Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
SOFIA (AFP) - The construction of an oil pipeline across the Balkans from Bulgaria's Black Sea port of Burgas to Vlore on Albania's Adriatic coast should begin by the end of the year, the US-led consortium in charge of the operation said yesterday.
The 890-kilometer (550-mile) pipeline, which will cross the troubled republic of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), will take four years to build, cost 1.13 billion dollars (1.24 billion euros) and have a daily capacity of 750,000 barrels of crude oil, said Ted Ferguson of the Balkan pipeline consortium (AMBO). "I believe the decision will be made by the end of the year and real work to develop the project will begin at the end of the year," he said.
Speaking before a meeting with Bulgaria's Deputy Prime Minister Kostadin Pascalev, Ferguson said the pipeline was needed as an alternative to the Bosphorus sea route through Turkey to bring oil from Central Asia to western markets via the Black Sea.
The Bosphorus shipping route would be insufficient to transport growing oil supplies of oil coming from the Caspian Sea region, he said, pointing out that a pipeline linking Kazakhstan to Russia's Black Sea port of Novorossisk was due to begin pumping in September.
Bulgaria has said it will also back plans for a pipeline linking Burgas to the Greek port of Alexandroupolis on the Aegean Sea. The 700-million-dollar pipeline would stretch 320 kilometers and transport 40 million tons of oil annually.
But Ferguson said AMBO's route was a better choice. "We believe that the port of Vlore is more attractive than the ports in the Aegean Sea for exports because it's deeper water (and) closer to the areas and ports where the oil will be sold," he said. Oil arriving in Vlore would be transported via Rotterdam to the United States, he said.
Balkans Bump.
Now the question is, who has the contract to build it. I hope to God it is not Brown and Root, who has had several significant contracts in that neck of the woods.
For those of you who don't know, that is Dick Cheney's former employer.
I know you and I don't see things eye to eye, but I think we both agree that NATO's intentions weren't exactly sincere. Do you think this could have anything to do with it?
I'm still skeptical. Why couldn't the EU/US just have paid the appropriate "fees" to Macedonia and Albania and get the pipeline built without all clandestine backing of the KLA/UCK and the support of a greater Albania and the bombardment of Serbia?
I don't know. An economic solution to the pipeline seems much more logical but logic is not in abundance in the Balkans as far as I can tell.
Certainly it took Bill Clinton squatting in the White House with his henchwoman, Maddie Albright to allow the NATO participation in this fiasco. Is it Blair that wanted this to happen so he could look like a tough European leader and get a better deal for England from the EU central bank by getting them cheaper oil? Did he enlist his "yeah I'll bomb anything for you Tony" buddy to do most of the NATO dirty work? That part was probably easy.
I don't know. If this guerrilla insurgency was enflamed for an oil pipeline, then the New World Order is indeed a very unhappy World Order for the "little people" on the receiving end of the NWO's arms.
An economic solution to the pipeline seems much more logical but logic is not in abundance in the Balkans as far as I can tell.
That's probably the real reason Milosevic went from being "the guarantor of stability in the Balkans" to a prisoner at the Hague.
If this guerrilla insurgency was enflamed for an oil pipeline, then the New World Order is indeed a very unhappy World Order for the "little people" on the receiving end of the NWO's arms.
And when they get PO'd enough, it may not be so great for us either.
>>>An economic solution to the pipeline seems much more logical but logic is not in abundance in the Balkans as far as I can tell<<<.
Of course. Pipeline is only an excuse for NATO being in the Balkans.It is questionable whether it will be built at all, but it looks like a plausible reason.
With Germans calling Americans "New Russians" and wanting US troops OUT of German soil, Balkans was chance not to be missed.
bump
"Keep the Albanians Happy" has been the policy all along.
An economic solution to the pipeline seems much more logical but logic is not in abundance in the Balkans as far as I can tell.
The solution is indeed totally unlogical, but the decision makers are not in the Balkans... so what do Balkan features, abundant or not, have to do with it?
And, of course let us NOT forget...the west knows full well about the great mineral resources in Kosovo...that would be Uranium, lead, silver,CLEAN BURNING COAL, GOLD and CHROMIUM.
Yes, Brown-nosed root is involved BIG TIME!!!!
yep! this has been the spectulation for some time now, the nwo shows their hand.
Slobodan Miljkovic would have none of it for fear of upsetting his guard (russia) and now you know why FRY was bombed by the u.n./nwos private army aka nato.
The 890-kilometer (550-mile) pipeline, which will cross the troubled republic of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)
Which is why Macedonia had to be dismembered and destroyed, and will eventually be administered or annexed by NATO's two most loyal apparatchiks: Bulgaria and Albania. The US already has a treaty with Albania (1993); Senator McCain of Arizona -- a proven KLA supporter -- offered Bulgaria NATO membership. The pieces are falling together as expected. Nothing has changed, the two are serving a foreign imperial power, as always.
Remember that, last time I checked, Americans do not plan to live in the Balkans. Which means they will leave -- one day, sooner or later -- hopefully without too many lives wasted there. It is a mathematical certainty that the Serbs will be there to wave them good bye before they turn around and settle the score that our policy in the Balkans left behind.
Follow the money.
"...pointing out that a pipeline linking Kazakhstan to Russia's Black Sea port of Novorossisk was due to begin pumping in September.
Here it is.
Senator McCain of Arizona -- a proven KLA supporter -- offered Bulgaria NATO membership
McCain is in no position to offer anything to Bulgaria (or to anybody else). I went to your link and found just a usual hollow and vague drivel US officials are feeding Bulgaria with from the time of the Iraqi crisis and the break-up of Yugoslavia. Anyway, the most stupid Bulgarian dream is to enter NATO and to benefit from it. But if they try to participate in partition of Macedonia, the only possible outcome is the Bulgarian national catastrophe of 1918 looking like pink romance in comparison. However, considering that the current prime minister of Bulgaria is Simeon von Coburg-Gotha, a grandson of Ferdinand, who had to abdicate from the throne and leave for exile as a result of the catastrophe of 1918, it is highly unlikely for Bulgaria to butt in on anything like that.
Two years ago, Biden visited Sofia as the ranking minority senatorial pimp
Now its someone else's turn. The ground rules are still the same:
1. Albania needs to be pandered to. Otherwise there is no deal (this makes it easy for our esteemed elected officials to pick a side in the conflict).
2. No banker will cut a check for construction until the entire route is "pacified".
Bulgaria To Receive About USD 80 M Annually From The Construction Of Bourgas-Vlore Pipeline (5:05 PM)
The whole procedure for the construction of Bourgas-Vlore pipeline will take about 4 years, Roumen Nikolov, representative of AMBO Corporation for Bulgaria, announced after the meeting between President of AMBO Corporation Edward Ferguson and Bulgarian Deputy PM and Minister of Regional Development and Public Works Kostadin Paskalev.
The project will cost USD 1.130 Bln, according to last year’s estimations. Benefits for Bulgaria from the pipeline’s passing through its territory are estimated at about USD 80 M annually, Nikolov said.
Any company, which has petrol in the Caspian basin will be interested in a new way for delivering it to the West, Ferguson said answering to a question about potential investors in the project. I am concerned over the situation in Macedonia because people would not invest in a region where a civil war is being waged.
