A Planned Operation in Belgrade Designed as a CNN Production?
Is there Something Wrong with Our Government Buying Votes in Yugoslavia?
By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
October 5, 2000
I spent most of the day yesterday watching the street action taking place in Belgrade, and listening to commentators who were, first, excitedly waiting for the REAL action, when Milosevic's troops showed up to restore law and order, and, as the day dragged on with no troops their gradually puzzled and then almost exasperated comments about the absence of the adversary.
It appeared that it was a planned operation designed to create a live CNN production in which cameras were to record the monster Milosevic's army putting down the innocent freedom fighters defending their man, Kostunica. Only, Milosevic failed to show up.
Reader Tim Evers, of Ferndale, Mi., expressed the questions that I am sure many people around the world had on the strange situation in Yugoslavia:
Dear Mrs. Mostert,
I watched CNN footage of the mob in Belgrade, and a few minutes of Mr. Kostunica's interview, and I still wonder what is now going to happen in Yugoslavia. Mr. Kostunica reassured everyone that he won the election, and that in a few days, after they were done recounting votes, the results would reflect that (a real surprise, there-his party controls the government by force right now).
The really striking thing I have noticed is that no one thinks it is
particularly odious for our government to be using money to meddle in someone else's elections. And it has been argued on FreeRepublic.com and elsewhere that Mr. Kostunica is really a larger nationalist than Mr. Milosevic, and a worse man to have in office there than Mr. Milosevic. For the Yugoslav people's sake, I truly hope that is so. But if that is true, why does the money spigot continue to flow into the opposition? If he's so bad for us, why did Congress provide them with more money?
My final point is, if people wish to maintain some sense of congruence, and attempt to not be completely hypocritical, if it is fine for us to send money to candidates we like, why is it bad for China (or anyone else) to send money to our candidate that they like? Simply because it's China? Or because we are the indispensible nation? Does our arrogance know no bounds? Imagine the scene- a press release, where the leaders of China tell the American people that they feel William J. Clinton is the worst possible candidate to win, in their view, then send millions to the man, and then say that it won't affect US-China relations a bit. Absurd! That's exactly what people are saying about the Yugoslav elections.
If Mr. Kostunica isn't "our man," I'd hate to see how much money we dump on a candidate we really like.
Respectfully,
Tim Evers
Tim's "Absurd!" exclamation is probably the best analysis possible of yesterday's events in Belgrade. While most of the West seemed to be congratulating the "democratization" of Belgrade, what we were watching on the TV screen was a modern rendition of the Burning of the Reichstag which brought the world an enterprising politician named Adolf Hitler.
American politicians from Bill Clinton to Newt Gingrich praised a group of unopposed hoodlums burning the Yugoslav Parliament building and hailed them as patriots bringing Democracy to Yugoslavia. And, just who WERE those guys? Who WERE the three athletic young men in olive green jackets who jumped up on the balcony parapet with such ease and as they urged the crowd to come into the building and help them destroy it? Were they really under-cover agents agitating the crowd to action, or did they just LOOK like under-cover agents agitating the crowd?
And, what WERE all those papers they were throwing out the window and burning? Ballots in the election, perchance?
Speculation about Slobodan Milosevic ranged from his having committed suicide to his having flown out to the South towards Greece throughout the day. And, as the vandalism hailed as "democracy" raged at the Parliament, little mention was made of the unanimous decision by the State's Constitution Court that annulled the results of the September 24th presidential election requiring a re-match of all six candidates for president.
The court, however, approved the parliamentary elections in which Milosevic supporters won an 80-55 majority over Kostunica supporters.
Is it, as heads of State throughout Europe and America tell us, the end of the "Milosevic dictatorship" and the birth of "democracy?" Time will tell.
If it is the end of Milosevic, will Kostunica, a constitutional professor, simply ignore the Constitution and the Courts and take control in a coup d'tat, or will the parliament demand another vote?
It would appear at this point, that the Western world has concluded that the election in Yugoslavia in which the members of parliament were chosen and six presidential candidates ran, is the last of a "dictatorship" but "democracy" has been brought to Yugoslavia in ignoring the election, the courts and by burning the parliament and seizing the TV station.
If that is democracy, I wonder what the world's definition is of anarchy?
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription
border=0 width=41 alt="">
