Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this article |
Weeding Out Stalinists Before They Take Root!
by IAC = Workes World Party
19 Sep 2001
Modified: 25 Apr 2003
Don't let the Workers World Party take control, and destroy, our anti-war movement before it even gets past it's formative stages! Read on...
With very able organizational capabilities and large resources at their disposal, the (Stalinist) Worker's World Party (aka International Action Center; aka National Peoples' Campaign) have effectively dominated and manipulated numerous anti-war coalitions in the past, often shifting the overall message from oppoosition to U.S. military aggression to openly supporting the likes of dictators such as Hussein and Milosevic.
Once again, they are one of the first organizations to mobilize against the impending war. Before following the lead of this organization, please read this interesting essay on both their history, and the background of the elusive Ramsey Clark (WWP's public spokesperson and media darling)...
THE MYSTERIOUS RAMSEY CLARK: STALINIST DUPE OR DEEP-COVER SPOOK?
By Manny Goldstein
Take a close look and there is something downright suspicious about former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, now the darling of certain sectors of the radical left. His journey has taken him from the heights of federal power to outer orbits of the political fringe. In the process, he has seemingly transformed from a shill for the most corrupt elements of the US elites to a shill for any foreign despot who claims to oppose the US elites. Who is Ramsey Clark really working for?
Dynasty of Mediocrity
Ramsey Clark was born to power. In 1945, the Clark family made its leap from Dallas to DC when Ramsey's dad Tom Clark, a lobbyist for Texas oil interests, was appointed attorney general by President Harry Truman. In his Texas days, the politically ambitious Clark was cultivated as a useful connection by New Orleans mafia kingpin Carlos Marcello, and many feared Clark's new job would afford organized crime access to higher levels of power.
AG Clark was repeatedly mired in corruption scandals. In 1945, he was accused of taking a bribe to fix a war profiteering case. In 1947, after he had four convicted Chicago mob bosses sprung from prison before their terms were complete, Congress appointed a committee to investigate--and was effectively roadblocked by Tom's refusal to hand over parole records.
Truman admitted to a biographer that "Tom Clark was my biggest mistake." But he insisted: "It isn't so much that he's a bad man. It's just that he's such a dumb son of a bitch."
AG Tom Clark played along with the post-war anti-communist hysteria, approving federal wiretaps on Alger Hiss, the State Department official accused being a Soviet mole. In 1949, he moved over to the Supreme Court. Carlos Marcello biographer John Davis asserts the kingpin continued to funnel money to Clark when he sat on the high court.
Tom stepped down from the high court when young Ramsey was appointed attorney general by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1967. Ramsey was likely appointed precisely because he was Tom's son. And not because LBJ was impressed with Tom, but just the opposite: Johnson knew that Ramsey's appointment would maneuver Tom into stepping down. This cleared the way for the appointment of Thurgood Marshall, a comparative moral and intellectual titan who was strategic to the White House's effort to buy peace with the civil rights movement.
AG Ramsey got into a famous showdown with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover when he attempted to block the Director's wiretaps of Martin Luther King Jr.--apparently the first stirrings of Ramsey's conscience. Hoover, considering Clark a spineless "jellyfish," went over his head and ordered the wiretaps without the AG's approval. However, Clark later told Curt Gentry, author of a critical biography of Hoover, that the FBI director had "very strong human qualities" and "was not at all evil by any means. He really believed deeply in integrity, as he defined it, as he saw it."
Despite his unwillingness to approve the snooping on King (who, after all, had been a guest at the Kennedy White House), Clark was complicit with Hoover's COINTELPRO. Following the 1967 riots in Newark and Detroit, he directed the FBI to investigate whether the unrest was the result of some "scheme or conspiracy." He instructed Hoover to develop "sources or informants in black nationalist organizations, SNCC and other less publicized groups." The result was Hoover's extensive "ghetto informant program."
In 1968, Clark prosecuted Dr. Benjamin Spock for advocating draft resistance. "As late as 1968, while campaigning for Lyndon Johnson in Wisconsin, Clark was shouting at anti-war protesters to take their grievances to Hanoi rather than Washington," wrote John B. Judis in a 1991 exposť on Clark in The New Republic.
