop its lawsuit against then-Yugoslavia, for aggression and genocide. Initiated by the Izetbegovic regime (whose legitimacy was dubious at best) in 1993, it has been pursued unilaterally by the Muslim members of the joint government after the 1995 Dayton peace agreement, in direct violation thereof.
Manufacturing Consent
That the Empire seeks to conquer the Balkans is self-evident. Its motivations remain shrouded in mystery, probably because different factions within the establishment are driven by different things. They are, however, united in purpose. Crucial to that purpose is the effort to define the wars of the 1990s as a consequence of "Serbian aggression," thus legitimizing Imperial intervention on "humanitarian" grounds. It is of utmost importance that the Serbs themselves accept this "war guilt," seemingly of their own free will, as the Empire needs at least a pretense of consent of its subjects. Through force, occupation, tyranny, indictments and threats, the Empire has endeavored to shape a political climate among the Serbs favorable to their acceptance of war guilt. It appears that this effort has been successful; Serb leaders of 2004 have convinced themselves, and now seek to convince their people, that there is no other choice but to obey the Empire’s demands.
Putin is backing Bush even though Putin is cognizant of Bush’s involvement in the Beslan massacre. Putin apparently has a greater fear of Kerry’s advisor, Holbrooke, to the extent that his dread overrides Bush’s crimes against humanity. #msg-4307815
However, despite its overtures toward China and India, the Kremlin has been careful to avoid making the impression that it is forming an anti-US coalition, indicating that Russia could hardly afford anything that could be interpreted as a consistent affront to Washington.
The strategic partnership with China may be viewed by Russia as a way to counter US pressure, a sort of contingency plan in the event of a Kerry victory. Talk of a "strategic triangle", or troika, together with China and India, could also serve this purpose.
Moreover, concerns have been voiced in Moscow that relations with the US could decline under the Democrats. Russian media have speculated that Kerry, if elected next month, might put extra pressure on Moscow - and even include Russia in a new "axis of evil", along with Iran and North Korea.
Indeed, Democrats have voiced stronger criticism of Russia. "We're concerned that Putin is getting a blank check," said Richard C Holbrooke, a former US ambassador to the United Nations who is advising Kerry. "We need good relations with Russia, but we ought to have some standards here," he said.
Richard Holbrooke's makes crystal clear his dislike of Serbs and sympathies for Muslims. #msg-3667050
Does Putin consider that Holbrooke will push for a greater U.S. alignment with Chechnya and al Qaeda then that of which Bush is guilty? And does this mean we are to revisit the Balkans?
-Am
Putin covers his bets By Sergei Blagov
October 14, 2004
MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin's upcoming visit to China is expected to improve what is officially described as a strategic partnership between the two countries, one driven by both economic and geopolitical considerations. In strengthening this bilateral relationship, Russia appears to be countering mounting pressure from Washington concerning Moscow's internal affairs.
Putin is due to visit China from Thursday to Saturday this week for talks with President Hu Jintao, with discussions expected to focus on economic and strategic issues. Economic agreements to be signed cover space flight, atomic energy, engineering manufacturing, high technology, information technology and communications.
Last month, Moscow promised to supply more crude oil to China, while Beijing pledged to invest US$12 billion in Russia's infrastructure and energy sector by 2020. But despite economic incentives, Beijing is yet to secure a clear commitment from Moscow to build an oil pipeline from Siberia, a long-standing issue between the two countries. Russia has promised to build the oil pipeline to China as an extra stretch to its Pacific pipeline, but a final decision is unlikely to materialize soon.
Meanwhile, Russian officials have suggested bilateral trade could hit $20 billion this year, reaching the goal set by the two countries last year - twice the level of 2001. The nations have pledged to push bilateral trade past the $60 billion mark by 2010, although that would mean no less than the same robust 20% annual growth rate.
Furthermore, a deal supporting Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization is scheduled to be inked during Putin's three-day visit. In response, Russia is expected to confirm Moscow's loyal stance toward China over Taiwan and Tibet.
Apart from economic matters, Russia has geopolitical interests for improving ties with China as Moscow is growing increasingly concerned with mounting US pressure on the Kremlin. In recent weeks, Moscow has described comments on a variety of events in Russia by the United States, including moves to limit elections and boost centralized controls, as "interference in Russia's internal affairs".
Notably, in their first debate, US President George W Bush and Democratic contender Senator John Kerry voiced that Russia was rolling back democratic reforms. Kerry criticized Putin's recent moves to strengthen domestic centralized controls as part of Russia's "war on terror". "I regret what's happened in these past months. And I think it goes beyond just the response to terror," he said in the debate. "No, I don't think it's okay and said so publicly," Bush said. However, Bush said he had "a good relation with Vladimir" and regarded Putin as "a strong ally in the war on terror".
