Macedonian Tourism - II

(This article is from the Balkanalysis.com archive)

Macedonia's tourism industry faces formidable obstacles. Low international visibility and security qualms, as well as infrastructure, transport and financing problems continue to plague.

Nevertheless, the largely undeveloped country has potential. Worldwide, industry sub-sectors such as eco-tourism, cultural tours, and mind/body tourism are growing rapidly. Here, Macedonia is ideal. The country boasts vast stretches of mountain wilderness, scores of Byzantine churches, Ottoman castles, Graeco-Roman ruins and more. Producers of mineral water, mountain teas and holistic herbal medicines can succeed. However, success in general will depend largely on branding and promotion.

In short, Macedonia has the "raw materials" (i.e., physical resources) needed. And its problems are mostly surmountable.

Infrastructure improvements continue. The largest remaining transportation project, Corridor 8, will connect Bulgaria and Albania via Macedonia. On the route are projected a highway, railroad and oil pipeline. Italy, this semester's EU president, has pledged to finance 960 km of railway and over 270 km of roads. Other ongoing European investments in Macedonia's telecommunications, media and food industries indicate renewed optimism for future stability.

Financing problems owe to the commercial banks' high interest rates and the sluggish pace of government reforms. Restructuring the tax system, creating incentives for foreign investors and developing a tourism promotion fund are key, according to a recent six-month study by French consultants Louis Berger.

An official "tourist tax" of 20 denar (35 cents) is currently levied on each individual staying in a Macedonian hotel. 80 percent of revenues go to municipal tourist boards, and 20 percent to the central government. Still, under-funding remains a chronic problem for tourism initiatives.

Modifying the tax structure could dramatically improve things, says Daniel Serafimovski, Louis Berger representative in Skopje.
"Someone willing to spend $100 on a hotel can obviously afford to spend a little more in tax than someone spending $20 only," Serafimovski told UPI. "Transforming the flat tax structure into a graduated one is a relatively painless way of increasing the government's capacity to fund tourism ventures."

Commercial banks are cautious about lowering rates. Oftentimes a political "in" is required to getting a loan. However, a promotion scheme exists, whereby European development banks lend to the government, which is obliged to pass the money on to the banks. They then must lend to private entrepreneurs in fixed sectors and at pre-determined interest rates. According to Serafimovski, such a development fund could also work for tourism.

However, he says, "interest rates must be harmonized by region. For example, eastern Macedonia is much less economically developed. Investors there shouldn't have to pay high rates."

Economy Minister Ilija Filipovski praised these findings. According to him, tourism investment is crucial, because "every dollar invested in tourism returns 8 dollars."

One month ago, Finance Minister Petar Goshev announced new tax incentives for foreign companies investing in Macedonia -- a welcome development. Those investing below 100,000 euros won't pay tax on profits, while those investing over 100,000 euros will pay 30 percent less.

Resistance to tax on profits used to be strong, says Serafimovski. "We went to the ministers months ago, and they said, 'it will be hard, but we'll see.' Concerted pressure from investors helped bring this law to pass." Stating that the government "is interested" in the tourism tax restructuring and development fund ideas, he adds that implementing the reforms could eventually help Macedonia double tourism revenues.

What kind of tourist does Macedonia seek? Having an undeveloped industry means the possibility for choice.

Greece and Turkey are dominated by foreign package tour operators. This has resulted in whole stretches of coastline becoming decimated by tacky resorts, as well as a significant outflow of foreign capital. There's something to be learned here.

According to Arsenije Janevski, president of the Association of Travel Agents of Macedonia, "big European banks are taking over the industry. Recently, Deutsche Bank swallowed up Thomas Cook -- once Britain's leading tour operator. The banks are also investing in real estate."
Could regional entrepreneurs be convinced to make a deal down at the crossroads? Bulgaria has posted 12-14 percent tourism growth lately, yet this may be misleading:
"a European bank offers $10 million to refurbish an old Communist hotel -- on the condition that the owner works exclusively with them for say, 15 years. So they're posting what looks like growth, but in the end they'll be working for peanuts."

Macedonia, Janevski believes, should avoid mainstream, package tourism and keep local ownership and control. This has economic justification: "we'd rather have 500 well-off visitors here than 5,000 without a penny to spend."

Most private businessmen surveyed by UPI agree. Today's individualized Western tourists are seeking something unique, whether it be a yoga retreat, a wine-tasting tour or a wilderness sports adventure. Such tourists have disposable incomes and prefer small, exclusive accommodations to traditional-style hotels.

The private sector is seen as disorganized. Macedonia's entry into the Balkan Federation of Tourist and Travel Agents (BAFTTA) should help remedy this. The federation includes Greece, Turkey, and five other Balkan countries. For years, the name dispute with Greece stymied cooperation.

Indeed, BAFTTA represents a breakthrough for international cooperation. At the May summit in Athens, relates Janevski, "we agreed as a federation that all of the brochures, promotional materials and maps will use the name "Macedonia." This is a very big step."
Entrepreneurs now realize the importance of Western-style hospitality. According to Zoran Temov, manager of the Millennium Palace Hotel on Lake Ohrid, "simply put, good treatment of our guests brings more money."

Although large state-owned companies traditionally owned the big hotels, tourism-specific companies are beginning to invest. In the early 1990's, Skopje's Aurora Tours became the first Macedonian agency to sell tours to Southeast Asia. Today, Aurora sells tours to 30 countries, and ranks high among Macedonian agencies.

However, fears of SARS, terrorism and a poor economy have seen Southeast Asia bookings fall by 30 percent since 2001.

This depressing trend has provoked introspection. Aurora president Slave Siracevski detailed for UPI his ambitious new project -- a 5-star hotel near the eastern town of Berovo. Near the Bulgarian border, Berovo sits snug on a placid lake surrounded by forested hills. The area is popular with hikers, hunters and cross-country skiers. In autumn it seems remarkably like New England.

Siracevski is confident about his 2 million euro investment. "We are creating the best eco-tourism center in Macedonia," he says. "Besides the beautiful setting, guests will enjoy things like horseback riding, canoeing, berry, mushroom and tea-picking, and bird-watching... we are targeting the high-end tourists who currently don't visit Macedonia."

Eco-tourism is now popular with well-off, professional and retired persons in places like Britain, Holland and Germany. Aurora has held preliminary talks with 3 British and Dutch tour operators, so interest does exist.

When completed, the hotel will comprise several small houses within a large and secluded enclosure. Each house costs 200,000 euros and will be built in the traditional Macedonian style, using thick blocks of red volcanic stone.

If fully booked, the hotel can turn a 600,000 euro annual profit -- no small feat for an almost completely undeveloped part of Macedonia. However, it will depend on the success of international promotions.

All the way west from Berovo, near the Albanian border, is the mountain resort of Mavrovo. Macedonia's premier ski center, Mavrovo also draws tourists for summer activities such as mountain biking, canoeing and an unusual traditional wedding celebration in the nearby village of Galicnik. Of Mavrovo's handful of hotels, most indicative of changing trends is the 128-bed Hotel Bistra.

6 years of steady investment have made Bistra -- with its pool, sauna and in-room Jacuzzis -- one of the few Macedonian hotels operating to high Western standards. Risto Peov, the Macedonian-Australian owner, has long experience in Skopje's hotel business and is developing the enormous adjacent ski center. Manager Darko Stojanovski told UPI that, "we've added 3 new chair lifts and another snow-making machine, and are now making huge preparations for the winter season."

Part of these efforts involve promotion. Stojanovski, a former marketing manager with Macedonia On Line (MOL), is preparing a new brochure and will represent Bistra at November's HelExpo trade fair in Thessaloniki -- part of a general campaign to bring Greece's winter sport enthusiasts to Mavrovo.

Zoran Tancev of Millennium Palace in Ohrid also refers to trade fairs -- in Germany and Austria, where the hotel's owners have professional experience. Also, the BAFTTA federation's activities should help increase Macedonia's visibility.

Yet the government has done little. The Ministry of Economy announced last week that a tourism website will soon appear. However, if it's of the same quality as most of the other government websites, we shouldn't hold our breath.

The Louis Berger study suggested creating a website and guidebook. A French government-funded guidebook is underway, but none exist in English. Instead, major travel publishers relegate the mysterious little country to a chapter, more often than not under its unwieldy acronym, 'FYROM.'

In the final analysis, Macedonian tourism is neither so dead as prejudice would imagine nor so lively as local enthusiasts attest. A poor economy means that domestic promoters can't rely on local visitors to make a return on their typically high investments. To really succeed, they must make a far stronger and more articulate international marketing campaign than has so far been attempted.

This is where the outside investor -- armed with external capital, contacts and foreign know-how -- has the advantage. With proper management and professional external marketing, Macedonian tourism can be lucrative. Despite a poor image regarding stability, in actuality most parts of Macedonia are safer than other, better known destinations like France and Spain -- as recent terrorist attacks there have shown. Considering three factors -- low level of market saturation, high potential for growth, and the absence of overpoweringly competitive conglomerates -- Macedonia arguably offers higher return on investment potential than any other Balkan country.Note: This article was originally published on 31 July 2003 by UPI.

Murky Intelligence, Murky Wars

(This article is from the Balkanalysis.com archive)

On Sunday, Paul Wolfowitz stated that even "murky" intelligence requires pre-emptive military action. Aimed at deflecting attention from growing pressure on the Bush Administration over Iraq, Wolfowitz's remarks instead highlighted all that is wrong with the Administration's approach to foreign policy – as well as their increasing desperation as the attacks continue, the casualties mount and the well-stitched case for war unravels further.

Wolfie's Surprise Left Hook: 9/11

Since suspicions abound specifically in regards to the Iraq war, Wolfowitz sought to defer attention from it. He based his case on 9/11 – hoping that the viewers' emotional connection with the tragedy would trump reason, and that the analogy with Iraq could somehow be supported:
"'…The nature of terrorism is that intelligence about terrorism is murky,' Wolfowitz, one of the architects of the Iraq war, said on the 'Fox News Sunday' program.
"'I think the lesson of 9/11 is that if you're not prepared to act on the basis of murky intelligence, then you're going to have to act after the fact, and after the fact now means after horrendous things have happened to this country,' he added."