Clark also dutifully backed the official findings that Lee Harvey Oswald and Sirhan Sirhan each acted alone in the assassination of the Kennedy brothers.
But when LBJ lost in '68, Clark was iced from his farewell luncheon. The humiliated White House isolated him as King's Resurrection City protesters occupied the DC mall and Republican candidate Richard Nixon baited the AG for undermining "law and order." He had become a convenient whipping boy for both parties.
An embittered casualty of the '60s, Clark assumed a leftist posture after leaving the Justice Department. He became the lawyer for anti-war protestor Philip Berrigan, headed a private probe into the FBI killings of Black Panthers Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, and travelled to Vietnam to condemn the bombing.
In a 1974 bid for Senate in New York, he played the centrist in the Democratic primary, with Bella Abzug on the left and Daniel Moynihan on the right. Moynihan won. Clark, now 46, appeared to burn his bridges with the establishment at this point.
In June 1980, with America mesmerized by the Iran hostage crisis, he joined a forum on "Crimes of America" in Tehran--the first of many such junkets. The '80s saw him globetrotting to schmooze with any dictator who happened to be on the White House shit-list. After the US bombing of Libya in 1986, he met with Col. Mommar Qadaffi in Tripoli. He went to Grenada to advise Bernard and Phyllis Coard, leaders of the clique accused of murdering Maurice Bishop, who were facing treason charges.
Things started to smell really fishy in 1989, when Clark represented ultra-right cult-master Lyndon LaRouche and six cohorts on conspiracy and mail fraud charges. The LaRouchies had been bilking their naive followers of their savings by getting them to cough up their credit card numbers. Clark (who had been silent when the real COINTELPRO was conducted under his watch at the Justice Department) now charged that the LaRouche case was an "outgrowth" of COINTELPRO. He said the case was manufactured by LaRouche's "powerful enemies within the establishment" who targetted the cult because of its crusade "to combat the traffic in so-called 'recreational drugs'...and the practice of usury."
Clark was echoing the standard line of the LaRouche organization, which paradoxically pleads government persecution while boasting of its connections to the intelligence establishment (uniquely merging paranoia with delusions of grandeur). In fact, the cult has exchanged information with the FBI, and farmed out its "intelligence" services to Panama's Gen. Manuel Noriega. LaRouche's 1970s campaigns for a "War on Drugs" and space-based missile defense eerily predicted Reagan-era programs.
Clark couldn't keep his client from a conviction and brief prison term. But Clark's relationship with LaRouche went beyond legal representation to actual advocacy. Researcher Chip Berlet, a watchdog on radical right groups, told Judis that Clark's brief was a "political polemic." Clark's new coziness with LaRouche took watchdogs by surprise. Just a few years earlier he had represented German Green Party leader Petra Kelly in her libel suit against the LaRouche organization, which had called her a "terrorist" and "whore" in its propaganda.
In June 1990, a LaRouche front organization, the Schiller Institute, flew Clark to a cult-organized conference in Copenhagen. His speech there claimed the US government had moved against LaRouche because he was "a danger to the system," and decried that he was a victim of "vilification." The speech was printed in full by the LaRouchie New Federalist propaganda rag.
Clark also represented PLO leaders in a suit brought by the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the elderly vacationer who was shot and thrown overboard from the hijacked Achille Lauro cruise-ship by renegade Palestinian terrorists in 1986.
Another Clark client was Karl Linnas, an ex-Nazi concentration camp guard in Estonia (where he had overseen the murder of some 12,000 resistance fighters and Jews), who was being deported from the US to the USSR to face war crimes charges. Clark again lost the case, but again went to bat for his client in the public arena, questioning the need to prosecute Nazis "forty years after some god-awful crime they're alleged to have committed."
The Devil's Pact
In August 1990, two months after his return from the LaRouche conference in Copenhagen, with US troops mobilizing to Saudi Arabia, Clark accepted an invitation to lead the National Coalition to Stop US Intervention in the Middle East. This invitation had been extended by members of an orthodox Stalinist sect, the Workers World Party (WWP). Clark had finally found a new home. The Clark-WWP alliance has lasted to this day.