Bulgaria will not invest in the project; it will be completed entirely with foreign capital. Bulgarian companies will take part in the construction of the pipeline. They will be selected in accordance with Bulgarian legislation considering the most favourable economic terms, the AMBO President explained.
This was the first meeting between Minister Paskalev and Edward Ferguson. Mr. Ferguson presented the current stage of the development of the project and his corporation’s nearest plans. He said that soon there will be a new meeting to discuss the project in more details.
To know more about infrastructure projects in Bulgaria and in the region as a whole – visit SEEF 2001 /October 15-17, Sofia/.
Sen. Lugar Says Bulgaria's NATO Drive on Track
September 1, 2001 1:51 pm EST
By Branimir Kondov
SOFIA (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Richard Lugar said on Saturday Bulgaria was doing well on the road toward membership in NATO and he hoped the Balkan country would be invited to join at the alliance's summit next year in Prague.
"My hope is that the NATO enlargement next year will be comprehensive and complete...from the Baltics to the Black Sea," Lugar told reporters after meeting Bulgarian President Petar Stoyanov.
The influential Republican from Indiana, who helped shape policy in the first round of NATO expansion, also said Bulgaria was making substantial defense reforms to meet NATO membership targets but should press ahead to maintain momentum.
"I've been impressed with the unity of views among the Bulgarian politicians I met today regarding NATO accession," Lugar said in a lecture to the Atlantic Club of Bulgaria, an independent think tank advocating membership in NATO.
NATO membership criteria include a democratic government, free-market economy, civilian controlled army and military compatibility with the alliance.
Lugar visited the three ex-Soviet Baltic states, Romania and Bulgaria, all seeking to join NATO, during the past two weeks. Apart from President Stoyanov he met Bulgaria's Defense Minister Nikolai Svinarov and Foreign Minister Solomon Passy on Saturday.
He said last week NATO should consider Bulgaria and Romania at the Prague summit, even if they were to fall short of some NATO requirements, and invite Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to join.
"Bulgaria has proceeded with reform with a military establishment that was large, the only relevant comparison is with Romania that also has a large army but has not proceeded that quickly so far," Lugar said.
Lugar also said Bulgaria would have to solve problems with regard to arms exports as it tries to win an invitation to join NATO. The Balkan country has often come under fire in the past for alleged violations of arms embargoes.
"Great care must be given to where the shipments of arms go and clearly assurances by Bulgarian statesmen that there is careful control on those shipments will be a paramount consideration," said Lugar.
Bulgaria's new coalition cabinet led by Simeon Saxe-Coburg, the country's former king and the only ex-monarch to regain power in post-communist eastern Europe, has pledged to maintain momentum on Sofia's drive toward NATO membership.
Saxe-Coburg has said he hoped Bulgaria would win an invitation to join NATO at the Prague summit, leading to actual membership in 2004. He is expected to discuss Bulgaria's NATO bid during a two-day visit to Brussels starting on September 12.
By Annie Rusinova
Bulgaria's chances of joining NATO are very good even though a lot more has to be done, said U.S. Senator John McCain on Monday. Senator McCain arrived for a two-day official visit to Bulgaria on Sunday, at the invitation of President Petar Stoyanov.
The president awarded him with the Stara Planina Order First Class for his contribution to the promotion and development of Bulgarian-U.S. relations and for his consistent support of Bulgaria's bid for NATO membership. He is the first U.S. senator to be awarded with the highest Bulgarian order.
McCain has received almost all the U.S. awards for his public service and political career, said Stoyanov at the presentation ceremony. During his 22-year service as a pilot in the U.S. Navy he fought in the Vietnam War and was a prisoner of war for several years after his plane was shot down. Tom Cruise's character in the movie Born on the 4th of July was modelled on McCain. The U.S. senator said he enjoyed the movie and added jokingly that he wished he looked more like Tom Cruise. In 1997, Time magazine declared Senator John McCain one of the 25 most influential people in the U.S.
"Without any doubt, I place Senator John McCain among Bulgaria's most loyal friends for his understanding of the difficulties Bulgaria faced after the collapse of communism and throughout all crises in the former Yugoslavia; for understanding that Bulgaria must be a member of the Euro-Atlantic family; and finally for his faith that Bulgaria will ultimately fulfill this mission," said Stoyanov.
McCain said tha democratic Bulgaria has shown itself to be a true friend of the U.S. and a partner of NATO in its efforts to establish lasting peace in the Balkans. He assed that the majority of the U.S. Congress was supportive of Bulgaria's entry into NATO.
McCain also said he was convinced that much closer relations would be established between Bulgaria and the U.S. after Bulgaria joined NATO. He recommended that the Bulgarian Army should reduce its size with the aim of becoming a smaller but more efficient professional army.
McCain held talks on Monday with Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg, Foreign Minister Solomon Passi and Defence Minister Nikolai Svinarov. He established that Bulgaria's commitment to NATO membership remained a top priority and the government would speed up necessary reforms.
Bulgaria and Romania are the only two ex Soviet satellites who are not yet members of NATO. Given their strategic economic and political importance NATO membership would be to their best national interest as well as NATO. Otherwise, you would have the redrawing of an invisible Iron Curtain.
Hopefully the new Prime Minister Simeon Saxe Coburg-Gotha will pursue NATO membership as forcefully as his predecessor Prime Minister Ivan Kostov, who together with Foreign Minister Nadezhda Mihailova, guided Bulgaria through one of the most perilous times in its history.
Hopefully, also, the Balkan fuse lit in 1878, (of which 1918 was but one manisfestation -- fascism and communism - being another) designed to burn in perpetuity, would have a providential end.
Ahhhhhh......to quote some of out MORE ASTUTE AMERICAN CITIZENS,
"WHOOOOOPE THAR' IT IS!"
Now, I guess we look for Brown & Root, Bechtel & Flour, among others. Now we know why the gas price went up - prepayment of the pipeline. No bankers needed.
While I agree with you about NATO's meddling seemed to be based
on this pipeline. But it would appear that the actions
(NATO & Monika's War) do not result in this particular
outcome - namely a pipeline.
For myself and many other Macedonians it is not the issue
of a pipeline but rather that someone wishes to gain
imperial power again over different peoples in the Rep of Macedonia.
It is the belief mo many of us that this is not a major cause of
alarm. But rather the subjugation and the control of
peoples opinions/way of life that is critical
.
Macedonians are now believing that this is the Ottoman
Empire II bbut even with worst repurcussions. It has more to do with
retaining our identity and culture rather than a pipeline
that some Western nations feel it will benefit the region.
Here's some more background for you to enjoy
"A reporter asked whether regional conflicts and in particular the Kosovo one would shift investors away and circumvent infrastructural projects, to which the Bulgarian president responded that economic profit is a significant tool in political decision-making....."
Haven't they been annoucing this pipeline was nearly finished for 18 months?
Senator McCain, like Lugar, Biden, Lierbarman, etc. are very influential people in the US Congress. They belong to various crucial committees which determine which way the Congress will go in supporting or opposing the president's foreign policy. And, when it comes to the Balkans, the Democrats and the Republicans are pretty much on the same wavelenght because the need to be in the Balkans is both economic as well as strategic.