As Russia-related issues surfaced during the US presidential campaign, Russian politicians sounded dismissive. The leader of the nationalist Rodina party, Dmitry Rogozin, said Bush and Kerry should mind their own business. "What we are doing is our own internal affair," he said.
Moreover, concerns have been voiced in Moscow that relations with the US could decline under the Democrats. Russian media have speculated that Kerry, if elected next month, might put extra pressure on Moscow - and even include Russia in a new "axis of evil", along with Iran and North Korea.
Indeed, Democrats have voiced stronger criticism of Russia. "We're concerned that Putin is getting a blank check," said Richard C Holbrooke, a former US ambassador to the United Nations who is advising Kerry. "We need good relations with Russia, but we ought to have some standards here," he said.
Incidentally, when citing his overseas travel in the first debate, Kerry made a mistake by saying the cells of the KGB headquarters in Moscow had been "under Treblinka Square". He must have meant Lubyanka Square, as Treblinka was a Nazi death camp in Poland.
Intentional or not, the mistake came as an ominous sign for Moscow. For Putin, other top officials and former fellow KGB officers, Lubyanka Square bears no bad meaning as the site of the KGB headquarters. Hence Kerry's confusing Lubyanka with Treblinka sounds almost blasphemous in today's Russia.
Little wonder that Russia tried to play on the US presidential campaign in favor of the Republicans. In June, Russia announced that it supplied the US with intelligence that Saddam Hussein was planning to carry out terrorist attacks against the US. The announcement was interpreted as a sort of justification of the US-led war on Saddam, and the Kremlin's attempt to come to Bush's aid on the eve of the US elections.
With this background, the strategic partnership with China may be viewed by Russia as a way to counter US pressure, a sort of contingency plan in the event of a Kerry victory. Talk of a "strategic triangle", or troika, together with China and India, could also serve this purpose.
Putin is due to visit India in December, and the foreign ministers of India, Russia and China are to meet at an international conference in Kazakhstan on October 21 to discuss their bid to create a multilateral world. The meeting on "Cooperation and Confidence-Building in Asia", to be held in Almaty, Kazakhstan, is part of their annual consultations. The regular consultations among three of the world's major nations have set off renewed speculation about the "strategic triangle", first proposed by then Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov during a visit to India in 1998.
Russia, China and India have so far refrained from publicly discussing, let alone endorsing, the idea. However, since 2002 the foreign ministers of the three countries have met regularly on the sidelines of international conferences to strengthen cooperation.
However, despite its overtures toward China and India, the Kremlin has been careful to avoid making the impression that it is forming an anti-US coalition, indicating that Russia could hardly afford anything that could be interpreted as a consistent affront to Washington.
Based in Moscow, Sergei Blagov covers Russia and post-Soviet states with special attention to Asia-related issues. He has contributed to Asia Times Online since 1996. Between 1983 and 1997, he spent some seven years in Southeast Asia, mainly in Vietnam. In 2001 and 2002, Nova Science Publishers, New York, published his two books on Vietnamese history.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)
Is the killing of the Trans-Balkan Oil Pipeline an indication Russia expects another conflict in the Balkans and would rather reroute the pipeline? #msg-3667050
Background:
Putin is backing Bush even though Putin is cognizant of Bush’s involvement in the Beslan massacre. Putin apparently has a greater fear of Kerry’s advisor, Holbrooke, to the extent that his dread overrides Bush’s crimes against humanity. #msg-4307815
However, despite its overtures toward China and India, the Kremlin has been careful to avoid making the impression that it is forming an anti-US coalition, indicating that Russia could hardly afford anything that could be interpreted as a consistent affront to Washington.
The strategic partnership with China may be viewed by Russia as a way to counter US pressure, a sort of contingency plan in the event of a Kerry victory. Talk of a "strategic triangle", or troika, together with China and India, could also serve this purpose.
Moreover, concerns have been voiced in Moscow that relations with the US could decline under the Democrats. Russian media have speculated that Kerry, if elected next month, might put extra pressure on Moscow - and even include Russia in a new "axis of evil", along with Iran and North Korea.
Indeed, Democrats have voiced stronger criticism of Russia. "We're concerned that Putin is getting a blank check," said Richard C Holbrooke, a former US ambassador to the United Nations who is advising Kerry. "We need good relations with Russia, but we ought to have some standards here," he said.
Richard Holbrooke's makes crystal clear his dislike of Serbs and sympathies for Muslims. #msg-3667050
-Am
Russia Kills Trans-Balkan Oil Pipeline
Point of View: 20 October 2004, Wednesday.