A brief look at the doctrinaire sect's history: WWP is the brainchild of Sam Marcy, intellectual guru at the party's helm until his death in 1998. In 1956, Marcy led the faction in the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) that supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary, attacking the popular uprising and general strike there as "counter-revolutionary." In 1959, the Marcy clique broke from the Trotskyist SWP to found the more Stalinist WWP. The new group wasted little time in cheering on the brutal Chinese repression of the indigenous culture in Tibet that year (which sent the Dalai Lama and 80,000 refugees fleeing into exile).
Vying with SWP and other parties for top dog position on the radical left, WWP always maintained a front group to suck in neophytes. During the Vietnam era this was Youth Against War & Fascism (YAWF). In the Reagan-Bush era it was People's Anti-War Mobilization (PAM)--which would be the operative group in the National Coalition in 1990.
With glasnost, WWP supported the Kremlin hardliners who resisted Gorbachev's reforms and disarmament moves. Insisting that China remained a "workers state," WWP supported Deng Xiaoping in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, again attacking the protesting students and workers as "counter-revolutionaries." In 1991, WWP supported the KGB coup against Gorbachev.
Yet WWP also wooed the Democratic party, supporting Jesse Jackson's presidential bid in 1984. In New York, WWP made alliances with the left wing of the Democrats to establish a foothold in key trade unions.
WWP cadre Gavriella Gemma became a secretary in Clark's New York law office in 1977. In his New Republic piece, Judis suggests that Clark fell under her spell and was won over to the WWP. When David McReynolds of the War Resisters League (WRL) met with Clark in 1990 to warn him that WWP was "using him," Clark refused to listen, constantly referring to what "Gavriella said."
With Clark as the figurehead and PAM/WWP at the helm, the National Coalition provoked a split in the movement against Operation Desert Storm through its refusal to condemn Saddam Hussein or Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The other established anti-war groups (War Resisters League, CISPES, SANE/Freeze, National Organization for Women, etc.) formed the rival National Campaign for Peace in the Middle East, which condemned both Bush and Saddam. Soft-peddling their pro-Saddam line, WWP's National Coalition won endorsements from celebrities like Spike Lee and Casey Kasem, sucking in numbers even after the split. The two groups held separate marches on Washington in January 1991, allowing the media to portray a divided movement.
WWP went to extreme lengths to maintain control of the National Coalition. At an April 1991 protest in New York City, WWP thugs attacked a Lower East Side squatter contingent and ejected them from the rally for refusing to take down their unapproved homemade banners. WWPers then called in the police and had the squatters arrested (SHADOW April/May 1991).
In November 1990, Clark flew to Baghdad to meet with Saddam, who allowed him to return with a few hostages. In February, with the bombs falling, Clark was in Basra, Iraq's southern port, witnessing the destruction. But his consistent failure to complain about Saddam's regime made it clear he was there at its invitation.
With Clark's name-recognition and homespun, avuncular image, WWP had the opportunity to form a new front group to win over naive liberals. This was the International Action Center (IAC), which remains the top vehicle for Clark's ego and WWP's play for hegemony over the fragmented remnants of the left.
IAC/WWP's politics went from bad to worse as Yugoslavia descended into chaos. It soon became obvious that Clark's legal work now closely followed the WWP line. In 1992, Radovan Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs, was served with federal subpoenas when he touched down in New York for UN meetings. The National Organization for Women and the Center for Constitutional Rights, acting on behalf of Bosnian refugee women, were charging him with ordering mass rape and war crimes. Clark, of course, immediately came forward to represent Karadzic. Clark also made junkets to Serb-occupied Bosnia to schmooze with Karadzic (as did various Russian neo-fascists, like Vladimir Zhirinovsky).
Meanwhile, International Action Center leaflets engaged in blatant historical revisionism over Serb war crimes, portraying them as lies perpetrated by an imperialist conspiracy.