If Senator Lugar and McCain and Biden say Bulgaria is ripe for NATO membership, they can't give it to Bulgaria, but the Congress can.
That is the only way for Bulgaria to "regain" its 1878 crap Persa keeps whining about. Bulgaria has yet to try to become a mature nation and move away from perpetual sponsorship of various big powers. It has yet to earn its bread alone, as an idnependent and mature nation, instead of getting handouts from foster powers as they come along.
But, given the track record, it is easier to switch loylaty than to grow up and live on your own, so I wouldn't count on solving this 1878 neurosis any time soon -- not permanently at least. Remember, this Big Daddy won't be there to protect you forever, and the new one may have other plans. Boo!
Any link to this story?
Garih was killed after he had met with Bulgaria's Deputy Premier Nikolay Vassilev. Garih headed the ALARKO group, a heating, ventilating and air conditioning company that also does construction in Bulgaria, Turkey and central Asia.
Well, ladies first - so I'll reply to you, Persa. Nadezhda Mikhailova and Ivan Kostov had just swapped a$$es to lick (Soviet for Western), which led the nation to nowhere. That is why the King's party achieved a landslide electoral victory couple of months ago. The alternative - slightly disguised communists - offered to keep licking the former, though substantially wrinkled and pinched one.
As to the NATO, there is indeed some benefit in being a part of an exclusive club, but acceptance in mass of such mighty and influential states as Slovenia and the likes, makes the Atlantic Treaty look like Young Communist (oops, Capitalist) League. When Romania and Bulgaria join it, the Brussels will be finally able to sleep peacefully at night. No vicious aggressor would ever dare to encroach on eternal Western values. So I hope His Majesty Simeon II won't be too eager to involve his country in yet another inequal union. Unfortunately, his current foreign minister Solomon Passi is the founder and president of the Atlantic Club - Bulgarian pro-NATO lobbying group. However, Simeon has already demonstrated an ability to surprise those who expected him to act conventionally. I look forward to seeing the most interesting development in this direction.
Neophyte, if your king manages to keep Bulgaria out of NATO's Young Capitalists League, and elevates the country to an independent entity with a sense of self instead of servitude, I will take back everything I said about Bulgaria.
Tetka Persa may not be happy, but then, so what?
Thank you. It's bookmarked. I'm still pouring through the last batch -- this oil business is almost as complicated as Balkan politics.
If Serbia had been dismembered in 1878 as Bulgaria was, and the Serbian people of those partitioned parts then handed over gratuitously to its neighbours who then attempted to either assimilate them or exterminate them, I don't think this board would stop talking about the 1878 Berlin Congress, complimented by an entire slew of articles from anti.war by an army of very well prepared journalists And certainly they would not address it with vulgar language.
As I said before when the pain is on someone else, you know how to deny it, but you know very well how to defend your rights, along with a supportive and compliant chorus. Note on this board, I am practically the only one who is giving this history. So much for Bulgarian's self-advertisement of its tragedy in the 20th c..
As to leaning on Great Powers, name one Balkan country who since 1878 has not leaned on some great power or another. Throughout the 20th c. Greece and Serbia in the Balkans have been the pampered children of the Great Powers, at Bulgaria and Macedonia's expense. Yet have you heard one word of reproach (apart from me) against the Great Powers by Bulgarians or the Macedonians.
The Great Powers know the discipline of these countries and their tradition which in the past ten years have more than amply proved their loyalty to NATO, western democratic ideals, and the US.
I don't see anything wrong with all the Balkan countries being members of NATO. NATO is a democratic defensive alliance. NATO membership, which in the Balkans has been conferred thus far only on Greece and Turkey, should be extended to all other states. It is the best guarantor of peace. You can describe the foreign policy of Kostov and Mihailova in whichever way you like, I see it as working for the best interests of Bulgaria. And if Foreign Minister Solomon Passi proceeds in like manner, all the more power to him.
America has its own abundant supply of oil in Alaska. A sovereign nation-state/republic has no business looting other countries (Southeastern Europe, Russia, Central Asia).
Are you also saying that it would not be to Serbia's best national interest to join the Partnership for Peace, and then NATO. Are you saying that this is not a legitimate foreign policy goal?
What a quaint notion.
Now the question is, who has the contract to build it. I hope to God it is not Brown and Root, who has had several significant contracts in that neck of the woods.
For those of you who don't know, that is Dick Cheney's former employer.
Halliburton's subsidiary, Brown & Root has both AMBO & Pentagon contracts. http://www.emperors-clothes.com/articles/choss/pipe.htm:"The US based AMBO pipeline consortium is directly linked to the seat of political and military power in the United States and Vice President Dick Cheney's firm Halliburton Energy.
"The feasibility study for AMBO's Trans-Balkan Oil Pipeline, conducted by the international engineering company of Brown & Root Ltd. [Halliburton's British subsidiary] has determined that this pipeline...will become a part of the region's critical East-West corridor infrastructure which includes highway, railway, gas and fiber optic telecommunications lines.
"And upon completion of the feasibility study by Halliburton, a senior executive of Halliburton was appointed CEO of AMBO. Halliburton was also granted a contract to service US troops in the Balkans and build 'Bondsteel' in Kosovo, which now constitutes 'the largest American foreign military base constructed since Vietnam.' Coincidentally, White and Case LLT, the New York law firm that President William J. Clinton joined when he left the White House also has a stake in the AMBO pipeline deal."
?I'm still skeptical. Why couldn't the EU/US just have paid the appropriate "fees" to Macedonia and Albania and get the pipeline built without all clandestine backing of the KLA/UCK and the support of a greater Albania and the bombardment of Serbia?
NATO has designs on more than AMBO itself. This map shows the "Corridors" with comprehensive infrastructure plans, as established by TRACECA:
[Kosovo] Where's the 8th corridor?
:"The corridor VIII links the Albanian port of Durres to Varna (Bulgaria) via Tirana, Kaftan, Skopje, Deve Bair, Sofia, Plovdiv and Burgas.
"The corridor IV links Desden (Germany) to Istanbul (Turkey) via Prague, Bratislava, Gjor, Budapest, Arad, Krajova, Sofia and Plovdiv. Ways diverge to provide links to Nuremberg, Vienna, Bucarest and Constanca.
"Corridor X crosses Salzburg (Austria), Ljubljana, Zagreb, Belgrade, Nis, Skopje, Veles and Thessalonica (Greece). The main part of the corridor is also linked to Graz, Maribor, Sofia, Bitola, Florina and Igoumenitza.
"These three pan-European transport corridors are part of a project set up to help develop former members of the Soviet block, and ease their integration into European economy....
"To this we must add the Greek project, the 'Dalmatian' corridor linking the Italian port of Trieste to the Greek city of Igoumenista, following the coast via Albania, Yugoslavia, Bosnia and Croatia, a project proposed in middle 1998 and estimated to 3 billion dollars....
"Thus, development projects on the European continent scheduled for the next 20 years depend on the building of corridors crossing the Balkans. On this map, you'll notice that the central tie between corridors VIII, X and IV is a triangle formed by Nis, Skopje and Sofia, a large part of which lies in Kosovo. If instability were to persist in Kosovo, Serbia and Albania as well as Macedonia, this would be detrimental to one of the most important human projects in the making."