Wolfowitz, who also said that Iraq "is now the central battle in the war on terror," then made the implicit connection between 1990's-era Islamic terrorism and the failure to "contain" Iraq:
"…Wolfowitz said it was wrong to think the United States could have continued a policy of containment against Iraq instead of going to war.
"'Twelve years of containment was a terrible price for us,' he said, citing the attacks on the USS Cole off the Yemeni port of Aden in October 2000 and on the Khobar Towers barracks in Saudi Arabia in 1996."

Huh?

However, there is no demonstrable proof to link Iraq with either of these attacks – unless, like Wolfowitz, you've already assumed in advance that Saddam and bin Laden were covert allies. Manufacturing such a connection has been the murkiest of the Bush Administration's "intelligence" initiatives since 9/11.

Vice President Cheney, who emerged last week from his undisclosed location to deliver a rare public rebuke to his critics, cited intelligence to prove that Saddam would have had nuclear weapons within the decade. In other words, "containment" wasn't an appropriate policy against a country that might have been connected with Islamic terrorists, that might someday have a bomb, and that might someday use it. Never mind that America successfully contained the USSR – an infinitely greater threat – for almost 45 years without launching any pre-emptive war.

Actually, the US attacked Iraq only because it didn't have nuclear weapons. Yet it is less eager to take on similarly repressive, nuclear regimes such as North Korea. The disparity is no doubt instructive for weak countries which fear eventual US invasion. If anything, the Iraq war, allegedly waged to make us safer from terrorism and nuclear threats, has probably increased their likelihood.

An Ambiguous Argument

There are three problems with Wolfowitz's argument. First of all, is "murky" really the best way of describing pre-9/11 intelligence? "Incomplete," if not "incompetent," might be a better choice of words. But most emphatically, as the recently declassified federal investigation showed, "not shared" is the best way to describe how US authorities let the terrorists slip through their grasp.

Secondly, even if the government were to react to intelligence that was not "actionable," there still remains the question of what that reaction should be. Wolfowitz, who backs war in all cases, cited the failure to attack Afghanistan before 9/11 as the main reason why the terrorist attacks happened. Certainly, more could have been done – but why a full-scale war? Almost two years later, guerrilla attacks continue to plague the troops, Mullah Omar has set a bounty on Afghan collaborators, and a resurgent Taliban roams free. The US war and ongoing occupation have, at a very high cost, disrupted, not eradicated the terrorist networks. And even the prospect of capturing bin Laden hasn't been mentioned for many, many months.

Finally, we come to the most disturbing implication of Wolfowitz's argument – that is, that intelligence is never murky for those with special plans.

A Cabal of Clowns

Wolfowitz and his fellow neocons have been angling for a war with Iraq for years, and one to be waged not primarily for American interests. To their minds, all the justifications were there: all that was missing was the intelligence. Acquiring it was viewed as merely an onerous hassle, a chore to be completed as quickly as possible.

Predicting that the CIA and other agencies wouldn't be sufficiently creative, the Pentagon set up its own intelligence-gathering wing – the Office of Special Plans. Staffed by neocon cronies, Pentagon extras and off-the-books temps, this hand-picked bunch set about manufacturing the evidence required to please their minders. In doing so, the OSP upstaged and impeded the work of legitimate intelligence-gathering bodies, and then released data into the waiting hands of war "architects" like Wolfowitz.

Indeed, only the murkiest of intelligence can come from murky, politically-motivated agencies like the Office of Special Plans. Back when bin Laden was plotting terrorist attacks in some Afghan mountain redoubt, Wolfowitz and his cronies were manufacturing the case for invading a truly non-threatening Iraq. Yet instead of taking their share of the blame for missing the real threat, the neocons only point to the pre-9/11 intelligence failure as confirmation of why they had to have been otherwise engaged at the time.

Before 9/11, painting Saddam as a grave peril to US security was essential; now, finding a way to connect Saddam to that dark day has become essential for the neocons merely to justify their initial obsession. Living thus in the past, surreptitiously creating an agency to manufacture "intelligence," the nation's protectors run the risk of missing emerging threats. Yet, even as their apologists insipidly mock the critics, the Special Planners are due for some special scrutiny. Indeed, while they were so busy serving up yellowcake for those who were expecting an Iraqi cakewalk, the intelligence pros had come to some different conclusions:
"…U.S. intelligence agencies were persistent and unified in warning the Defense Department that Iraqis would resort to 'armed opposition' after the war was over."

As the Americans sink deeper into the Iraqi morass, it's becoming clear that they are paying a terrible price for heeding a handful of incompetents over the established intelligence agencies. Will the masterminds of this war be called to account for themselves?

If the threatened congressional investigation of the OSP does take place, it should go a long way towards "shining a light" on exactly what's hidden in the murky depths of the neocon lair.Note: This article was originally published on 30 July 2003 by Antiwar.com."

Macedonian Tourism - I

(This article is from the Balkanalysis.com archive)

One anecdote says it all: a German journalist came to Macedonia, and was overwhelmed with the country's natural beauty and hospitality. He enthusiastically fired off seven articles, but was dismayed to hear his editor say, "nice articles -- but I'm not printing anything good about Macedonia."

A pristine land of mountains and lakes, Macedonia nevertheless has a bad media image, a relic of 2001's Albanian uprising. Although the peace has long been re-established, occasional violence from Kosovo-linked Albanian terrorist and mafia groups persists.

This residual unrest has prolonged Western governments' unhelpful, paranoiac travel advisories. "They have to stop saying, 'don't go to Macedonia!" avers Arsenije Janevski, president of the Association of Travel Agents of Macedonia and reteller of the above anecdote. "It's up to us to show the world that this is a safe country."

However, misperceptions die hard. Britain's Football Association cancelled ticket sales for September's international match in Skopje -- a rare opportunity for Macedonia to share the world spotlight. The FA advised British supporters to avoid this potentially dangerous "Muslim country." Almost all Macedonians, however, are Orthodox Christians. And the chiefly Albanian and Bosnian Muslim minorities would hardly terrorize British football tourists.

Perversely, existing ignorance of Macedonia condemns it to further ignominy. A UPI survey of U.S. newspaper travel editors revealed that Macedonia is viewed as "kind of exotic," "too unstable" and "not interesting for our readers." Macedonian promoters face the enormous task of reversing such perceptions.

All countries depend on name branding -- something which continues to cripple Macedonia. The long-standing dispute with Greece over the name remains unresolved. With the 2004 Athens Olympics approaching, Greek-American diaspora groups are furiously lobbying state legislatures to pass bills recognizing that "Macedonia is Greek." As of 1 July, this bizarre campaign has claimed success in 14 states.

Being hampered by the unwieldy, provisional title "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is a marketing disaster. Yet, while Macedonian diaspora groups bewail their inability to lobby with equal vigor, they know that they can't compete with the much larger and wealthier Greek-American diaspora.

The only thing worse than no marketing is bad marketing -- something that Macedonia has in abundance. The standard of written English in promotional materials is usually abysmal. Hoteliers spend millions on refurbishments, yet dash off cheap, verbally anemic brochures which only provoke reader skepticism.

Everyone knows that a picture is worth a thousand words. Disastrously, Macedonian promoters repeatedly try to prove it. Their ekphrastic fervor -- due both to decades of Socialism and to the strictures of the Macedonian language -- often results in pages of nice, but ultimately meaningless description. Tourism professionals and government officials alike continue to overestimate the quality of their foreign promotions materials.

Security, though over-hyped, remains a problem. Zoran Temov is manager of the Millennium Palace Hotel on Lake Ohrid, Macedonia's premiere tourist destination. He told UPI that, "the most important thing for us is to have stability in the country" -- a sentiment echoed by many.

Isolated Albanian border villages respect their own laws and can be havens for smuggling. However, such areas endanger Macedonian Army border patrols -- not tourists. But this isn't so remarkable. As Arsenije Janevski put it, "when I go to New York, I'm told beforehand to avoid certain dangerous neighborhoods. But their existence doesn't mean that I should avoid New York altogether, does it?"

Infrastructure and transport problems abound. Old, Socialist-era hotels are drab and uninviting. Many roads need work, and falling rock zones lack safety nets. Macedonian Railways has lost 50 percent of its import business since Hellenic Petroleum's Thessaloniki-Skopje pipeline began in 2002, and is plagued by chronic labor unrest. Sudden strikes have frequently shut down the daily Belgrade-Skopje-Thessaloniki train -- a major inconvenience for international travelers.

According to some airline representatives, Skopje's small airport chronically mishandles outgoing baggage. There is no airport shuttle bus -- only overpriced taxis. In the capital, both the traffic patterns and Cyrillic-only street signs confound. Skopje's historic quarter, the once-Turkish but now Albanian "Charshia," is overgrown, well-littered, and blemished by the twin eyesores of a chaotic bus station and 'Bit Pazar,' an open-air market for vegetables and bric-a-brac.

Even the most-visited places, such as Lake Ohrid, present problems for families with children and don't offer a varied enough menu for Western tastes, according to a USAID-funded project, the Macedonian Competitiveness Activity. Kip Garland, who head's the agency's tourism project in Skopje, told UPI that the MCA seeks to gather relevant market data and to help private businessmen "unite to make better strategic decisions."

For Macedonia's untouched natural environment, tourism may prove a threat. London's "Guardian" recently reported on pollution and an envisaged five-year ban on trout fishing in Lake Ohrid. The 3 million year-old lake is up to 18 miles long and 948 feet deep. Of its 17 species of fish, 10 are unique to the lake. Dubbed a "living fossil" by the "Guardian," the Ohrid trout waited out the Ice Age in the lake's murky depths. A delicacy, the fish features prominently on restaurant menus. Any moratorium on fishing would severely impact the local economy.

Nevertheless, the species -- whose numbers have been decreasing annually -- must be saved.
Unfortunately, tourism remains a low priority for the government. There is no tourism ministry -- just an office within the Ministry of Economy. Mind-numbing bureaucracy, a lack of funding, and general apathy have hindered growth.

Last fall, the French government commissioned consultants Louis Berger to create a "master plan" for tourism in Macedonia. The recently completed analysis, which cost 150,000 euros ($170,000), cites dismal statistics for the industry. Macedonia's tourism income in 2000 amounted to only 1.1 percent of gross domestic product, in comparison to a 2.4 percent European average, 4-8 percent in some neighboring countries and 14 percent in Croatia. In war-affected 2001, figures were much worse. However, the state statistics office still hasn't processed the data from that year or 2002.

Contrast this with savvy Bulgaria, which recently declared a 2003 visitor increase of 19 percent, and January-April revenues of $224 million. British charter flights bound for the Black Sea coast have also begun this year, meaning Bulgaria should achieve unprecedented summer revenues in 2003.