"What about all those reports of 'Serbian atrocities'?" asked an IAC leaflet in 1993, and then answered its own question: "Before the bombs can be dropped the lies must be told." It then went on to cite fabricated atrocities which the Kuwaiti regime's paid PR hacks had attributed to the Iraqi occupation forces in 1990--without offering a shred of evidence that the reports of Serb rape camps and "ethnic cleansing" were similarly fabricated. Note the subtly evil propaganda. Opposing NATO bombing is one thing. Calling the reports of mass rape and ethnic cleansing "lies" is quite another. This "anti-war" propaganda is on the same repugnant level as right-wing Holocaust Revisionism.
IAC/WWP embraces what is now called in Europe the "Red-Brown Alliance"--the notion of a left-fascist alliance against the West. This alliance is most advanced in Russia where neo-Stalinists and neo-Czarists joined forces to oppose Yeltsin (seen as a stooge of the West). In an echo of the 1939 Hitler-Stalin Pact, former communists and anarchists in Russia now work with figures like Zhirinovsky, who have themselves sought alliances with German neo-Nazis. Like Clark and WWP, these Russian extremists have avidly rooted for the Serb armies throughout the wars in former Yugoslavia.
The "Red-Brown Alliance" was seen on the streets of New York during the 1999 NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia, when Clark led rallies which brought WWP communists together with right-wing nationalists and Orthodox clergy from the Serb immigrant community. Serbian flags were proudly waved at these New York rallies, while meetings at IAC's 14th Street offices degenerated into mass chants of "Serbia! Serbia! Serbia!" This at a time when Serbian police and paramilitaries were forcing 800,000 Albanian refugees to flee their homes in Kosovo at gunpoint.
Again, WRL and other anti-war groups broke away to form their own coalition that rejected both NATO's bombing and Serbian aggression against the Kosovo Albanians. But this time it was only IAC/WWP which held a national rally in DC.
In October 1999, Clark met with Yugoslavia's President Slobodan Milosevic in Belgrade, and said everything the dictator wanted to hear. Milosevic, by then facing war crimes charges before the UN tribunal at The Hague, called his guest "brave, objective, and moral."
The case against Radovan Karadzic has languished since the UN launched war crimes charges against him, forcing him into hiding in Serbia. Clark, meanwhile, represented Elizaphan Ntakirutimana,, a Rwandan Hutu fighting extradition from the US to face charges of genocide collaboration before the UN tribunal. The WWP line simultaneously (and predictably) tilted to the genocidal Hutu militias as the UN wrote up war crime charges against their leaders for ordering the slaughter of half a million Tutsi civilians in 1994. (Clark lost the case, and in March 2000, Ntakirutimana was deported to Tanzania, where the UN tribunal on Rwanda was held).
What is Ramsey Clark: dupe, kook or spook? Has a well-intentioned but none-too-bright Clark been duped by the WWP cadre? Or has his reasoning become unhinged for reasons of personal psychology? Or, is he a deep-cover spook, whose real Devil's pact is with sinister elements of the US intelligence community, his mission to divide and discredit any resistance to Washington's war moves?
Alexander, Robert J.
International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement
Duke University 1991
Davis, John H.bth
Mafia Kingfish: Carlos Marcello and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy
J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets
"The Strange Case of Ramsey Clark"
The New Republic, April 22, 1991
Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism
The Beast Reawakens: Resurgent Fascism & Right-Wing Extremism in the US & Europe
"The Long and Lonely Journey of Ramsey Clark" The New York Times,
June 14, 1999
Yalof, David Alistair
Pursuit of Justices: Presidential Politics and the Selection of Supreme Court Nominees
University of Chicago 1999
What do mean "our" anti-War Movement?
by Kill Authoritarian Whiteness
(No verified email address)
22 Sep 2001
This message seems more like a sectarian diatribe against the WWP/IAC, for control and "ownership" of the anti-war movement--as if it were a possession to be owned in the first place. What, for example, do mean when you say "our" anti-War movement, anyway? Who is "our"? You and your white hippy/anararchist/liberal/lefty friends?
Worst of all is the poster's uncritical use of mainstream media propaganda as a political weapon against the WWP/IAC, to wit their support of Milosevic.