Turkey police probe murder motive [prominent member of Turkey's Jewish community in political hit] Published: Monday, 27 August, 2001, 14:55 GMT 15:55 UK
Garih was killed after he had met with Bulgaria's Deputy Premier Nikolay Vassilev. Garih headed the ALARKO group, a heating, ventilating and air conditioning company that also does construction in Bulgaria, Turkey and central Asia.
I don't know. It's also possible that someone wanted to crack the Israeli-Turkey military & strategic alliance or keep Turkey out of the EU. "He also wrote a column for the English-language Turkish Daily News in which he supported Turkey's expanding relations with Israel and Ankara's bid to join the European Union." Turkish Tycoon Stabbed To Death
NATO is a democratic defensive alliance
Huh?
and I would have added, "you can say all you have said about nato, with a straight face, with the evidence in hand, that they are anything but a defensive alliance, and then compound your statement by using peace in the same paragraph"?
I don't know if [Kosovo] Where's the 8th corridor? was posted here when it was first published, and even if it were there's lots of new members to this board since then. I think this is written well enough and enough light has been shed on the economic interests in the region since the "bombing for humanity" that the article should be given its own thread.
The concept of attempt to commit a criminal offense would be a very dangerous principle in international law. There was sufficient evidence before NATO over a period of 10 years that the Yugoslav communist regime, friendly to Russia, would attempt to use Kosovo as a springboard to destabilize Macedonia, in particular, for political and economic ends, and democratic progress in the Balkans generally. The media, who says nothing by accident, provided a testimonial to this scenario for a decade by the term "spillover" followed by potential Balkan War possibly involving NATO member states Greece and Turkey.
An all out Balkan War which would have caught Macedonia in the indiscriminate crossfire of several Balkan countries posed the threat of unprecedented catastrophe, whose humanitarian dimension alone (quite apart from the political/economic ramifications) I think is sufficient to justify the pre-emptive defensive nature of the NATO action in 1999.
The grand act of deception by the media was to use "spillover" of the Kosovo Crisis, as if this was its incidental consequence rather than part and parcel of a deliberate state strategy. Had the media been more forthcoming about the political agenda of the communist Yugoslav regime, and instead of clothing its acts of aggression (including 4 wars in less than a decade) with the legitimacy of "ethnic conflict" this would not be so difficult to understand.
Do you believe the stuff you write or are you testing talking points for someone- in an effort to retroactively justify the non-justifiable?
There was sufficient evidence before NATO over a period of 10 years that the Yugoslav communist regime, friendly to Russia, would attempt to use Kosovo as a springboard to destabilize Macedonia, in particular, for political and economic ends, and democratic progress in the Balkans generally.
1. How would Belgrade have benefited from destabilizing a Macedonia that was hosting international peacekeepers?
2. The "West" interfered with Democracy in the Balkans when it meddled in the 1999 Macedonia elections. You were provided with the 1999 thread on the subject that was posted here.
3. What was the evidence?
4. Does the money earmarked by the U.S. government to influence Macedonian elections qualify under your definition of "democratic progress"?
I think is sufficient to justify the pre-emptive defensive nature of the NATO action in 1999.
The employment of this type of spin didn't work before and it doesn't work now. In 1939, concentration camp inmates were dressed in Polish uniforms and shot outside of a radio station in Katowice. The press was invited for a photo op. The Wehrmacht invasion of Poland was then justified by the nazis as an action of "defensive nature", because "the Polish Army" had attacked Germany.
Had the media been more forthcoming about the political agenda of the communist Yugoslav regime
It was, courtesy of the fabrications of Ruder Finn and CNN.
and instead of clothing its acts of aggression (including 4 wars in less than a decade)
How does a nation defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity qualify as a "war of aggression"?
Once again- do you really believe what you wrote?
But Ferguson said AMBO's route was a better choice. "We believe that the port of Vlore is more attractive than the ports in the Aegean Sea for exports because it's deeper water (and) closer to the areas and ports where the oil will be sold," he said. Oil arriving in Vlore would be transported via Rotterdam to the United States, he said.
Glad to see the Burgas-Alexandroupolis route pop up again. Do these reasons given for preferring the route to Vlore hold any water, so to speak? My atlas indicates that the Adriatic Sea around Vlore is also shallow. At least if shipment is by sea, Vlore to Rotterdam would not be much shorter than Alexandroupolis to Rotterdam. I should have thought both the difficulty and expense of building a pipeline through so much more of the mountainous Balkans and the instability of Macedonia and Albania would render a Burgas-Vlore route much less cost-effective. Just look at a map, and see how much shorter the Burgas-Alexandroupolis route would be.
By the way, if the shallowness of the water at Alexandroupolis is a significant consideration, extending the pipeline to Kavalla (which appears from the map to be much closer to deep water) or Thessaloniki (ditto, and already a major port) would seem to be a quick fix, and much easier than a Burgas-Vlore pipeline.
The actual reason is that the Burgas-Alexandropolis route is being developed by the Russians and Greeks. "Its very important to keep the Caspian oil routes out of the hands of the Russians".
(of course the only big pipeline deal that has gotten done has been the Transneft/Chevron project through Kazakhstan and Russia)
Geopolitics is no doubt the real reason, but how can they get the money boys to finance such a predictable turkey? And who's "they", by the way?
If Serbia had been dismembered in 1878 as Bulgaria was, and the Serbian people of those partitioned parts then handed over gratuitously to its neighbours who then attempted to either assimilate them or exterminate them...
Hmmm, I can think of Austria occupying Bosnia & Herzegovina, then annexing it...
The Great Powers -- Great Britain in particular -- was ready to let the exhausted allied Serb army starve and die of thypus on the Albanian coast in 1915.
Let's see. Serbs started their insurrection, after years of rebellions, in 1802 and haven't stopped until they liberated part of their land. The only reason they got something in 1878 is because they fought for it and would have continued to fight for it. What stopped Bulgarians from fighting for what is "theirs?"
Serbs have their own dynastic families (Karadjordjevich, Obrenovich, Petrovich), not some foreign imports. It's a sign of a nation with a sense of Self.
During WWII, Yugoslavia was the first rebellious country to resist German occupation. During the Cold War, Yugoslavia was independent.
Although Serbs always had qusilings and traitors among them -- present political leadership not exlcuded in Serbia, Montenegro or RS, the national sense of Self made them fight for their rights and their space, not kiss foreign tailcoats.
They had a relationship with the foreign world, economic dependencies, realities to deal with, friends as well as eneomies, but they were never a willing servant to any foreign power to be owned by.
Serbs may be a small nation, but they are a nation, which is more than can be said about most other Balkan states.
In my humble opinion, I do not think NATO membership is either a political necessity, or a strategic requirement. But to a country like Bulgaria, that was tied by an umbilicus to the Soviet Union, I can see why it is necessary to go from one foster power to another.
There is nothing democratic about NATO, neither its conduct nor its structure. You must be reading some fairytales.
Sorry to delay my replays, but I currently can get to my computer only incidentally... too busy.