However, Macedonia's situation is actually worse than would appear. Louis Berger's Skopje representative, Daniel Serafimovski, told UPI that statistical vagueness and problematic terminology have affected his study's veracity.

The state statistics office is under-funded and could learn something from Western methodology. According to the government, any foreigner staying overnight in Macedonia is a tourist. This willfully ignores the fact that the vast majority of foreigners in post-war Macedonia are members of the "international community" -- diplomats, NGO types, foreign peacekeepers and businessmen -- that is, people with work to do. True tourists are far fewer.

However, though he agrees the government has shortcomings, Serafimovski reserves equal criticism for the private tourism sector. "In researching our study, we went to them and asked, 'what figures can you show us? What have you done?' But many didn't have organized data or information." Like Kip Garland from USAID, Serafimovski believes that creating a national industry requires better cooperation and organization within the private sector.

For its part, the private sector blames the commercial banks. Offering interest rates above 20 percent, Macedonian commercial banks have long been the bane of private investors. Their restrictive lending policies hit small and medium-sized entrepreneurs hardest.

Zoran Tancev, a successful young restaurateur near the south-eastern city of Strumica, wants to develop local village tourism, but is wary. "I know that I can get a loan from one of our banks," Tancev told UPI. "But with such high interest rates, it's a risk -- what if the business doesn't succeed?"

Note: This article was originally published on 29 July 2003 by UPI.

Two Years, Two Reports- and Two Ohrids

(This article is from the Balkanalysis.com archive)

Exactly two years ago today, an article appeared in London’s Independent, entitled, "Macedonia faces ruin as threat of civil war empties resorts." The author- one Justin Huggler- also won notoriety for the even brasher, "Macedonia’s campaign of hate leaves NATO suffering its first casualty," which appeared after the death of British soldier Ian Collins and which provoked a fiery response from yours truly.

Although one can understand the wartime media’s love of sensationalism, there was something about Huggler’s articles that seemed almost malicious- like he wanted the country to fail. In breathless, grandiose tones, the "war reporter" painted a picture of devastation and imminent ruin for Ohrid, Macedonia’s favorite watering hole and source of national pride:
"…so far, the fighting - concentrated around the north-west town of Tetovo - has not spread this far south. But if it does, there is no guarantee that the medieval city will be spared."

Perhaps there is something in the British spirit that loves tabloid-esque coverage, but how sober editors (of course, there’s no guarantee that they were at the time) could print such drivel is beyond me. They obviously knew nothing about Ohrid, its environs or the fact that enough politicians and businessmen own property there to guarantee it would never come under fire.

Besides, the Albanian pimps in nearby Veleshta were rumored to have paid the NLA so that they wouldn’t bring the war south and so detract from their business. And after all, what about those small children with inflatable toys in the picture (see link above)?

As part of the general tendency to force-fit Macedonia into the pre-existing Balkan precedents, Huggler compared it to earlier wars:
"…a feature of the Balkan wars of the 1990s was the wanton destruction of priceless art and architecture, such as the demolition of the Ottoman-era bridge in Mostar, in south-west Bosnia.

The Macedonian army has already agonised over whether to shell a medieval monastery in the north which they said was being used as a base by Albanian rebels. Ohrid's turn may come."
"Ohrid’s turn might come?" Huh? You’ve got to hand it to Britain’s verbal thespians- they sure know how to create looming disaster and conflict where there are none. But misery is what sells, apparently.

Fast-forward two years, to July 28, 2003. Another London paper, the Guardian, puts out a new story on Macedonia. Once again, our attention is diverted to Ohrid. But this time, no one is talking about its impending obliteration. The Guardian report is instead concerned with the environmental danger posed to the lake by dirty inflowing rivers and overfishing. Ohrid’s famous trout, weighing in at 37 pounds and a relic of prehistoric times, has become endangered.

Both the number of fish and average size have decreased. Quite rightly pointing out that the Ohrid trout is one of Macedonia’s most important inhabitants, the Guardian’s Paul Brown states:
"…The World Bank has spent five years on a project to save the species. But pollution and illegal fishing, some using dynamite, has prompted Albanian and Macedonian environment ministers to consider a five-year ban on trout fishing, despite the effects on the Macedonian tourist trade and on fishermen's incomes. Ministers from both governments have publicly backed such a ban, and will meet next month to discuss the plan." In the article we are treated to other interesting details, like the clarity of Ohrid’s waters,
"…with visitors able to peer 22 metres (72ft) down through crystal clear waters. For centuries locals drank direct from the lake, without fear of disease."

Further, when we read that, "…the reed beds in which the fish breed and feed are making way for hotels and water sports," we become more conscious of the effects that we as visitors have on the natural environment of Ohrid.

In the Guardian article, we even hear about Ohrid’s churches and 5 gold masks. And, unlike all the empty offerings of conflict-resolution charlatans and ethnic harmonizers these past couple years, the article addresses a specific, tangible problem and gives some potential solutions, citing German scientists and government environmental officials who have plans for restoring the lake to health. If only all the money wasted on conferences, seminars and caring and sharing had been spent on projects like this, Macedonia might now be much closer to economic prosperity and stability.

Indeed, in the Guardian article, the only thing missing is a paean to the Ohrid eel. But if somehow this article indicates a change in wider editorial precedent concerning Macedonia, we can be confident in saying that the eel’s turn may come.

Note: This article was originally published on 29 July 2003 by Reality Macedonia.

Analysis: Print Media Moves on SE Europe

(This article is from the Balkanalysis.com archive)

Tuesday, Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (WAZ) will officially take over Macedonia's 3 largest newspapers -- "Dnevnik," "Utrinski Vesnik" and "Vest" -- for an undisclosed sum agreed earlier this month. Inside speculations peg the figure at somewhere between 1-5 million euro ($1.2-6 million).

This would be peanuts for Germany's second-largest media empire, which owns over 130 newspapers and magazines and dominates Balkan markets. Last week it announced co-investment plans with Lambrakis DOS -- Greece's industry leader, with total consolidated assets of over Ђ500 million. Any partnership would give the two EU countries a north-south chokehold over the Balkans.

Media concentration is becoming a greater concern in Europe. An exhaustive report by the European Federation of Journalists last month charged WAZ and its peers with monopolistic tendencies, questioning whether their pawns "...can become representative of public interests and civil concerns when key decisions about investment and even editorial attitudes towards political issues may be decided elsewhere."

In the 1990's, market saturation in the West forced large publishers to expand east and diversify. The current advertising recession and poor economy have exacerbated this trend. A recent Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty analysis avers that "...it is complicated to acquire titles, and very costly to launch new ones" in the West. Since title acquisition in the East is relatively cheap, and negotiations hassle-free, investments there can cushion against poor company performance on more volatile domestic markets.

Germany's Axel Springer Verlag is the largest newspaper conglomerate in Europe, and also publishes the continent's best-selling daily, "Bild." Springer's strategy of nationalizing popular German magazines has built its stable of titles abroad. However, like other giants Passauer Neue Press and Switzerland's Ringier, this company hasn't really penetrated the Balkan interior, having small joint ventures in Bulgaria and Romania.

Since most companies have concentrated on the usual destinations -- Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic -- these markets are also becoming saturated. More determined investors are heading southward.

Excepting Bosnia and Albania, Balkan countries have received considerable attention since the mid-1990's. Take Romania, an underdeveloped but promising country of 10 million.

Here the trend has been limited liability joint ventures. In 2002, Switzerland's Edipresse and Antonios Liberis from Greece created, with Springer Verlag, the Romanian Publishing Group (RPG), publishing 8 magazines. Germany's Burda meanwhile took an 80 percent share in Burda Verlag Osteuropa (BVO), established with Italy's RCS Editori (Burda's strategic partner throughout Central Europe).

Switzerland's largest magazine publisher, Ringier owns 10 Romanian magazines and is strong in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. It is now leading Romania's "promising" business publications sector, according to the EFJ analysis.

Romania's other major foreign investment was made by Finland's Sanoma Magazines International, Europe's fifth-largest consumer magazine publisher, and Hearst. The subsidiary, Sanoma-Hearst Romania (SHR) publishes four titles, including the Romanian edition of "Cosmopolitan."

Sanoma used the same strategy in Croatia, a well-developed Balkan media market. Here, the Finnish company holds 65 percent of a subsidiary established in 2001, Sanoma Magazines Zagreb. At the end of 2002, Sanoma started the Croatian edition of another leading fashion magazine, "Elle," the second in the Balkans. (The first, in Romania, is owned by Springer Verlag's RPG). Croatia's biggest daily newspaper, "Vecernji List," is run by Austria's Styria Media Group.

However, when it comes to the Balkans, there's no one quite like Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung.

Active in Romania, owning a third of Croatian newspapers and dominating the market in Bulgaria, WAZ is now focusing on Serbia, Macedonia and Greece.

In 1997, WAZ acquired "24 Chasa" and "Trud," Bulgaria's two largest and most influential newspapers, investing 50 million euro ($60 million) by 2000. Today, it controls regional newspapers and magazines through joint ventures Bulgarian News Group, the 168 Chasa Media Group and Media Holdings. To judge by the number of local competitors bankrupted, Bulgaria has been a very successful operation for the German giant.

In 1998, WAZ spent 16 million euro ($19.2 million) for a 50 percent share in Croatia's Zagreb EuropaPress Holdings, including two daily newspapers and 11 magazines, such as the weekly news magazine "Globus" and the Croatian editions of "Playboy," "Cosmopolitan" and "OK." WAZ controls between 35-37 percent of the Croatian newspaper market. The company also has majority participation in two Romanian dailies.

Although Serbia already had German investment, WAZ last year made a key purchase with Belgrade's "Politika," the Balkan's oldest newspaper. Heavily indebted, technically dilapidated, "Politika" has required heavy investment. WAZ also purchased 50 percent of Podgorica's main daily, "Vijesti," and soon will swallow up Novi Sad's "Dnevnik."

The 25 million euro ($30 million) deal made by WAZ and the Serbian owners created a joint venture to administer "Politika" and several smaller publications. According to RFE/RL, the contract includes a "distribution of authority": Belgrade retains editorial control, while WAZ handles new investments.

Although foreign media acquisitions in Southeastern Europe have understandable economic justifications, their ramifications are less clear.