Contrary to what CNN or Noam Chomsky has told you, Milosevic and the Yugoslavian government did not engage in the so-called mass campaigns of ethnic cleasing which were used to justify the US/NATO bombings.
Many of the supposed Serbian massacres such as the Racak massacre or the Srebrenica massacre have increasingly been questioned, even by mainstream Western media. Indeed, during the NATO bombings, ludicrous claims were made that up to 100,000 ethnic Albanians were ethnically cleansed by Milosevic. This is pure fantasy. Even the ICTY (you know what this organization is, don't you?) has subquently been unable to find anything near this number but rather has found only several thousand dead, may of them Serbian no less, and many of them in the context of guerrilla warfare--not civilian killings.
Moreover, this poster is wholly ignorant of the US/NATO role in sponsoring the KLA Albanians as a proxy army to destabilize Yugoslavia in the 1990s. This destablization campaign involved having the KLA engage in targeted assassinations and killings of Yugoslav police officers and officials in order to provoke a violent reprisal, which could subsequently be labeled as examples of "ethnic cleansing" by various Western "Human Rights" organizations, such as the George Soros front group, Human Rights Watch.
See www.tenc.net, www.antiwar.com, www.wsws.org for more details on this history.
This is but one example of the poster's ignorance with regards to the IAC/WWP's political stands. IT seems curious that this poster castigates the IAC for supposedly supporting Saddam Hussein but s/he approvingly cites the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Contras as some kind of "progressive" political cause--despite the fact that they were sponsored by the CIA no less. [Indeed, many of the leaders of the Tibetan contras subsequently became major players in the Golden Triangle drug trade!]
Ultimately, it seems to me this message is a prime example of how the White Left in the USA--despite its rhetorical posturings--isn't that different from the Right Wing or mainstream in terms of questioning FUNDAMENTAL lies propagated by the so-called Free Press.
Their politics is all about control and ownership of political turf, movements, and legitimacy--even as they preach about Democracy, Freedom, anti-authoritarianism, or whatever bullshit utopian slogan they hide behind.
Whether they call themselves "anarchists," "anti-authoritarians," "conservatives," "moderates," or "liberal/leftists," White people are all the damn same...
Yugoslavia: Rat Out...Rat In
by Revolutionary Worker #1074, October 15, 2000
(No verified email address)
22 Sep 2001
The first week in October, a deep political crisis ended Slobodan Milosevic's government in Yugoslavia. After the September 24 elections, opposition figures took over many local governments. A general strike, spearheaded by coal miners, demonstrated deep discontent. Crowds of people rallied in the capital, Belgrade, insisting that Vojislav Kostunica, of the DOS opposition coalition, had defeated Milosevic in the September 24 presidential election. Crowds attacked symbols of the ruling government-including the national parliament, where Milosevic's coalition maintains a majority. The police and army refused to intervene, and on Friday, October 6, Milosevic announced he would leave the presidency.
One reactionary rat has been driven from power in Belgrade-to be replaced by a new rat, hand-picked by the U.S. and NATO.
The Final Act of War
The U.S. media portrays the change in Belgrade as "the will of the people." But it really represents the will of NATO-the war alliance whose main powers are the U.S., Britain, Germany, and France. Over two years, NATO has used their armies and intense economic sanctions to force Yugoslavia to adopt a new government.
In the Spring of 1999, the NATO war alliance carried out thousands of bombing runs, attacking this poor country of only 10 million people for 72 days and nights. NATO warplanes shattered the country's economic backbone-bombing rail lines, communications, factories, hospitals, government offices and military installations.
After NATO troops occupied the Kosovo region in June 1999, the major imperialist powers established a strangling blockade on Yugoslavia-making economic recovery impossible. One striking miner told the New York Times, "I used to make $1500 a month. Now I make $80."
Meanwhile, the U.S. worked to "destabilize" the Yugoslav government from within. In addition to the hidden CIA operations, money was openly sent to Yugoslav opposition structures through the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, the U.S. Information Agency, and the Soros Foundation, among others. This intervention created the network of pro-NATO organizations, radio stations and newspapers upon which the so-called "democratic opposition" was built.