I absolutely agree with you on the disgusting matter of state servility. Even Romania in the time of Ceausesku (spelling?) was to some extend respected for being able to stand against Moscow orders - though because of sheer stubborness. As an external sympatiser of the country and her people, I would like to excuse Bulgaria as a nation and to put all the blame on her leaders. But alas... it's the people who find it easier to be sheeple and to allow their rulers to screw them any way those fancy.
NATO membership, which in the Balkans has been conferred thus far only on Greece and Turkey, should be extended to all other states.
The very meaning of word "membership" is based on the difference between being and not being a member, a part of something. An all-embrassing membership is an oxymoron, if that tells you something. You can describe the foreign policy of Kostov and Mihailova in whichever way you like, I see it as working for the best interests of Bulgaria. And if Foreign Minister Solomon Passi proceeds in like manner, all the more power to him. If Simeon and Solomon aren't any different from Vanio and Nadka, what the f*ck are all that elections and political struggle for? NATO is a democratic defensive alliance. LOL. What does it defend in Kosovo? What did it defend bombing Serbia? What is it defending now in your so desired Macedonia? Democracy?!
As an external sympatiser of the country and her people, I would like to excuse Bulgaria as a nation and to put all the blame on her leaders
The word nation, by definition includes the concept of government and therefore political leaders, not just a tribe or people. I neither admire nor despise people as a group, but I feel a great deal of disdain for any servile nation. Any nation that can be dominated or owned by another nation is less than a nation, because inherent in the concept of a nation is the concept of sovereignty. Sovereign nations can be occupied, but not owned.
A servile state is either thoroughly corrupt, such as the various banana republics, or under-developed and incapable of being an independent nation. In other words, primitve. You take your pick for Bulgaria.
Agreed ... please let me know as soon as I may bump the singleton thread.
Thanks very much, Black Jade. I'm a little out of pocket these days and appreciate the flags.
Yes, I do, and have since 1991.
What according to you was the meaning of "spillover" of the Kosovo Crisis into Macedonia possibly leading to a wider Balkan War, potentially involving NATO member states Greece and Turkey, and "drawing" in Bulgaria possibly, mean? This refrain was sung by the media for over one decade.
How, according to you was this "spillover" going to occur? By accident?
Where would that Balkan war have been fought, and do you believe that a Balkan war would have been selective of its targets ?
Who would have been the principal victim of that war?
Why has the media been advocating such war in Macedonia for one decade?
What according to you was the meaning of the 1992 partition of Macedonia that was planned by Serbia and Greece, and which failed because Bulgaria did not agree? And how was that "partition" going to take place. How does the idea of a "partition" of Macedonia consistent with the claimed sovereign nature of the "Kosovo Crisis?"
Can you rule out the significance on the present events of the historical alliance of Greece and Serbia based on their common history of oppression of Macedonia and Macedonians for 80 years? And why has the media depicted this alliance as an alliance based on "Common Christian Orthodox faith", and never once mentioned the 80 year terror rule of both countries in their attempt to assimilate Macedonians?
Why in Misha Glenny's book on the Balkans, which was kindly recommended to me by one of the posters, there is so little said about the 80 year terror rule of Macedonia by Serbia and Greece?
I don't like what NATO did in 1999, but has it ever occured to anyone to ask the question of whether that NATO campaign need have been waged had Yugoslavia been a democracy?
I have a very high respect for your opinion. One thing I have learned being on this board, is that it simply is not enough to tell the truth, when the media itself hides the truth.
Kosta 50 - no one is disclaiming the heroism of the Serbs in the 19th c. in their struggle to free themselves from Ottoman rule. However, I would point out three factors.
One, throughout that struggle, Serbia was always at the mercy of the Great Powers games conducted throughout the 19th c. , with Russia more than once betraying Serbia, and leaving Serbia defenseless against the Ottoman retribution. The same applied to Greece, the aid proffered to Greece in its independence struggle a fortuitous coincidence of merging of Great Power interests, alternating with the creation of numerous obstacles to Greece's indigenous independence fight.
Therefore the singling out of Bulgaria as encumbered to Great Powers is not entirely merited.
Second, apart from the heroism of the Serbs, who commenced their struggle for independence in the early 19th c., as opposed to Bulgaria, which started in the late 19th c., there is the geographic factor. Take a look at the map and see how far Serbia is from the Ottoman Empire, and how far is Bulgaria. Even Misha Glenny, who is not exactly pro-Bulgarian concedes that the Bulgarians and Macedonians bore the brunt of the Ottoman yoke. All things being equal, as a neighbour, it does you no favor to bash those less fortunate than yourself.
Three, the geo-political strategic position of Bulgaria - on the cross-roads of three continents, has made it the focal point of Great Power interests since Antiquity. The "prize" in the Balkans has always been Bulgaria and Macedonia. It was so in Antiquity, when the Roman legions conquered Macedonia in 168 BC and then Thrace (Bulgaria in Antiquity) in 46 AD. It was so during Byzantium, when the Hellenic Byzantines and the Roman Papacy both fought for religious subordination of the medieval Bulgarian Kingdom. It was so during the Ottoman conquest. It is so today.
As to the willingness of the Bulgarians to fight for freedom, in 1913, Bulgaria, with a population of 4.4 million who had no army in 1878, mobilized a force of some 400,000 men in 1913, and in 1915, 800,000 men. They were known in the Balkans as fierce and courageous fighters. In Antiquity, the Thracian Peltasts also had a reputation as fierce warriors dreaded by the Greeks. They fought, but how could they fight in 1913 against a coalition of Serbia, Greece, Romania and Turkey?
As to servility, I refer you to the following link which outlines Bulgaria and Macedonia's central role in the rise of Christianity in West Europe (from the 1-6th c AD), and their role as the cradle of Slavonic Orthodox Christianity (from the 7th - 14th c.)
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b830a5458dd.htm
And if you are intelligent and can put your prejudices aside, you would understand from a religious point of view why the 1878 Berlin Congress targeted Bulgaria (consisting of Moesia, Thrace and Macedonia) for dismemberment , and then Macedonia for further partition, and subjecting them to a century of assimilationism or extermination.
BTW Neophyte, the Soviets expressly prohibited the teaching of this 2,000 year Christian history of Bulgaria -- as they prohibited archeological excavations which would reveal the Ancient Christian roots of this nation. Concomitently, and the reason why you can disparage Bulgaria in the fashion you do, is because the Western Academia has also hidden this history.
The elections were won on economics not politics. Both Prime Minister Simeon Saxe Coburg-Gotha and Foreign Minister Solomon Passi have pledged continuity of policy of NATO membership and integration in Euro and Euro-Atlantic structures.
Despite a 10 billion dollar debt left by the communists in 1989, despite 10 years of destabilization of the economy by the wars waged by its neighbour, Bulgaria in 1999 was declared an "economic miracle" by the Wall street Journal.
What did Bulgaria in economically was the NATO campaign of 1999, which totally devasted the economy by the destruction wrought on the Danube.
What the people voted for in 2001, was not a different political program, but a desperate hope that King Simeon, with his business know-how would somehow restore the dire economic situation precipated by 1999, and from which Bulgaria has yet to recover.