The Russia Journal By John Helmer
Russia's prime minister and a senior Russian oil executive, on a visit this week to Bulgaria, appeared to have killed the proposed new trans-Balkan oil pipeline, linking the Black Sea with the Mediterranean port of Alexandrupoulis, while avoiding the Turkish straits.
Although Russian officials claimed today {Wednesday} in Moscow that no final decision has been taken, nor will be taken until a meeting of project experts takes place in Athens on November 4-5, the sentiment in Moscow currently favours an alternative route, also bypassing the Bosphorus Straits, but on Turkish, not Greek or Bulgarian territory.
The 320-km pipeline project from Burgas has been in planning for almost a decade, involving the governments and commercial companies from Bulgaria, Greece, and Russia, plus bank support from the European Union.
In Sofia yesterday {Tuesday}, Prime Minister Fradkov reportedly said "we need a complex analysis of this project's expedience," adding that "the distribution of the three countries' shares [in the venture] should justly reflect Russian interests."
His remark flew in the face of five-year old technical and economic feasibility studies, which had established the project's viability. He also appeared to be undoing agreements of the three governments between 1999 and 2002 to establish equal one-third shares for each country's designated participants.
Today {Wednesday}, Vagit Alekperov, head of LUKoil, Russia's largest oil exporter, claimed the project is unprofitable, and that unless the governments of Bulgaria and Greece solve tax and land price issues, the Russians will go no further.
In Moscow, LUKoil spokesman Mikhail Mikhailov said ""it is the current position of the compan y not to participate in the project." It is not clear why LUKoil, which was not one of the designated Russian oil companies in the original project papers, should be in a position to veto it now.
Two years ago, LUKoil's management of the Neftokhim Burgas petroleum refinery came under sharp attack from minority investors in the plant, who accused LUKoil of over-charging the refinery for its crude oil supplies, and under-paying for the refinery's processing, in order to strip value from the Bulgarian company.
"Lukoil's transfer pricing, value destruction, and lack of fair and transparent practices with respect to minority shareholders set an extremely damaging precedent," claimed one of a group of critical investors at the time.
The group, which together held about 18% of the refinery's shares, included Vostok Nafta Investment Ltd., a Stockholm-listed investment company; and portfolio funds managed by Fintech, Firebird, Framlington, and Emergent Fund Management. The investors issued a public warning to the Greek government against accepting a bid from LUKoil to take control of Hellenic Petroleum, which was then being offered for privatization.
Rosneft, the state-owned oil producer, which has been expanding its deliveries to Tuapse, across the Black Sea from Burgas, sounded a more positive note on the trans-Balkan pipeline. According to spokesman Dmitry Panteleev, "we are waiting now for the November commission decision to come. We are interested in the project."
Transneft spokesman Sergei Grigoriev was non-committal. "I've heard different things", he said. "Russia does not oppose the project, and instead has agreed on the November expert commission to consider all parties' interests. The results will be available then. Also, I don't know if our specialists will be involved."
In a report on Fradkov's meetings in Bulgaria, Izvestia reported Industry and Energy Minister Victor Khristenko as saying that Moscow wants to arrange a land-route for oil to bypass the Bosphorus, but will not build more than one pipeline to do this. "
At the first stage." Khristenko was reported as saying, "we shall lay only one route around the Bosphorus." He hinted that the November meeting in Athens would decide whether the trans-Balkan route would qualify.
However, Alekperov, who is more influential than either the energy minister or the prime minister, is signaling that this decision has already been made.
The trans-Balkan pipeline has been budgeted to cost USD 668 M, according to the five-year old studies. This is one-tenth the cost of a competing pipeline across Turkish territory to Ceyhan, on the Mediterranean, which has been promoted by the US government.
It also cheaper than a proposal, which Transneft, released in February. According to Transneft's CEO Semyon Vainshtok, his company wants to construct a 193-km pipeline on the territory of Turkey, with the local contractor Anadolu.
The potential starting point for this Bosphorus bypass route could be Kiyikei on the Black Sea, and the end-point at an offloading terminal at Ibrikhaba, on the Aegean Sea. The project would cost about USD 900 M, Transneft claims, with capacity estimated in the range of 50-60 million tonnes per year. This is roughly equal to the volume of current Russian shipments by tanker through the Turkish straits.
When Vainshtok announced Transneft's Turkish plan, two Russian oil companies, Tatneft and TNK-BP, indicated their willingness to guarantee oil supplies for the line.
The Burgas-Alexandroppoulos pipeline has been designed to a capacity of about 40 million tonnes per annum, loaded on tankers of up to 150,000 deadweight.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