On Sept. 25 (one day after the Yugoslav elections), the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 1064, offering over $100 million dollars to any Yugoslav government opposing Milosevic. A few days later, DOS representatives were already conferring with NATO and IMF officials in Sofia, Bulgaria.
In other words, Western imperialist powers have spent two years giving the ruling class of Yugoslavia "an offer they could not refuse." The collapse of the Milosevic government has nothing to do with the "will of the people" (in Yugoslavia or anywhere else). It is a final episode of the war launched by NATO against Yugoslavia in 1999.
Representatives of the Serbian Capitalist Class
Milosevic lost power, but not because the masses seized power from his hands. The largely Serbian ruling class of Yugoslavia decided to dump him. They decided to bow to the intense war pressures of NATO-to abandon their previous favorite, Milosevic, and adopt a government that will operate within the regional framework imposed and dictated by the NATO alliance.
The DOS opposition is openly committed to Western-style capitalism. Their speeches promised the Yugoslav people a "normal life"-which is supposed to mean peace and prosperity in the country. But, as people know in the ghettos and barrios of the U.S.-and as people in Russia found out-"normal life" under U.S.-style capitalism means exploitation and poverty for millions of people.
DOS leaders include Veselin Vukotic, who oversaw the World Bank austerity plans for Yugoslavia in 1989. DOS economic plans speak of the "shock treatment" they plan for the country. The working people of Yugoslavia are not being offered a luxury seat at the table; they are slated to remain exploited at the bottom of capitalist society. "Becoming part of Europe" means being even more tightly tied to the needs and whims of international capital.
The Milosevic government has sometimes been called "socialist" and even "communist"-and these labels have confused some people (as they are intended to do). Some people assume that the Western attack on Yugoslavia has represented an attack on socialism (or "socialist remnants"), and that Yugoslavia now, for the first time, faces Western penetration and exploitation. This is not a correct analysis of the history and class nature of Yugoslavian society. Yugoslavia was a capitalist country long before the 1999 war started, and it remains a capitalist country today.
The RW examined the history and nature of Yugoslavia in two previous articles, "How Capitalism Caused the Balkan Wars" (RW #1001) and "U.S. Predators Stalk the Balkans-The imperialist motives behind the NATO war on Yugoslavia" (RW #1002). These articles are available online at rwor.org. Some key points from that analysis need to be pointed out here to understand the recent events.
Yugoslavia, a multinational country in the Balkans, emerged from the World War 2 resistance to Nazi Germany. Josef Broz Tito, Yugoslavia's leader, played an important role in uniting the many peoples of the Balkans into a single multi-national federation that included Croats, Slovenians, Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, Albanians and other nationalities. But Yugoslavia never became a socialist country. Tito betrayed the revolution and took the capitalist road. For the first time in history, political forces who called themselves "communist" constructed and profited from a capitalist social order. Tito's Yugoslavia formed a semi-official military alliance with the U.S. and NATO.
The imperialist penetration of Yugoslavia took the form of international loans for state-owned enterprises. In the 1980s, Yugoslavia sank into a classic "IMF crisis"-rooted in $1.8 billion of debt to international finance capital. And the imperialists demanded a series of "austerity" measures. The masses of working people were exploited and squeezed in typical capitalist ways.
It was during this period that Milosevic rose to the leadership in Serbia, the largest republic of the Yugoslav federation. He started as a leader in Serbia's largest bank. He was a vocal advocate of "market economics," and negotiated the linking of Yugoslavia's currency, the dinar, to the German deutschmark. His "Milosevic Commission" carried through new "free market reforms"- expanding direct foreign investment in the country.
Milosevic was a capitalist figure from the earliest days of his career and came to power in Serbia under a banner of reactionary nationalism. Milosevic proposed holding together the Yugoslav federation by building a "Greater Serbia"-and by militarily suppressing neighboring republics who tried to declare independence. He is a Serbian chauvinist who promoted harsh domination over Muslim, Croatian and Albanian people in places like Kosovo and Bosnia. At first, in the late 1980s, the U.S. supported this program-they had great influence within the central Yugoslav government and did not support breaking it up. Milosevic was seen as "their guy" and James Baker, U.S. Secretary of State in the Bush administration, endorsed Milosevic's armed attack on Slovenia to prevent their withdrawal from the federation.