Every nation in the Balkans is subject to Big Power manipulations. Some of them bend over deeper and more readily than others. Those with some spine have a harder time, if you know what I mean.
Bashing your neighbor? Making its air space available for an univited guest to bomb your sovereign neighbor defines "neighbor bashing" Persa.
Freedom Fight in 1913? Again, attacking your ally from a year before unexpectedly is "freedom fight?" You poor babies, you forgot to mention that -- as a result of Bulgaria's defeat -- the victors gave you exit to the Aegean Sea. Some reward for attacking your (former) allies. And the reason you lost was serving the wrong master (again) in WWI.
Don't give me mideval history lessons. The mideval Bulgaria, like the mideval Serbia or Bosnia are different worlds. The concept of a nation was different from a modern one, everything is different. In the 20th century, Persa, was there one period in Bulgaria's history when it was not serving some foreign master or bowing to some foreign crown?
In 1914 Austrians wanted to shend their police to arrest Serbs -- inside Serbia, and Serbia said not and was attacked. Still seething from the defeat at Bregalnitsa in 1913, Bulgaria's German king (Coburg) entered WWI on the side of Germany, so they can attack Serbia again. In 1941, the Nazis wanted to transit across Yugoslavia. The people said no. Yugoslavia suffered. And Bulgaria jumped right in to "help" the Nazis. Then came the Soviets and Bulgaria used the dispute between Yugoslavia and the USSR to become more Soviet than Russia. Finally, when NATO wanted free transit through Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia said no, and suffered, Bulgaria couldn't wait to "help."
Now that you have proven to your new masters that you will do anything, especially screw your neighbors, for favors from the Master, you may get a piece of your 1878 dream for a short time -- as before. Enjoy! Just stop perfuming what's obviously fowl.
I don't know if [Kosovo] Where's the 8th corridor? was posted here when it was first published, and even if it were there's lots of new members to this board since then. I think this is written well enough and enough light has been shed on the economic interests in the region since the "bombing for humanity" that the article should be given its own thread.
This is it: [Kosovo] Where's the 8th corridor?
Waging four wars against your neighbours and destabilizing and terrorizing the rest with threat of war for one decade, making life miserable for everyone, is a sign of good neighbourliness?
The 80 year military occupation and assimilationist policy towards neighbour Macedonia, trying to turn them into Serbs according to the Gersasimov Plan and then the Novakovich plan, with the support of Great Britain and France is a sign of goodwill?
And then for the next 10 years terrorizing that population with the threat of "spillover" of Kosovo, is also a sign of good neighbourliness? Planning its partition and refusing to recognize its sovereign independence?
I am presenting you with a rationale argument which does not try to detract from anyone's integrity, and you respond with relentless insistence on creating discord.
Your insinuation that somehow Serbia caused four wars against its "neighbors" is typically mindless blabber. The bottom line is -- no one was starting wars with, or threatening Bulgaria so Bulgaria had no reason to jumpt to an opportunity to "stick it" to its neighbor. The civil wars were Yugoslavia's internal matter.
Yugoslavia had no territorial pretences on Bulgaria, nor -- for that matter -- on anyone else when it was brutally attacked by NATO, and Bulgaria couldn't wait to offer its share.
Why don't you read up on the "mind set" of the times when Iliya Garashanin wrote his Nachertanie and show me that he was more radical than anyone else, or that it was more bizzarre than, let's say -- Manifest Destiny! At least Serbia was a political entity, so it could deal with its territorial desires, which is more than can be said about Bulgaria.
I am not even going to grace the stupidity of your comment about Serbia "terrorizing" Kosovo Albanian population for ten years. It just shows that you take things out of context and just shoot off without looking at cause and effect.
And what is sovereign independence? Is there such a thing as non-sovereign "independence?" Nonsense! But you call your statements "rational argument" and I cause relentless discord? You must be related to Bluester [sorry, bud :), you used to react the same way]. Discord? Over what? By reminding you that your state of Bulgaria was somone else's puppet its entire modern existance? And that its policy towards Serbia was was one opportunistic revenge after another?
I know this is lengthy but it is well worth reading. Please take note of the date this was published.
--------------------------------------------------------
The Caspian Connection: Pipeline Politics and the Balkan War
Newsmax.com: Carl Limbacher and Caron Grich June 9, 1999
What has America accomplished in the Balkans after 70-plus days of NATO bombardment?
Cease fire negotiations sputter along on a wing and a prayer. And if they are successful, America will be rewarded with the privilege of contributing 7,000 troops to a force of 50,000 Kosovo "peacekeepers". Tour of duty: indefinite.
Though Bill Clinton's Balkan adventure did much to keep the press distracted from matters like Chinese nuclear espionage and inconvenient rape charges (reporters last hit Clinton with a question about Juanita Broaddrick just five days before he ordered airstrikes on Serbia), it's debatable whether Kosovar refugees will be better off for all the effort.
Slobodan Milosevic, recently dubbed an official war criminal, will retain power over Serbia. And NATO may even have to accommodate a Russian presence in Kosovo, which will only further discourage displaced ethnic Albanians from returning home.
Not much of a victory. Not much, that is, until one considers another factor that may have propelled NATO into the Balkans; an incentive which has nothing to do with humanitarian relief or scandal spin.
NATO's Eyes on the Prize
If President Clinton were to level with the American people, he might just explain NATO's first hot war by using a variation of his old campaign theme: "It's the global economy, stupid." Because NATO's entry into the Balkans, though thus far an abject failure in terms of the mission's ostensible goals, places the West, and especially Western Europe, on the doorstep of resources so vast that the move could mean decades worth of economic well-being for member nations.
Ponder this nearly two year-old observation from the New York Times, reported when a U.S. security force in the Balkans was only a twinkle in Madeleine Albright's eye:
"Forget mutual funds, commodity futures and corporate mergers. Forget South African Diamonds, European currencies and Thai stocks. The most concentrated mass of untapped wealth known to exist anywhere is in the oil and gas fields beneath the Caspian (Sea) and lands around it.... The strategic implications of this bonanza hypnotize Western security planners as completely as the finances transfix oil executives." (New York Times -- September 21, 1997)
Or this, from a conservative think tank the year before:
"The vast expanses of the former Soviet Union harbor oil and gas riches which will be crucial to funding the global economy in the next century. The huge oil reserves, estimated at over 25 billion barrels under the Caspian Sea and in the central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan are similar to those in Kuwait and larger than those in Alaska's Northern Slope and the North Sea combined." (Ariel Cohen, Senior Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation - January 25, 1996)
"Control over these energy resources and export routes out of the Eurasian hinterland is quickly becoming one of the central issues in post Cold War politics," Cohen added, without noting that Caspian oil played a major role a pre-Cold War geo-strategic conflict as well. In an attempt to gain control over access routes to the same oil reserves during World War II, the Third Reich waged the bloodiest battle ever fought, the siege at Stalingrad.
More recent history shows that war for oil isn't exactly a new concept, even for America. When the U.S. went to war to chase Saddam Hussein out of Kuwaiti oil fields in 1991, then-U.S. Secretary of State James Baker was unabashed about our motives, saying that there were three reasons behind Operation Desert Storm: "Jobs, jobs and jobs."
