|Was Europe the real
target in the bombing of Serbia?
The following article is intriguing. In it, Tanjug, news agency of the left-leaning Yugoslav government, comments on an article in Area, magazine of the conservative Italian party, the National Alliance. The article concerns Washington's economic motives in the Balkans. What is striking is it appears that Tanjug and Area agree. Is this indicative of a growing European awareness of Washington's goals?
[Note: The Tanjug article came to Emperors-clothes.com in translation from Serbo-Croatian. It has been edited for readability. The content has not been altered. Some notes, concerning trade routes, have been added. Please feel free to distribute but please include all text including this message. Thanks.]
Rome, September 17, 1999 (Tanjug) - From the geopolitical point of view, Yugoslavia is the central country on the Balkans map. Moreover it is most attractive for its production and consuming potentials.
This is argued in the comment of Area, magazine of the Italian National Alliance. The Alliance, together with other parties of the opposition and right-center block in the Italian parliament, played a disgraceful role in supporting the NATO war against Yugoslavia.
In the latest issue, Area throws new light on that war. Enitled "Pact for Balkans (non)Stability", the article points out that shrewd observers of the recent "Great Westerners" meeting in Sarajevo could not miss a huge missing piece: Yugoslavia wasn't allowed. Its exclusion and NATO bombing, had been arranged in Washington. As usual, the Europeans were reduced to the role of yes-men.
How can the reconstruction of Yugoslavia be conceived without -- Yugoslavia? asks Area. Important land and water routes pass through Yugoslavia. These provide real and potential lines of communication between Europe, the Middle East in Asia, the North Sea and the Caucasus-Caspian zone. Those are the places with largest oil resources in the world. Thus leaving Yugoslavia out of the reconstruction of the Balkans could damage Europe more then Yugoslavia.
Area argues that NATO's attack on Yugoslavia aimed to achieve by force something American diplomacy could not: occupation of Yugoslavia, as Annex B of the Rambouillet Accord openly demanded. We might raise another question: why have Washington strategists tried so hard to occupy the Yugoslavia through the weapon of economic blackmail and through the mobilization of an internal, pro-American opposition in Serbia?
This alliance, stimulated by a flood of U.S. dollars and by the Serbian opposition's foolish illusion that Washington was motivated by friendship was destroyed by NATO bombs. Washington cares about strategic targets, based on the geopolitical, geoeconomical and geostrategic properties of Yugoslavia.
A direct objective of the Washington strategists was the literal destruction of the commercial-traffic route called Corridor Ten. It goes from Budapest, Hungary in the north via Belgrade to Salonika, a major port and Greece's second largest city, in the south. This is the shortest, most logical, the most economical connection between Western Europe and the Middle East.
The Danube water route is equally important. It connects the North Sea with the Black Sea and the Caucasus-Caspian zone. This vitally important Euro-Asian route was first drastically narrowed by sanctions imposed by the U.S. regime against Yugoslavia. And now the Danube water route has been virtually broken due to NATO's bombing of the bridges across the Danube in Novi Sad.
US policy has opposed developing Corridor Ten for some time, particularly building an oil pipeline from the Rumanian port of Constanta to Trieste, Italy. This line would enable Europe to get oil directly from Russia without American intermediaries. It would open a entirely new doorway, allowing Russian access to the furthest European markets. It would bypass the only presently existing doorway - the Straits of Bosporus, the necessity of using which currently allows Turkey to impose blackmailing restrictions.
Washington's strategy in Rome and Paris is to encourage the development of Corridor Eight, from the Bulgarian port of Varna, via Skopje in Macedonia, to Durres on the Albanian coast across the Adriatic Sea from Italy.
In Paris, pro-American lobbyists have been showing only the indirect "advantages" of this project, giving incentive to a chronic and poorly hidden anti-American mood, because any closing of Corridor Ten would cause a lot of problems for the Germans. They would not have the opportunity to spread Southeast, towards Central Asia and the Middle East, as they have dreamed of doing for a century.
Meanwhile in Rome, pro-American lobbyists are counting on the geographic ignorance of people in government. They have been "explaining" to them that Corridor Eight is more realistic and more profitable because it is closer to Italy. As if Durres is in Italy.
Contrary to Washington's anti-European strategy, it is clear that opening Corridor Ten is of vital for the Italian economy. This requires the government in Belgrade to resist American pressures and to defend not only its own interests but those of Europe as well.
But, that requires the aid of Europe, for the benefit of all Europeans, concludes the magazine. [End Tanjug article.]
* * *
For an excellent discussion of Washington's geopolitical strategy, see: http://emperors-clothes.comArticles/Sean%20Gervasi/Why.htm