Conflict Between Milosevic's Yugoslavia and NATO
Milosevic fell out with the Western imperialists. First, Germany supported Croatia's bid for independence with shipments of high-tech weapons. And that meant that Yugoslavia would not succeed in holding the larger federation together. As the region entered into a series of bitter wars, this ended the U.S. support for Milosevic.
A larger Yugoslavia had been in U.S. interests, but ongoing wars and instability in this region were not. These conflicts threatened the U.S.'s main strategic interest in this part of the world: building up Turkey as regional power and maneuvering to bring the oil-rich Caucasus countries out of Russian dominance and under U.S. control.
First Germany, then the U.S. and the NATO alliance, demanded that Belgrade's government accept a smaller, shrunken Yugoslavia. When conflict in Kosovo threatened to spill into new wider war, Milosevic's government faced all-out attack from NATO.
There was nothing "anti-imperialist" about Milosevic's methods. When his ties to Western imperialists worsened, he tightened his ties with the Russian imperialists who have been pursuing their own interests in the region.
Ever since the September 24 elections, President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright have been telling people what to do, like they are the kings of the world. They have tried to dictate whether Yugoslavia will have runoff elections, or whether the head of Yugoslavia's government will stay, or go into exile or face trial for his actions. There have been naked threats about possible NATO intervention-while the U.S. fleet practices invasions in the nearby Adriatic sea.
The officials in Washington DC babble about the "democratic will of the Yugoslav people" in one breath-and then, in their next breath, try to dictate what this independent country should do in its own internal affairs. It is naked imperialism.
It may never be clear if Kostunica really beat Milosevic in the presidential elections of September 24. But it is clear that those elections were not an act of "democratic will" by the people of Yugoslavia. More pliant, pro-U.S. elements of the Yugoslav ruling class have come to power after the masses of Yugoslav people have been battered, impoverished and threatened by NATO. This new government is no more representative of the interests of the people than the old one.
The only change is that the NATO alliance has now imposed its will on the Yugoslav/Serbian ruling class. The global imperialist financial institutions, like the World Bank and IMF, will now rush back in to resume their sinister work in Yugoslavia. The lives and work and resources of the people of this region will now face a "restructuring" designed to wring even more wealth out of the Balkans.
And the U.S., in particular, can focus more on its takeover moves in the Caucasus and the "southern tier" of the former Soviet Union. The U.S. wants to seize and exploit huge oil reserves in the Caspian Sea-and to weaken the Russian imperialists by depriving them of those resources. And even while bringing the Russian government in to approve the events in Belgrade, the U.S. imperialists are maneuvering to strengthen their position at the expense of rival imperialist powers.
The moves of the imperialists will provoke new conflicts throughout this part of the world. The U.S. spokespeople are already predicting that any new DOS government may only have a brief "honeymoon" -- before new struggles and demands arise from the people.
Within the inevitable turmoil, there will new opportunities for the people of this region to resist their oppressors, to develop new forms of unity among themselves, and to take the revolutionary road toward a liberated society.
This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Online
Write: Box 3486, Merchandise Mart, Chicago, IL 60654
Phone: 773-227-4066 Fax: 773-227-4497
(The RW Online does not currently communicate via email.)
Smearing a saint.
by Roger Lagassť
(No verified email address)
10 Dec 2001
Who is Manny Golstein and why is he/she smearing Ramsey Clark?
You have to wonder who this person is, if indeed it is a person.
No credentials accompany the attack on Clark.
No email address to respond to.
Just a long, virulent attack..
Reader beware !
Get's The TrashinAward (english)
by Robert Dennis
(No verified email address)
25 Apr 2003
How do I get on the Committee that approves trashing the reputationof someone like Ramsey Clark. I understandthat the ground rules do not require seeking response from the subject being skewered and that the credibility of one's sources need not be questioned if they fit the case against the victim.
Great site you folks have. Garbage workers will always have a job.