Today Kosovo, Tomorrow Azerbaijan
Ever since the break-up of the old Soviet Union, the West has had its eye on the oil fields of Central Asia. And security for pipelines carrying the crude out is a priority concern that could make or break billions of dollars already invested by U.S oil companies like Mobil, Chevron, Amoco and others.
But to get Caspian oil to the trillion petro-dollar market of Western Europe, planners need alternatives to old pipeline routes that traversed Iran and Russia. That means development of the huge Eurasian reserves must focus on the corridor between those two potentially hostile regions.
Almost all roads lead to Baku, Azerbaijan, the Caspian seaport believed to be sitting on trillions of dollars of untapped crude. 12 energy companies have entered into a $7.5 billion consortium, the Azerbaijani International Operating Company (AIOC). Five are U.S. based: Penzoil, Unocal, McDermott and Exxon, and Amoco, now merged with British Petroleum.
In April the 515 mile Baku-Supsa pipeline opened for business and was hailed by Azerbajaini officials as a breakthrough because it avoided Russian territory, thereby adding to Azerbaijan's economic independence. But Baku-Supsa will be able to handle only 10% of the expected Caspian gusher. The AIOC is considering two other possible pipeline routes to the West:
The Northern Route: From Baku northwest through the Russian Republic of Chechnya, to the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, where tankers would transport the oil through the Bosporous and Dardenelle straights to the Agean Sea. (Some energy experts worry that transport through the unregulated Bosporus passage would represent a chokepoint for terrorists, with a cutoff of Caspian oil easily accomplished by sinking a single tanker. Alternative plans include a detour north across the Black Sea to Burgas, Bulgaria -- where the oil would be pipelined to Alexandroupolis, Greece along what has been dubbed the Trans-Balkan Pipeline.)
The Mediterranean Route: From Baku west, skirting Iran through Turkey -- where Western tankers would collect the oil from Turkish port of Ceyhan. The Baku-Ceyhan pipeline is the strong favorite of U.S. energy planners.
Undoubtedly, Baku-Ceyhan has its advantages. It avoids some of the risks posed by warring factions along other pipeline routes. And should, for instance, Kurdish rebels attempt to disrupt the free flow of oil, NATO member Turkey could be counted upon to resolve the situation to the West's satisfaction, especially since Turkey itself would stand to gain hundreds of millions of dollars in pipeline tolling fees alone.
How a DNC Donor Changed U.S. Pipeline Policy
Some suspect that the Clinton administration staunchly supports the Baku-Ceyhan route, not so much out of concern over pipeline security -- but because the Turkish route was initially favored by a major contributor to the Democratic National Committee, Lebanese oilman Roger Tamraz.
As recently as May 1995, the U.S. took no official position supporting either the Black Sea, Turkish or other pipeline plans. That month, Tamraz met with NSC official Shelia Heslin but failed to sell her on his plan to pump oil from Baku to the Turkish port city of Yumurtalik. Afterwards, Heslin tried to keep Tamraz out of the White House and away from Clinton.
But throughout the summer and fall of 1995, $195,000 of Tamraz's money made its way into DNC coffers. That September, the persistent oilman attended two White House coffees with Clinton on hand. Afterwards, former Clinton Chief of Staff Mack McLarty arranged for Tamraz to meet with Energy Department officials. By October, Tamraz's project had the backing of the Clinton State Department.
The pressure brought to bear on Tamraz's behalf was quite impressive, considering that even with his subsequent donations, he had given a only $300,000. But for that amount, spare change really for someone in Tamraz's league, DNC chairman Don Fowler personally chatted up Ms. Heslin on Tamraz's behalf. Around the same time, even the Clinton CIA began sending Heslin favorable reports on the Lebanese oilman.
But just as Tamraz seemed to be making headway, the Azerbaijani oil consortium began to move away from the Turkish route, seeing projects like Tamraz's as too costly. Falling crude prices throughout the late 90's cooled other larger oil companies on a Turkish pipeline as well.
Still the Turkish route, Baku-Ceyhan in particular, continued to enjoy strong American support, despite the fact that by October 1998 the major oil companies had flat out rejected the plan.
Writing for Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty in May, Michael Lelyveld explained it this way:
"For several months, the gap between the U.S. government and the oil industry appeared to be widening....the (Clinton) administration has refused to accept the industry's rejection and has mounted a determined diplomatic effort to keep the Baku-Ceyhan scheme alive....The result has been increasing friction and loss of (U.S.) credibility on the pipeline issue."
One possible reason the U.S. stubbornly clings to the now rejected Turkish pipeline may be Turkey's ever increasing value as a strategic ally. Before the peace agreement, there were plans for NATO planes to begin striking Serbia from Turkish bases like Bandirma and Balikesir. Turkey supplied the U.N. coalition with its northern air bases for 1991's successful Persian Gulf campaign against Iraq.
Making Turkey the major Western conduit for the Caspian oil basin jackpot would help the NATO member evolve from a third world economic backwater to a major European player. And of course, a significant NATO presence in Turkey would place Euro-America's enforcers on the doorstep of the Caspian oil fields.
NATO Slips into Caspian Region
"The Clinton administration has also offered the promise of greater U.S. defense cooperation with Azerbaijan. For example, NATO, through its Partnership for Peace program, has established the Central Asian Peacekeeping Battalion, or CENBAT," reports Jofi Joseph in a January 1999 case study on "Pipeline Politics" for Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.
"As part of one of the first joint exercises involving American soldiers and the CENBAT force, 500 members of the U.S. Army's 82nd Airborne Division parachuted into Kazakhstan (Azerbaijan's oil rich neighbor across the Caspian Sea) after a 23- hour flight from Ft. Bragg. The impressive display powerfully represented the strategic reach of the U.S.; the Kazakhstan deputy foreign minister stated, 'Five years ago, no one here could even dream of such things as American soldiers dropping out of the sky into a remote area of Kazakhstan.' "
Prof. Joseph adds, "Evolving closer defense ties with Azerbaijan's neighbors sends a clear signal that the U.S. and NATO are interested in the security of the region, of which Azerbaijan is one of the most valuable pieces."
Joseph isn't the only one who sees a compelling NATO interest in the Caspian region. RFE's Michael Lelyveld, says that a U.S. military presence in Azerbaijan is inevitable, especially as Western leaders continue to expand NATO's protective umbrella: "Having said yes to Eastern Europe, the U.S. and NATO may not be able to close the door on a region that is seen as a strategic prize.... Security for the planned Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the trans-Caspian gas line may be impossible without some U.S. role or credible support.....Because of Russia's role in the region, there may be no power other than the United States, or U.S. backed organizations, that can serve as a guarantor of peace."
The China Connection
Getting Caspian oil to world markets may be a boon for another big player just now emerging on the world's economic stage. Here's how the Clinton Energy Department described China's oil needs just months before the Balkan War began:
"China's economic growth has made it the second largest energy-consuming nation in the world. This rapid growth has outstripped China's domestic oil production and, in 1993, China became a net oil importer. Imports currently account for 15% of total consumption, but they are projected to increase to between 40 and 50% of China's consumption by 2020."