Potentially, such investments may indicate a high-level European confidence in future South Balkan stability. The fact that one of WAZ's four managing directors, Bodo Hombach, is the former coordinator of the Stability Pact for Southeast Europe indicates insider knowledge. WAZ wouldn't be investing if it considered another Balkan war likely.

Even so, investors face endemic problems with the Balkan media industry. Cronyism, a limited advertising base and low wages mean that critical reports about big businessmen -- that is, big advertisers -- are rare.

Yet for their part, self-proclaimed independent publishers generally exist outside the rules of the free market. Certain glossy magazines, which have long received lavish funding from the U.S. Government, George Soros and others, needn't rely on newsstand sales. Regional muckrakers too have received donor funding openly, and in one murky case involving a well-known Western NGO, secretly, as reimbursement for services rendered. In Macedonia, media participation has become a useful tactic for laundering international aid money on dubious conferences and seminars.

Overt, old-fashioned afflictions remain. The EFJ report describes mafia intimidation against journalists -- and even mob ownership of newspapers -- in Bulgaria. Politically-motivated clampdowns are also common.

But the biggest fear is monopoly. Czech and Croat interests complain the Germans have exiled them from their own market. After bankrupting its first two Bulgarian acquisitions in order to save them, WAZ was hit with a monopoly lawsuit. However, though it was forced to divest some of its holdings, WAZ continues to wage overpowering price wars. According to the EFJ, local WAZ editions have eliminated many local Bulgarian newspapers.

Ironically, Western, capitalistic monopolies have often merely resuscitated the carcasses of Communist-era ones, as the Czechs and Bulgarians know. Macedonia's media resurrection failed last September, when the state-run Nova Makedonija house was almost sold to a Slovenian interest -- allegedly, just a front company for the then-ruling VMRO-DPMNE party. After considerable labor unrest and confusion, Nova Makedonija is now under government forced management. Hopes are this albatross can be unloaded early next year.

There also remains the question of media takeovers and editorial policy. In Macedonia, "Utrinski Vesnik" leaned to the left-wing SDSM, "Vecer" (part of the Nova Makedonija house) towards whoever was in power, and "Dnevnik" took a centrist-nationalist position.

Assuming that "Vecer" dies off, WAZ will be left holding the only two competing papers. Will this work? It has in Bulgaria -- albeit a much bigger market. Ominously for Macedonia, Bulgarian critics complain that the Germans have killed serious content in favor of sensationalism, celebrities and nudity. If WAZ can't fit enough entertainment into the tabloid "Vest," will it look to "dumb down" the others?

"Dnevnik" employees were apprehensive enough in May, when what looked to be a "capitulation treaty" was signed with the Germans. But they really started sweating last week, when the WAZ-Lambrakis DOL partnership was reported. They feared a Greek-dominated subsidiary would take over, and "modify" editorial policy. Since Greece does not officially recognize Macedonia by its constitutional name, this was an alarming thought indeed.

However, the German-Greek venture, if it happens, will be devoted to consolidating the Greek market, where Lambrakis DOL has invested over 145,000 euro ($174,000) since 2000. Operating in Macedonia would be politically embarrassing for Lambrakis; besides, any suspicions of Greek editorial propaganda would no doubt hurt the newspapers' sales.

UPI has learned that the new company, named "MediaPrint Makedonija," will have 350 employees and a total combined circulation of 120,000 (half of which is due to "Dnevnik"). The company's new president, Srdjan Kerim, was a long-time ambassador to Germany and friend of WAZ director Bodo Hombach. Currently, Kerim is Macedonia's UN ambassador.

The sale has subtle political ramifications. A "Dnevnik" figure told UPI that Tuesday's issue will outline the finalized deal -- and reassure citizens that the Greeks aren't taking over. However, in his weekly column, powerful presidential advisor Ljubomir Frchkovski will attack this idea tomorrow -- for purposes murkily known.

"This tactic -- of spreading hysteria about some Greek takeover -- seems to be an organized campaign," said the source. "A-1 Television (Macedonia's biggest) will also be pushing it."

This station received start-up money from the U.S. Government several years ago, and its owner previously imported frozen American chicken. The office of President Boris Trajkovski is especially close with the Americans. And, on 16 June, the editor of "Forum" magazine, Sasha Ordanovski declared the need to fight 'the new monopolies in the information industry.' Note that he was cited in the Pentagon-funded "Southeast European Times." "Forum" has received generous U.S. Government funding, and its manager is intimate with Trajkovski's people, as well as with American governmental and NGO leaders. There are fears within this closed circle that the looming German menace will threaten a U.S.-enabled media mafia grown fat and happy from years of grants and international donations. WAZ, as a champion of the free market, is of course utterly indifferent to their plight.

"It will be interesting to see these two conflicting blocks in action," the Skopje newsman told UPI Monday. "From tomorrow, the fight begins." No doubt, the recriminations soon will fly. But the arrival of WAZ may well bring a breath of fresh air to a tired, lackluster local media. Must a monopoly be all bad?

Note: This article was originally published on 28 July 2003 by UPI.

Respect the Troops – Not Their Spineless Leaders

(This article is from the Balkanalysis.com archive)

On Sunday, the Washington Post released the first of a two-part report from Walter Reed Military Hospital in Washington, which has hosted almost 650 American soldiers wounded in Iraq during the past 4 months. In it we are made graphically aware of soldiers enduring horrific pain, psychological trauma and never-ending operations. And we understand how their lives have been impaired forever – ultimately on the orders of politicians who are never themselves endangered. We read:
"…One Sunday afternoon, the nurse's station on (Ward) 57 gets word that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is coming for a visit. Counters are scrubbed, a hot rod magazine on the front desk gets stashed and nurses patrol the halls, making sure patients and rooms are presentable.

An hour later, Rumsfeld cancels. He has a cold."

What's It All About?

And that about sums up the hollow support America's leaders have given throughout this whole rotten affair. That George Bush can say things like "bring 'em on" and talk about "unbroken resolve" show that he is not listening to what his troops are saying: they have had enough. Too many of them have already been killed or crippled; it's time for the rest to come while they still can. Indeed, the disillusionment of the "no visitors" soldier above is being felt by not only in hospital wards, but primarily on the battlefield.

Of course, it's true that America's is a professional army, and its soldiers were aware of the dangers – even if they'd never experienced them for real – before going to Iraq. However, it's not the danger that is dragging down morale: it's instead the question of, "what is the purpose of this war? And who will it benefit, anyhow?"

The ongoing pressure of daily attacks and casualties has intensified such nagging doubts and misgivings. As one soldier in Iraq recently said, "we have a lot of unanswered questions."

Reporting Certain Casualties

Every single day, more soldiers die or are wounded. Early on Tuesday, a US soldier was killed in yet another grenade attack. On Sunday, two other soldiers were killed. These casualties brought the "official" death toll to 153 in just over 4 months.

However, Editor and Publisher's Greg Mitchell pointed out Thursday that these tallies only include "combat" deaths, and that the total number of deaths – from accidents, "friendly fire" and even a few suicides – is actually pushing 230. However, these "non-combat" casualties are being downplayed – provoking irate Americans to demand the truth. As a follow-up to this piece, Mitchell revealed yesterday that the article "has drawn the heaviest e-mail response of any article from E&P in the nearly four years I have worked for the magazine." Judging from some of the fan letters he reprints, it's clear that discovering this policy of suppression has indeed hit a "raw nerve" in the public.

Indeed, now not just antiwar critics but also concerned family members and the soldiers themselves are starting to wonder if there is – or ever was – any purpose behind all of this chaos and suffering.

Morale Sinks

From all accounts, morale has hit rock bottom in Iraq. Underpaid American troops are suffering from the intense heat, stifling dust, dangerously insufficient water, and the psychological stress of living in constant fear of an attack, far away from their loved ones. They are forced to operate on little sleep, and are constantly on edge: "I hate these people" is a now-common epithet for soldiers who see little point in staying where they're clearly not wanted. Waiting and wishing to go home, troops are stuck holding angry protesters at bay instead.

In addition, disturbing news of soldiers suffering from mysterious diseases – perhaps caused by their own radioactive munitions – have been deliberately hidden from the already downtrodden troops. Is this becoming a quagmire, like Vietnam? "It could be (getting) worse" predicts one veteran of that war.

Injuries and Fatalities: a Fine Line

Like football, Iraq seems to be a game of inches. In other words, there is a very fine line between partial and total disaster. Take for example the US base at Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad. Troops there are coming under daily mortar fire, something which is inflicting "psychological damage" – but not only that:
"..On the one occasion so far when the mortars struck U.S. soldiers, only a thin layer of camouflage netting prevented fatalities, soldiers said.

"It was about 10:30 p.m. at the camp of the 3rd Brigades's 915 Forward Surgical Team when the mortars began landing. The soldiers were watching 'Major Payne,' a 1990s comedy about military life, when the mortar struck, said Lt. Leonard 'Chip' Sell, an Army doctor.

"Twenty were injured and seven flown to Germany for medical treatment.

"The camouflage netting is designed to blow shrapnel up and away. 'If the mortar would have hit the ground in front of us, it could have killed all of us,' said Sell."

The chances of such a catastrophe only increase the longer they stay. It is clear that the Bush Administration is only one major attack away from a political disaster. That said, it seemed fairly reckless of Paul Wolfowitz to directly contradict top Iraq commander, Gen. John Abizaid, by euphemistically insisting that no Iraqi "resistance" exists. Wolfowitz seems obsessed with sugar-coating the situation – correcting soldiers on the ground by calling these well-planned guerrilla attacks mere "forces of reaction." Perhaps he should go out on patrol with the grunts and then decide.

The White House Squirms

No wonder that White House spinmeisters can do nothing but gape in horror as the troops on the ground start to tell it like it is. Antiwar.com's Mike Ewens has collected last week's most embarrassing quotes from the field. They show that, in the unforgiving chaos of Iraq today, all decorum is going out the window:
"'…The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz,' (one US soldier) said.

"'…If Donald Rumsfeld were sitting here in front of us, what would you say to him?' I [ABC reporter Jeffrey Kofman] asked a group of soldiers who gathered around a table, eager to talk to a visiting reporter.

"'If he was here,' said Pfc. Jason Punyahotra, 'I would ask him why we're still here, why we've been told so many times and it's changed.'

"In the back of the group, Spc. Clinton Deitz put up his hand. 'If Donald Rumsfeld was here,' he said, 'I'd ask him for his resignation.'"

Save the Campaign – Throw the Critics Off the Trail

Bush's election war chest is now tipping the $40 million mark. For campaign planners, it is imperative that nothing go wrong which might disturb his carefully-cultivated image of strength.
And so, even though he's obviously bit off more than he can chew in Iraq, our fearless leader recently laid into 6 other "rogue states": Myanmar, Belarus, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe. Presumably, the Commander-in-Chief is planning to go in and personally topple all of those nefarious regimes – 'cause his soldiers sure as hell ain't.

Actually, Bush has perhaps other young recruits in mind, at least for "mopping up" in Iraq. Desperately striving to limit the damage to morale and American lives, the White House is accepting anyone and everyone– including real live mercenaries – in a clearly disingenuous effort to limit political liability.

Now, the Americans plan to use Iraqi militias as cannon fodder against their own people. Barely a week after arresting and expelling 11 of them from Iraq, the US also wants Turkish troops back to help out. Like France and Germany, India was asked for troops, but sensibly turned down the request. Perhaps the Indians were thinking of how the British once used them as cannon fodder in the 1917 attack on Baghdad.

Finally, when everything else has gone to hell, the US now displays the sickening temerity to contemplate asking the UN for help, after spurning and bullying it for so long. Voracious American contractors thought that the unilateral approach meant more riches: to the victors belong the spoils. Yet, as the US is now finding out, to the victors belong only the casualties.

The Bottom Line: Give Respect Where Respect is Due

These past few months, American soldiers in Iraq have endured things beyond the average person's comprehension. While most will live to tell about it, they will never be free from the long-term shock and trauma of their experience. Yet many others will return with life-changing impairments – amputations, burns, mysterious diseases, probably even cancer. And hundreds more won't come back at all.

If Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Co. really believe in the vaunted ideals which allegedly justified all of this bloodshed and misery, then by all means, let them change places with the soldiers on the ground – they'd be only too glad to come home.

Yet the reason why the politicians are so terrified when soldiers open up to the press is because they know that the soldiers – and not themselves – possess the moral authority in this case. For all of the president's empty words about noble sacrifices, undaunted resolve and whatnot it is clear that he has no right to speak – much less punish those who do. Especially so, considering that the moral case for the whole war seems to be unraveling daily.

Thrust into a chaotic, hellish situation for reasons only murkily understood, America's soldiers have exhibited bravery, tenacity and in many cases, plain heroism. They should be honored and respected by the rest of us. The same cannot be said for their political leaders – cozily ensconced out of harm's way in Washington. If, as seems more and more likely, their stated case for war turns out to have been based on lies, what then?

Soldiers enlist, above all, to protect their country. Yet what if, in the case of Iraq, it turns out that they've been sacrificed for purposes having nothing to do with national defense? Will the architects of this disastrous war be willing to step forward then?

Note: This article was originally published on 23 July 2003 by Antiwar.com."

Globalization and the Future of Western Intervention

(This article is from the Balkanalysis.com archive)

As a four-day international conference on intervention wound down yesterday in Surrey, embattled British leader Tony Blair found out the hard way that he will not get to play emperor.

Blair's stirring call for a comprehensive, internationally-accepted rule guaranteeing intervention on a potentially massive scale was roundly rejected by his fellow "progressive" leaders from countries like Germany, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa.

As an opportunity for the sinking prime minister to exert some influence on the world stage, the conference was a failure. But the fact that it even occurred offers plenty of food for thought regarding the future of intervention in an increasingly volatile and unpredictable age.

A Disastrous Tactic

As public confidence in the Prime Minister's stewardship continues to plummet, amid fears that Blair lied about the WMD's and is nothing more than George Bush's lapdog, he seems desperate to associate himself with those leaders not contaminated by the plague that is Iraq. However, this is proving difficult for the one leader who, after his American counterpart, has been most damagingly associated with an increasingly sketchy invasion.

Indeed, after being roasted repeatedly for his slavish devotion to President Bush, and after suffering furious attacks on the home front, one would think that Tony Blair might pipe down on a bit on the intervention front. Amazingly, however, precisely the opposite has occurred.

Perhaps taking another page from Bush's book, the British prime minister seems to believe that the best defense is a good offense. For, despite coming under increasing fire for alleged deception of the British people, Blair at the conference (instead of displaying a little much-needed humility) proclaimed the need for armed intervention against any and all "failing states." Hey, is he trying to "out-Dubya" Dubya or what?

The End of Sovereignty…

On Sunday, the Observer reported – prematurely, as it turned out – that Blair's grand decree would be accepted:
"…(Blair) and other Left-wing national leaders …will issue a joint communiquй and, according to a draft leaked over the weekend, it will claim that the international community has a right to intervene in the internal affairs of failing states.
"The key section said: 'Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect.'
"Another section justifies this stance on the grounds that, just as individuals have rights and responsibilities, nations do too.
"'The right to sovereignty brings associated responsibilities to protect citizens,' the draft said."

The report containing this momentous passage was not new. Though dusted off only recently, it was finished in December 2001. The project was funded by the Canadian government with the input of 12 "experts" – including Imperialist extraordinaire, Michael Ignatieff.

…But Not Just Yet

Now, however much the would-be emperor desired such an endorsement, by Monday it became clear that his fellow "left-leaning" peers did not, and that this "key section" would be chopped:
"…amid fears that it could have provided justification for the war in Iraq and give(n) carte blanche to Western powers to intervene in countries around the world. The final document instead stressed 'the crucial importance of international co-operation in responding to humanitarian crises.' It said: 'We are clear that the UN Security Council remains the sole body to authorise global action in dealing with humanitarian crises of this kind.'"

This compromise solution – sure to have no effect on the Bush Administration – comes as yet another blow to Blair's credibility. It showed clearly that his input is fast becoming irrelevant.

Yet with almost Rumsfeldian eloquence, Blair continued to insist:
"…the real issue is how do we, in circumstances where there is brutal repression of people by a particular regime, how do we offer them support and protection and what are the rules that govern that, because people want to know that they are operating in a system with rules."

Huh? Which people? What system? Whose rules? And who's meant by "we"?

This magisterial statement leaves an awful lot up to interpretation. Yet it's safe to say that Blair is suggesting that the "international community" (i.e., the West), as vanguard of an allegedly democratic, liberal system, should enact its rules (in the form of prohibitions, ultimatums and threats) on the rest of the world's population – who, though they may not know it yet, are all included in the royal "we."

As a recipe for future interventions, the "Blair doctrine" is not particularly remarkable. But since it is a sign of the times, we should strive to understand it.

The Zeitgeist: Globalization and the Logic of Today's Interventionism

Forget about the banal political realities behind Blair's squirming. We must seek to explain his rationalization in another way.

The victory of violent Western intervention today is a logical conclusion of the liberal Wilsonian doctrine of diplomacy. It implies that since specific universal values are (or should be) shared by all people, these values therefore must be extended – by force, if necessary – to all people. The unfolding situation – all war, all the time – is the predictable correlative of an imposed value system which must destroy that which is different.

Although I rarely cite philosophers in this space, acclaimed French thinker Jean Baudrillard offers some compelling reflections on precisely this topic: the West's uniform imposition of a global system of values, and the ramifications that this has for world peace, intervention and terrorism.

This article, I should start off by saying, is not merely some Leftist rant against globalization. Baudrillard just analyzes the current world situation and draws relevant conclusions. Indeed, he has little faith in the "direct action" sorts who are allowed to protest and break things under the protection of their so-called oppressors:
"…who can defeat the global system? Certainly not the anti-globalization movement whose sole objective is to slow down global deregulation. This movement's political impact may well be important. But its symbolic impact is worthless. This movement's opposition is nothing more than an internal matter that the dominant system can easily keep under control."

Tolerance – Within Reason

The "dominant system" of the West, avers Baudrillard, cannot tolerate other civilizations. I might add that there is always something comical about other forms of society, for us Westerners. Vividly evoking the imperialistic "white man's burden," we patronize those who are different from us. When watching some television documentary about strange people in strange lands, we celebrate our own breadth of vision at being able to mentally assimilate those face-painted Indians or Mongolians in funny hats. We marvel at how technology can bring the entire globe straight into our living room – and that we can therefore understand it. Yet this logical jump – that having a global view automatically means we also have global understanding – is proving deadly. Indeed, the natives, generally entertaining when well-behaved, don't seem so nice at all when they become restless and turn on us. And especially, when they use one of our own products – be it a bomb, a chemical or even an airplane. Globalization tends to bite back.

However, we seldom understand why these "others" might think or act as they do. The technical sophistication of our globalizing world far exceeds the intellectual sophistication with which we approach different cultures. Narcissistically, we assume that everyone is like us, that everyone thinks like us and has the same aspirations as us. If it seems that they do not, it's simply because they just don't know it yet. Globalization has merely allowed the West to exult in its deadly hubris on a much larger and more destructive scale.

Threats to Be Assimilated or Destroyed

In the end, the West cannot even explain other societies except as threats to be eliminated. For Western globalization, "any reactionary form is virtually terrorist" in its very existence. Baudrillard gives a concrete example:
"… look at Afghanistan. The fact that, inside this country alone, all recognized forms of 'democratic' freedoms and expressions – from music and television to the ability to see a woman's face – were forbidden, and the possibility that such a country could take the totally opposite path of what we call civilization (no matter what religious principles it invoked), were not acceptable for the 'free' world. The universal dimension of modernity cannot be refused.

From the perspective of the West, of its consensual model, and of its unique way of thinking, it is a crime not to perceive modernity as the obvious source of the Good or as the natural ideal of humankind. It is also a crime when the universality of our values and our practices are found suspect by some individuals who, when they reveal their doubts, are immediately pegged as fanatics."

Through its portentous encounter with globalization, writes Baudrillard, the West has cheapened and homogenized the very same universal values which it has sought to export to the rest of the world, since at least the time of Woodrow Wilson:
"…the mission of the West (or rather the former West, since it lost its own values a long time ago) is to use all available means to subjugate every culture to the brutal principle of cultural equivalence. Once a culture has lost its values, it can only seek revenge by attacking those of others."

Yet instead of countenancing our own vengeful viciousness, we portray ourselves as almost pious; in Kosovo, Afghanistan and now Iraq, the dizzying justification of "bombing them in order to save them" is really believed by many "patriotic" sorts. For Baudrillard, this is a manifestation of what he calls the "violence of the global." The West's sometimes harsh methods of assimilation beget a reactionary violence from the few truly different, singular modes of civilization left in the world. On September 11th, it was militant Islam. But it may come from different quarters in the future.

Endless Intervention, Endless War

Although the French thinker does not say so explicitly, this century is going to be one of endless intervention and endless war. It will exhaust itself either with the complete subjugation of the non-Western holdouts, or in symbolically destructive acts against the Western global system. Or both. For when a dominant civilization cannot tolerate otherness on an intellectual and symbolic level, and when it is too strong to be attacked by conventional means, the logical outcome is terrorism.

The attacks of 9/11 caused great destruction in terms of human death and material damages. But they destroyed neither the global financial system nor the American military command. With such a gaping disparity between combatants, the terrorists could not have hoped to win a "military" victory; what they did strategically achieve was a symbolic humiliation of a civilization that had long held them in contempt. The visceral revenge for that psychological trauma was as terrible as it was swift. And, as the blood-soaked sands of Iraq now testify, it is not over yet.

In the Absence of Values, Consensual Legislation

However, since the American retaliation has been largely driven by such symbolic longings, a kind of desperation, an intellectual void has set in. Think of the confused, divergent initiatives of Blair and Chretien in Surrey. There they tried to prove the continued value of ideals that are for all practical purposes dead, and to prolong the illusions of multilateralism and tolerance in an increasingly mono-hegemonic world:
"…Prime Minister Jean Chrйtien says the world needs a consistent policy on when nations can meddle in another country's affairs.
"He made the remarks Saturday at the start of a four-day conference in Britain.
"Chrйtien's main example was the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq this spring. He said in March he was against the idea of forcing regime change: 'If we change every government we don't like in the world where do we start? Who is next?'
"'We need a mechanism that has to be developed when we have that type of situation when local (governments) really abuse … the human rights of the citizens, that we cannot stay there and do nothing,' Chrйtien told the conference."

In other words, what the Canadian leader is attempting is to do what Bush could not – that is, to sanitize and humanize military intervention by codifying it. Through such ideas, the "progressive governance" bunch have shown that they're really just interested in progressive bureaucracy. Consensually-legislated intervention is reminiscent of the equally asinine post-WWII "war crimes" laws, which seem to make some kind of sport out of war – a fine thing to do, if played fairly.

Undiminished Dreams of Empire

However, to the question that Chretien posed publicly, regarding how wide the terrain, the man who would be king had a private answer:
"…Mr. Blair's critics might take the declaration as evidence that Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq have not diminished his appetite for military intervention against tyrannical regimes.
"In a recent book about the Iraq war, he is quoted as saying in private: 'They (critics of the war) ask why we don't get rid of Mugabe, why not the Burmese lot?
"'Yes, let's get rid of them all. I don't because I can't, but when you can, you should.'"

It's sad, really, to hear the flailing helmsman of a long-dead empire wistfully admit, "I don't because I can't." Egging on his American counterpart ("but when you can, you should"), Blair ends up sounding something like the proverbial Little League father who seeks to relive his athletic career vicariously through his child.

Indeed, the formerly cautious President Bush seems to be warming to his new role, as the upcoming Liberia adventure abundantly shows. With time, even the brain trust pushing for a Colonial Office may be heeded. Yet it is the president's ill fortune – and not, emphatically, his heavenly ordained mission – that accomplishing far-flung interventions in an age of globalization is becoming increasingly arduous, confusing and deadly.

Note: This article was originally published on 17 July 2003 by Antiwar.com."

Investing in Turkey

(This article is from the Balkanalysis.com archive)

Ever thought of investing in Turkey? This ancient land of stunning natural beauty and abundant resources is now actively trying to revive its historic role as the commercial link between east and west.

Besides its choice geographical placement, Turkey seems to have it all: a rich agricultural heartland, heavy industry, huge stretches of coastline on three different seas, as well as great tourism potential, not to mention a very favorable relationship with the United States.

Especially now that plans have been approved for the long-anticipated Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline, Turkey is developing into a hot emerging market. The government is actively seeking out foreign investors on huge privatization programs in the fields of energy, telecommunications and infrastructure projects. The Turkish Constitution has also been amended to allow for international arbitration- a previous lack that had scared off potential investors. All in all, the situation is becoming increasingly favorable. Yet this mysterious country, hampered as it is by bureaucracy and poverty, remains somewhat inaccessible to the potentially interested Western investor.

Nothing is impossible, however. Cutting through the red tape, we can lay out very simply the benefits, costs and restrictions that come with investing in Turkey, from the legal perspective.

Armed with this knowledge (derived from several Turkish government documents which lay out the rules for foreign investment), the savvy Western businessman can get a jump on the competition. Getting Started: Rules, Procedures and Limitations

To start a corporation in Turkey, or participate in an existing one, a minimum of $50,000 must be brought in from the outside for each investor. Once finances have been prepared, certain documents and applications must be submitted to the GDFI (General Directorate of Foreign Investments). This application process can be divided into three steps.

For businesses and legal entities, a Certificate of Activity approved by the related Turkish consulate must be submitted first of all. In the absence of a consular report, the business must apply in accordance with Turkey’s Abolition of the Requirement for Approval of Foreign Official Documents Agreement. Next, the entity must also submit an Activity Report covering the year prior. For individuals, a notary-certified copy of passport must be provided, along with a detailed summary of personal commercial and industrial background, and the relevant verifying documents. Also in this first stage, the investor must submit a letter of intent, which declares that each foreign partner will bring in at least $50,000 as company capital. The draft articles of the future company must also be submitted. Further, power of attorney must be given to the individual who will represent the shareholders and serve as contact person during the application process. Finally, investors must fill out an application provided by the Turkish government.

The second step is to publish the new company’s establishment, and this must be done through direct application to the Ministry of Industry and Trade. The third step, which concerns endorsement of permission certificate, is also done through direct application (to the GDFI). In this application, both the original of the permission certificate and the Trade Registry Gazette which published the company’s establishment must be provided. Finance receipts are also required at this point. If foreign capital brought in has already been converted into Turkish Liras, Foreign Exchange Purchase Receipts must be submitted. If the cash is being held in foreign exchange deposit accounts, related bank documents should be provided. Both of these must include the names of the foreign capital company and the foreign partner, the country of original transference, and the currency amount in USD and TL. These documents must state that the currency was brought in as company capital.

Generally, Turkey tries to encourage foreign investment by making most sectors open to foreign as well as domestic investors. In the interests of national security and health, however, some fields are restricted. For example, a foreign investor can only constitute 20 percent equity participation in broadcasting, and up to 49 percent in aviation, maritime transportation, port services and value-added telecommunications services. Real estate trading and fishing are currently off-limits. Special official permission is required to get involved with finance, petroleum and mining.

In an effort to reduce bureaucratic unpleasantry, the government now pledges that new companies can be registered in three weeks or less. The government also promises now that it only takes 1-15 days to obtain land use, planning or building permits, and that the cost of such permits is “negligible.” Investment Incentives

Part of Turkey’s economic strategy is to create conditions amenable to foreign investors. The country thus provides generous incentives in various ways. Besides a speedy promised application process, there is a wide-open playing field (in terms of the relatively open sectors of activity). There are no conditions for approval of foreign credit acquisition, nor for approval of licenses, technical assistance or managerial agreements. There are no limitations regarding participation of foreign capital, nor regarding the number of foreigners who may be employed as managers and staff. Profits, fees, royalties and repatriation of capital (in the event of sale or liquidation) are also free and guaranteed. Further, there is no ceiling on licensing fees and royalty rates.

Another major (and classic) incentive is tax exemption. There is a catch, however, in that one must invest a certain amount of money to get them. Here, the magic number is relative,changing to reflect the economic importance of the region where the investment is being made. For this purpose, the government has divided Turkey’s territory into three economic categories. It is therefore important to know precisely where you are planning on investing.
First of all are the “developed” regions (the cities of Istanbul and Kocaeli, and the municipalities of Ankara, Izmir, Bursa, Adana and Antalya). For incentive benefits, minimum required investment here is 600 billion TL. The second area is known as the “first priority regions,” and constitutes the next fiftylargest cities in Turkey (exact list to be determined by the Turkish Council of Ministers). Here, the minimum investment is 400 billion TL. Finally come the “normal regions,” which are made up of all the remaining (the more sparsely populated) areas.

The minimum investment requirement here is 200 billion TL.

Currently, foreign investors are exempt from customs duties and funds levies, and are also exempt from VAT on machinery and equipment, whether imported or purchased within Turkey. Investment allowance also applies.

The first exemption is designed to encourage investors to bring in the high-quality, technologically advanced equipment they might need, without being burdened by customs taxes. Of course, raw materials are not allowed to be imported, and machinery must be listed in advance, for registration with Turkey’s GDFI. The VAT exemption also aims to encourage investors needing to import or purchase locally needed equipment. Again, this equipment must be listed with the GDFI.

Investment allowance is a corporate tax exemption which deals with investment-related expenses. Chiefly, investment allowance benefits derive from buildings, machinery, freight and installation. Other considerations

Despite the attractiveness of these incentives, there are still risks associated with doing business in Turkey. The Anatolian sub-continent sits along major fault lines, and is inhabited partially by Kurdish separatists in the southeast. A major earthquake in Izmit killed 20,000 people in 1999, and scientists predict an even more devastating quake sometime over the next thirty years for Istanbul. Turkey has occasionally hostile relations with neighboring Syria, and also borders on Iraq. The political fragility of its national institutions (realistically speaking, Turkey’s power lies within the military) could be tested if the EU tries to force the status quo in Cyprus. And all this before even considering the economic picture.

Last year’s recession was the severest in decades, and saw the country’s GDP halved: $107.7 billion, down from $202 billion in 2000. The lira is still prone to fluctuation and devaluation. Since 1995, the Turkish Central bank has been devaluing the Lira in line with WPI inflation, so that a 25-50 percent incremental rate change has occurred every year, from 1995, when $1 USD equaled 45, 986 TL, through 2000, when the dollar equaled 624,958 TL. Figures are not available for last year, but the WPI inflation jump (from 32.7 percent in 2000 to 57.6 percent in 2001) tell a good deal of the story. Analysts hope that the boat has righted since then, and that Turkey is on course for a revitalized economic future. It has begun World Bank and IMF-backed privatization efforts, and with the promise of the pipeline is hoping to tackle its chronic energy shortages. These bodies, as well as the US government, are tiring of yet more economic bailouts to shore up the Turkish economy. Yet the political reality- that the US cannot allow major changes in the Turkish government’s policies, orientation and accessibility- also means that there is an artificially-imposed limit beyond which the Turkish economy cannot sink. Although the somewhat volatile nature of Turkey’s “wild east” will surely scare off some, its great opportunities, huge market and modernization developments also make it a unique and tempting destination for the intrepid foreign investor.

Note: This article was originally published in July 2002 by Escape From America Magazine. >

Occupational Hazards of War Without End

(This article is from the Balkanalysis.com archive)

Last week, Pentagon chiefs unveiled a grandiose plan for obliterating any point on earth at the touch of a button. In the Empire's future wars, our laptop bombardiers won't even have to leave the comfort of their own desks to wreak havoc the world over. With the way things are going in Iraq these days, it looks like they'll be better off.

A Glorious Liberation

Indeed, with an election-wary president looking to avoid more fatalities, 150,000 foreign troops are being sought out. Washington's desperation is such that, hell, everyone need apply – even "rogue states" – just so long as the body bag syndrome will do minimal political damage. So much for the old American adage, "you break it, you buy it."

Now, with the American death toll surpassing 200 and rising every day, the neocons' self-assured predictions of a "cakewalk" are starting to appear as they were all along – arrogant and wildly wrong. Instead of the glorious "liberation" of the Iraqi people everyone was promised, the situation is descending into a quagmire – though Donald Rumsfeld is doing his best to deny it.
Iraqi resistance, slowly increasing during June, finally exploded in a spate of attacks at month's end. On 1 July was reported the grim news of another 6 US troops dead, and 4 wounded. On Independence Day, July 4th, more incidents left 1 soldier dead and many injured. Just yesterday, a soldier relaxing at Baghdad's university was shot point-blank by an unknown assailant.

According to the Seattle Times (among others) the escalating attacks are not coming at random, but may well be signs of a wider revolt: "US troops are getting ambushed everywhere and every day." The BBC's comprehensive list of attacks clearly indicates a trend – one continued during last night's attack, which left another 4 US soldiers wounded.

Drop the Hammer!

While this situation is clearly starting to unnerve the soldiers on the ground, for those ensconced in airy Washington, the rising dissent is just an irritation. And, as with Dubya's "bring 'em on" bravado, it's one to be dealt with as bluntly as possible:
"'...clearly, they (the Iraqis) are emboldened by success,' said a senior military official in Washington. 'You have to go in and tell them: "we're gonna do what we did in Germany and Japan. We're gonna write your constitution. We're gonna install your government. We're gonna write your laws. We're gonna watch your every move for a decade, and then maybe you'll get a chance to do it yourself."'"

Who's 'We,' Paleface?

For all that, should we expect that he personally is about to "go in and tell them?" Apparently this subtle thinker doesn't care that Iraq's most senior Shia cleric has issued a fatwa against any such foreign-imposed "constitution." Never mind – this is simply another trivial little annoyance to be ignored, like all the rest before it.

One wonders who this anonymous blusterer thinks he is speaking for. While the American people proved willing to go along for the ride when the war began, this owed largely to two promises the Administration had made: one, that Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the United States; and two, that the war would be over quickly.

The first claim has, of course, not materialized and in failing to do so, has produced a firestorm of controversy about whether or not "Bush lied." The second promise too has been broken. Once-confident Americans are losing heart: polls show plummeting support for the occupation as the death toll rises and fears of a never-ending engagement grow.

Indeed, we have to presume this man is speaking for himself when he says, "we're gonna watch your every move for a decade." At the rate things are going, one wonders what percentage of the American people will be interested in watching this harebrained "nation building" scheme unfold ten weeks from now – let alone ten years from now.

A Growing Catalog of 'Incidents'

While neoconservative fascists bloviate on about the need to advance America's "historic mission" by "destroying traditional societies," their questionable ideal of "creative destruction" is being re-appropriated by furious Iraqis, who are actually putting the idea into action. Every day, it becomes more and more obvious that American troops are quickly sinking into an Iraqi morass. According to retired Army Colonel Daniel Smith, writing in the Asia Times, the ever-increasing round of attacks on American troops in Iraq bears all the hallmarks of America's most famous quagmire:
"…such (Iraqi) opposition, armed only with AK-47 rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and light mortars, may seem puny against tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and modern aircraft with precision-guided munitions, but that is what Vietnam-era administrations thought in the 1960s and early 1970s. Between June 9 and June 22, the Pentagon logged 131 "incidents" involving US troops in Iraq, including 41 attacks on US compounds, 26 attacks on sentry or observation posts and 26 on convoys. The next 24-hour period saw an additional 25 incidents."

The number of American deaths, which Rumsfeld and Co. tritely continue to downplay as "militarily insignificant" and "to be expected" remain (barely) within the acceptable range for most Americans. However, if we consider all of the possible deaths that could have happened from 131 different attacks – and those only up until 22 June – the depth and danger of the Iraqi opposition become clear. Since that date, the rate of attacks has risen precipitously. Indeed, it is the ever-increasing number of "incidents," not only of actual casualties and injuries, that bodes so ill for the future.

The Administration: Cold and Calculated, or Just Incompetent?

That said, it is immaterial whether "Bush lied" concerning the WMDs. It now appears quite likely that he did. However, while inexcusable, such fibs are entirely normal for politicians. Whether or not Saddam possessed WMDs is an interesting topic for talk show antagonists, but in the end, it's mere entertainment. We would have gone to war regardless.

What is important, on the other hand, is whether the Administration deceived us regarding the likely outcome of the occupation. For if they did, it will come as deeply disturbing news to the families of American soldiers killed or wounded since the war officially ended in early May. To think that their loved ones were knowingly sent in as cannon fodder for the realization of certain people's interests would not sit well with the millions of Americans waiting worriedly for news from the front – which these days is becoming increasingly bad.

We may never know if the American government consciously minimized the potential dangers of the post-war occupation. For their sake, we had better hope that instead of ruthless they were merely fools. Luckily, there is ample evidence to support the latter proposition.

Today's G-Men: Misguided and Comically Secretive

First we must note the disturbing pattern of law-enforcement misdeeds – from arbitrary detentions, intimidation, outrageous use of force, absurd interrogations ("are you a member of a terrorist group?"), and above all a bafflingly creative way of locating perpetrators (netting college students, advocates for the poor, popular musicians, any Green Party members, etc.). No wonder that bin Laden and other terrorist masterminds remain at large.

Second of all is the issue of transparency, another feature of democracy-building that America loves to export to weak countries. Yet perhaps they should consider trying it at home first. Take the example of "one of the CIA's deepest and darkest secrets," the December 1974 plot by the "Ebenezer Scrooge" terrorist front to take out Santa Claus:
"…researchers who recently uncovered the report say the joke memo warning about a potential terror attack on the North Pole, which had been classified 'secret' for decades, speaks more about the U.S. government's obsession with keeping information from the public than it does of the black humour of the spies who wrote it.
"… Details of the memo were only recently revealed after historians compared the censored and uncensored versions of the document and realized the CIA considered a decades-old joke about Santa Claus as a matter of the utmost national security.
"'This shows that the system is not about protecting real security issues,' said Thomas Blanton, director of the U.S.-based National Security Archive, which made the Santa records public. 'The bulk of what government keeps secret is to avoid embarrassment.'"

Finding the WMD: a Fatal Waste of Time?

Finally, there is the issue of productive use of time and energy. For political and diplomatic reasons a huge amount of time and effort was spent on finding the celebrated WMDs – or at least with concocting believable stories about them that could then be force-fed to the media.

Yet could our intelligence officers have been doing something more important with their time?

Apparently, finding the "smoking gun" associating Saddam with banned weapons was more important than finding the "smoking gun" that reflected poorly – if accurately – on the US's occupational hazards to come.

However, even without such documents as the above link describes, it was merely a matter of listening to the Iraqi people – and not to the think-tanks and those Iraqis (like Ahmed Chalabi) propped up by the Pentagon to say what it wanted to hear. After all, we should remember this eerily prophetic Los Angeles Times article of December 2002, quoting an average Iraqi in Baghdad:
"…Americans think they will come here and rule us. They don't know what they are coming into. If they get food from someone, it will be poisoned. If they turn around with their back to us, we will stick a knife in it. Snipers will be looking for them from every rooftop."

Long before the war, the hazards of occupying Iraq were clear to anyone with common sense. Yet the Bush Administration has been loath to admit it. Keeping up a weary nation's morale, it seems, is something that can only be done only through stifling dissent with fear. The president, after all, said on Independence Day that "we are still at war." And wartime, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, is a very special time indeed:
"'…most of the rights you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires.' He added that in wartime 'the protections will be ratcheted down to the constitutional minimum.'"

In other words, sit down and shut up – even as your countrymen are dying, forced to fight someone else's war, well on their way to becoming the traumatized and forgotten vets of the next generation.

As time passes, and the casualties mount, more and more Americans will come to realize that the present state of eternal war is no "noble sacrifice" – but rather a foolish and tragic one, created by those whose imperial aspirations continue to betray the republican foundations on which America was created.

Note: This article was originally published on 10 July 2003 by Antiwar.com"

Displacing Responsibility: the Case of Leku the ''Macedonian Fugitive''

(This article is from the Balkanalysis.com archive)

Friday’s re-arresting of Veleshta prostitution boss Dilaver Bojku (aka “Leku”) was reason for celebration in Macedonia.

However, the prior quoted comment of US Ambassador Lawrence Butler- that Dilaver was “maybe the best known Macedonian outside of Macedonia” - was not.

This quote, which was made a week before the Albanian mafioso was recaptured, was particularly disturbing considering how Ambassador Butler has generally earned higher marks than his predecessors for supporting Macedonia. This has allegedly angered some of the
Albanians, who feel neglected, lacking the usual American “special treatment.”

It’s also strange to hear that Dilaver Bojku is apparently so well-known. In fact, very few people outside this country know (or would care to know) about this man. Perhaps the ambassador was making the story a little juicier to oblige the press? After all, he is quoted in an International Herald Tribune article by David Binder, who went with MSNBC.Com colleague Preston Mendenhall to Veleshta in the first place, over a year and a half ago. Their lurid tale of sex slavery and well-dressed pimps was a milestone in reporting about this industry in Albanian-controlled areas of Macedonia. It was both a brave mission, and a brave report, and the IHT article directly refers to it.

It is inconceivable to me how the West continues to pursue a schizophrenic policy of nomenclature when it comes to the “Albanian question.” Oftentimes in the past, the Albanians were called as such whenever they were presented as being “oppressed” by the “Slavs.”

However, more often than not when an Albanian has done something criminal, he has been blithely passed off as a “Macedonian.” Thus are the two ethnicities forcibly divided when it comes to alleged oppression, but united in vice.

It is obvious that Albanians are not Macedonians, though the two ethnic groups may share certain Balkan customs and pastimes. It is also obvious that many of them are making little effort to participate in a mixed society, and in fact promoting an ethnically-pure Albanian sub-state. Nor do they want to be referred to as Macedonians- not even insofar as they (well, most of them) are citizens of this country.

Finally, despite what they may or may not say, most Albanians would shed no tears if the Macedonian state were completely and utterly destroyed.

As one OSCE official recently said, “it seems logical that if they are living in Macedonia, they would at least call themselves Macedonian in citizenship, and at least respect that Macedonian is the national language.”

Of course, since Macedonia is where logic has come to die, such a reasonable suggestion is only considered when it can help to slander Macedonians in the process.

In short, the West cannot have it both ways. In naming Dilaver Bojku as a “Macedonian fugitive” in the very first line of the report, Binder only perpetuates the negative image that most of the West has of Macedonia. In seconding this nomenclature, Ambassador Butler does an even worse turn for the country- by co-emphasizing and thus unifying Leku’s nationality and his notoriety. One wonders if the duo, who are generally representing the Western media mindset, don’t want to risk hurting any feelings by being truthful about the case?

However, in the end the real travesty here is that the very real, Europe-wide problem of Albanian mafia activity can be so conveniently concealed behind the name of their long-suffering countrymen. Even in a case such as this, when the facts practically scream out the truth, few want to own up to it. It’s a shame to see that this practice is being perpetuated by the most powerful shapers of Western opinion.

Note: This article was originally published on 8 July 2003 by Reality Macedonia.

McNews Comes Gunning for Greece

(This article is from the Balkanalysis.com archive)

For the media critic, there is nothing quite so reprehensible – or so commonplace – as the "dumbing down" of the news. Generalizations easily lead to falsehoods, and from there to force-fit precedents implying some prior assumed common knowledge. And, since Americans are undoubtedly the people who need things dumbed down the most, last week's subtle attack on Greece (by the famous ABC News network) was sad, though not very surprising.

Statements of Fact: a Slippery Slope

First of all, the short but loaded article is riddled with errors, something which is quite remarkable, considering the international stature of the country and its influential American diaspora. About the only things ABC got right were that Greece has around 11 million inhabitants and is the southernmost country on the Balkan Peninsula.

However, it is arguable whether or not Greece is "largely a dry and rocky country," as they say. Perhaps the author has not been to the many provinces filled with lush verdure, blooming fields, forested mountains and whatnot.

Geography is again the focus of ABC's next charge – that Greece has:
"…narrowly avoided being drawn into the region's recent wars. Greece has quarreled sharply with Macedonia, along its northern border, claiming the country's name is inherently Greek and should not be used by a foreign country. The United Nations has attempted to mediate the dispute."

While there is indeed an ongoing quarrel with Macedonia, it is low-grade, restricted entirely to political rhetoric, and could under no circumstances lead to war. Although a minority of Greeks are paranoid and believe that name recognition will surely lead to an invasion from the north, the likelihood of Macedonia sending in the tanks is considerably lower than of this writer becoming a millionare – and not just in Turkish Lira.

Give Us Bad News – or No News at All!

The real goal here seems to be to connect Greece in some way with the Balkans and its troubles. Although geographically a part of the peninsula, EU-member Greece is light years ahead of its neighbors. The ABC article – which makes it seem as if the country may any day now get swept into some Balkan black hole – comes off as sounding just malicious.

The main purpose of the article, it seems, is to slander the host of next year's Olympic Games, for purposes unknown but easily guessed. The media thrives on the production of bad news, and since there is nothing particularly bad going on in Greece now (or ever), the obligatory pre-Olympic story has to exaggerate minor problems, blowing out of all proportions things like the November 17th terrorist gang (now eradicated) and the occasional spats with Turkey. As for the latter, the article avers that relations are tense – apparently ignoring the fact that erstwhile EU-president Greece has been leading the call for Turkey's entrance into the Union. Perhaps that is what is annoying the Americans so. After all, business is bad – both for the media and the intervention-minded state – wherever foreign countries have good relations.

The End Is Near for the Hellenes

In fact, it definitely seems that there is something nefarious going on here. The ABC article implies some sort of impending doom for the country. Greece is said to be "struggling" because of "…a sagging economy, ongoing ethnic tensions in the neighboring Balkan region, further integration with Europe, and left-wing terrorist violence." Yet all of these charges are utterly spurious.

First of all, the average Greek does not suffer Balkan-level poverty, and many are quite well-off. And homelessness is hardly a problem. Further, in what country are people not constantly bitching about the economy? ABC fails to realize that, in keeping with the measured pace of the Mediterranean lifestyle, occasional strikes and shutdowns are the norm, and entirely healthy.
As for the neighboring ethnic tensions, it is highly unlikely that they will be allowed to spread (unless the Americans want it to happen, which they probably don't). The "European integration" doubts are mystifying, and the final charge – that "Greece has also been long saddled with the reputation of being a haven for terrorists" – is just plain absurd.

Athens – the Terrorist Capital of the World!

Of course, uniting the devious passive voice with a verb more often used with horses is a good formula for producing bullsh*t – which is exactly what the terrorism charge amounts to. To build such a "reputation" on one isolated group that has selectively murdered only a handful of people in the past three decades is ludicrous. ABC forgets that in America, one disgruntled postal worker or disaffected high school student can (and do) take out more people in thirty minutes than November 17th has in thirty years.

In fact, the prime example of "terrorism" in Greece given is the murder of CIA station chief Richard Welch – 28 years ago. In that period of time, how many terrorist attacks have been carried out in Spain, Britain and France, to name but a few?

The Real Issue at Hand

This, however, is merely a point of entry to the article's real purpose – exposing the "considerable anti-American sentiment" existing in Greece today. The examples given of this "sentiment" are: one, the above murder by an isolated Leftist group; and two, the street protests that greeted President Clinton on his visit in 2000, in the aftermath of the Kosovo bombardment. For ABC, it seems, two unrelated incidents a "sentiment" make.

Besides the flimsiness of the evidence, the author of this piece apparently did not consider that there might be a difference between opposition to the American government, and opposition to the American people. If we go by ABC's apparent conflation of the two, then certainly Spain and Britain – where many more people marched in anti-war rallies than did in Greece – deserve the charge of "anti-Americanism" more than the Greeks do. Yet they are American allies, and as such above censure. Hell, by this muddled definition, more "anti-American" scoundrels inhabit America than the total number of Greeks in Greece.

As many polls showed, millions of people throughout the world opposed the US attack on Iraq – regardless of their government's stance on the issue. As a matter of fact, the average Greek harbors no ill-will towards Americans. They are intelligent enough to discern (unlike the self-righteous "freedom fry" brigade) a difference between a country's population and its leaders. If Greeks do indeed have anything against Americans, it would merely be the tourists' penchant for a certain tackiness in their choice of summer apparel. And that is an issue more fit for comedy than reproach. In any case, the sharp-dressed Greeks have much more concern for enjoying life than they do for politics – partly because in their more democratic country, a constant watch doesn't have to be kept on the government's heisting of civil liberties.

Of course, the reader may always disagree, but in my opinion this would be rather perilous skating. I have been dealing with Greeks for years, visit the country regularly, and even interviewed many diverse people on the street over precisely this issue, before and during the Iraq war. In no cases were any Greeks opposed to the American people – only to the American government's foreign policy. Actually, Americans are far safer in Greece than in their own country. However, xenophobic paranoia – so conducive to the government's need for the citizens to identify with it more than with themselves – is being nurtured by a willing media. Will the Greeks someday suffer the same fate as the French, Belgians, Turks and whoever comes next?

A Curious Omission

Oddly enough, the one thing for which they could have criticized Greece – that is, non-recognition of ethnic minorities – is not mentioned. Of the country's 11 million inhabitants, avers ABC, "nearly all are ethnic Greeks." This ignores the existence of Turks, Bulgarian Pomaks, Macedonians and Albanians in northern Greece. It also overlooks the growing Pakistani and North African communities in Athens, besides leaving out all those sub-Saharan dudes hawking pirated CD's in the vicinity of Thessaloniki's cafйs. In this case it seems the curious omission was made because of a reliance on official country statistics, supplied either by the Greek Government or (more likely) the CIA World Factbook.

However, the mere mention of "ethnic" in front of the word "Greeks" is a subtle provocation. It implies that they are living on someone else's land. This sneaking side jab has also been seen with the "ethnic Albanians" in Macedonia, the "ethnic Serbs" in Kosovo and, come to think of it, the "ethnic Macedonians" in Macedonia.

Manipulating Ignorance

They say that American newspapers cater to a 6th grade reading level. As ABC is in fact a television network, it's not hard to see how they can get away with appealing to a kindergarten level audience with this story.

This piece just goes to show that, as usual, the "major media" in America is a depressingly mediocre outfit, corrupted by useless hacks and vulnerable to external PR and lobby groups. In the old days, one would have suspected the Turkish lobby as being behind such an underhanded media attack. However, now that Turkey has become persona non grata in Washington, and also friendlier with Greece, it seems more likely that the real antagonists lurk with those in the capital who are morbidly afraid of an expanding European Union.

The apparent American rejection of Turkey and Greece has two larger ramifications. First, that Thanksgiving will have to be called off, and second, that a worrying media precedent is being set in advance of next summer's Olympic Games (after all, the article refers to old criticisms of Athenian un-preparedness). It's clear that there are some who would like to spoil the party, which promises to be a big boost to the economies of both countries.

In the bigger picture, this article should serve as a reminder of the implicit connection between the mass media and the government. Making insipid commentaries – whether about Greece, WMD's, terrorism or whatnot – enables crafty politicians to make equally insipid accusations, which are then regurgitated by the media, in an endless and symbiotic cycle of lies and deception. It is articles like this that allow the government to spread its malignant bile – the kind that supports and sustains constant foreign wars and domestic paranoia of the outside world. The safety of the American people comes not from fearing the rest of the world, as the government would like, but in embracing and understanding the reality of people who, save for color, creed and language, are not so different from them – especially when it comes to opposing war.

Note: This article was originally published on 7 July 2003 by Antiwar.com.