China's demand for oil could have a major impact on world markets unless new reserves are tapped. U.S. oil and gas interests are now the largest investor in China's petroleum sector. The Clinton Energy and Commerce Departments have already begun talks in Beijing about new opportunities for oil exploration and development.
Interestingly enough, Roger Tamraz, the oil pipeline gadfly who pushed the Clinton administration to get behind a Caspian route through Turkey, turned his sights eastward when those plans foundered. At last report, Tamraz has the support of the China National Petroleum Company in new efforts to help Beijing tap into the Caspian oil jackpot.
Europe's Goals, America's Troops
In April, a new strategic concept was adopted by the NATO alliance at its 50th anniversary celebration in Washington, D.C.. The new initiative "propels the U.S. military into unlimited responsibilities for policing a new world order," according to syndicated columnist Robert Novak.
One Senator told Novak that the shift in NATO policy is so dramatic that it might be necessary to submit the revisions to Congress for ratification, since the move formalizes the new U.S. role as global policeman.
These new responsibilities begin in the Balkans, but where do they lead?
Novak noted that British Prime Minister Tony Blair seemed extraordinarily enthusiastic about NATO's expanding role; which is a great bargain from Blair's standpoint if the current division of labor holds. The U.S. is currently shouldering about 80% of the Balkan war effort today.
Blair regaled the gathering with his own theories about " a new doctrine of international community." According to Novak, "He made it clear that the West now recognizes no bar to intervention into the domestic affairs of a sovereign country." Meanwhile, Clinton sat passively as the Brit outlined their alliance's new ambitions.
Perhaps the President knew the Prime Minister had said too much, inadvertently lifting the veil on the West's designs beyond Kosovo -- which may one day lead all the way to the Caspian Sea.
Fact is Kosta50 that Serbia and Greece have pursued an expansionist policy in the Balkans throughout this century, at the expense of Bulgaria and Macedonia, and could not have done so without the support of the Great Powers Great Britain and France. The partition and taking of territory belonging to Bulgaria and Macedonia, and Macedonia's 100 year independence struggle was the "Balkan Question" of the 20th c. and was synonymous with "Balkanization" itself.
Moreover, that expansionist policy of Serbia and Greece in Macedonia was accompagnied by brutal assimilationism for 80 years, again with the support of the Great Powers who turned a blind eye to Macedonia's plight, and a League of Nations dominated by Great Britain and France who gave short rift to the thousands of petitions from the Macedonians appealing for some kind of justice.
Fact is that the 1990's was not a new phenomenon, but a continuation of that expansionist policy accompagnied by ethnic cleansing, and the willingness to start a devastating Balkan war in pursuit of that idea. If Macedonia's history were known, this would have been obvious to everyone. But the media has hidden Macedonia's history. Do you still doubt on which side the media is on, even after full page articles on Serbia's Medieval history, while not a sentence written about Macedonia and Bulgaria's role as the cradle of Slavonic Christian Orthodox faith.
As one of your compatriots mentioned, you can mete out 100 wrongs to your neighbours without feeling their pain and suffering, but one wrong against you and you are all embittered.
The disinformation agents are really desperate. They know nothing better than to continue to propagate the pipeline hoax to hide the REAL GOAL
I wish it were different, Persa, but such is the world we made. Not just the Serbs, not just the Bulgarians, but everybody. In some cases, it's demographics, in others it's history, depending whose side you are on. In reality, the only right is might, always has been and always will be. The victors write history and right the "wrongs." Everything else is academics.
What according to you was the meaning of "spillover" of the Kosovo Crisis into Macedonia possibly leading to a wider Balkan War, potentially involving NATO member states Greece and Turkey, and "drawing" in Bulgaria possibly, mean?
According to me? The only spillover I see is spillover of foreign meddling from Croatia to Bosnia to Kosovo to Macedonia.
How, according to you was this "spillover" going to occur? By accident?
The spillover didn't happen by accident. It was planned by the money behind NATO.
Where would that Balkan war have been fought, and do you believe that a Balkan war would have been selective of its targets?
So far the Balkan war has been fought in the Balkans (from the plastic point of view of the West). Looking at it from another point of view, its the same war as Afghanistan, Nagorno-Karabakh, the Ferghana Valley, and Chechnya. No doubt some participants have enjoyed multiple adventures among these. In 1993, Ostankino talked about Ukrainian volunteers with the Chetniks, and we know that Bin Laden helped bankroll the klintoon/Hole-brook move to arm Izetbegovic's henchmen.
Who would have been the principal victim of that war?
"Victims"? Do you work for Ruder Finn or the DNC?
Why has the media been advocating such war in Macedonia for one decade?
Which media?
Can you rule out the significance on the present events of the historical alliance of Greece and Serbia based on their common history of oppression of Macedonia and Macedonians for 80 years? And why has the media depicted this alliance as an alliance based on "Common Christian Orthodox faith", and never once mentioned the 80 year terror rule of both countries in their attempt to assimilate Macedonians?
Macedonians hve been under an 80 year terror rule? Who was terrorizing them- the Hapsburgs, the Nazis, or NATO?
I don't like what NATO did in 1999, but has it ever occured to anyone to ask the question of whether that NATO campaign need have been waged had Yugoslavia been a democracy?
"Democracy"? As in allowing in the IMF and letting expensive foreign propaganda influence their elections (Macedonia 1999)?
Do you know the history of Macedonia in this 20th c.? If you did you would not be asking what 80 years, and it was not 80 years but 80 years preceded by 37 years of Turkish misrule for a total of 117 years of subjugation under foreign tyrannies. You question the media, but you do not question why when the Balkan Question of the 20th c. was synonymous with the Question of Macedonia, and synonymous with Balkanization, the history of Macedonia is still not told. If it had been told by the media, when the media never tired of singing its refrain of spillover of the "Kosovo Crisis" into Macedonia possibly leading to a Balkan War, it would not have been relegated to the realm of the convenience of selective amnesia, but immediately recognized as advocacy of perpetuation of a genocidal policy conducted against the Macedonians in this 20th c., and the latter assertion would not apear so incredulous to you and to others.
I wish it were different too. It is so much easier to be friendly.
My dear Persa
I can see that you`re up to your old usual,style of posting!
Why don`t you try to answer,for once,a direct question(s),from other posters?
Instead of giving us a lectures in highly censored Bulgarian history,just try to answer Kostas questions,when you didn`t have the academic currage to answer mine (very similar to Kosta`s)!
What is really amusing is you`re ignorrance in basic geography ,as well:Bulgaria is not strategicaly most important Balkan state!Serbia is!For one reason only:two most important crossroads in Balkans are in Serbia.One is Belgrade and another one is Nish!Add to that Danube and you have the picture!It is called Corridor X today.
I am ,also,sick and tired of your "democracy"!Serbia was as democratic as other Balkan states.And,as much corrupt,as Bulgaria,Romania,Croatia...
By the way:why is pro-Macedonian Party "Pirin-Macedonia" forbidden in Bulgaria?(Your beloved democratic Bulgaria).
Another question:why did Bulgarian internet providers cut off some Macedonian web sites?
Dare to answer,or ,shall we go again to Berlin and all that crap?
70 Posted on 12/29/2001 20:38:34 PST by XBob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |