LaRouche:
How To Defend Macedonia
At the Schiller Institute-International Caucus of Labor Committees annual Labor Day conference in Reston, Virginia on Sept. 1 and 2, Dr. Stojadin Naumovski, a leader of the Macedonia diaspora in North America, described the pressure being brought to bear on Macedonia, including the fact that it is being invaded by Kosovo Liberation Army terrorists and by NATO, and how NATO is attempting to force it to sign an agreement that would, among other things, impose changes in its Constitution. He asked Lyndon LaRouche what they should do. Mr. LaRouche's answer follows. Subheads have been added.
The answer has to be a strategic question. Because what you have, is you have an imperial Anglo-American force, which Robertson represents, which is determined to use what remaining military capability exists, to destroy Macedonia, and to continue the bloodshed which has been conducted since 1992 in the Balkans. That's the point.
The purpose is to destroy the entire region. What they will probably do, is—the next thing that they will come up with, with the Simeon in Bulgaria—they will come up with a so-called Greater Bulgaria and Greater Albania, and then they will have a war between those two, now that they have the British royal family in office in Bulgaria. It's obvious. So, the point is, that we have to stop the whole game. And the only way that you can fight the issue is to go at the game.
The American, what used to be called the Special Warfare Division, is operating in the area and has been ever since the Yugoslav war, to build up, based on Albania, a bunch of drug-running, terrorist operations, who are trained as a military operation of the new style, of the special warfare type, which are being deployed! There is no such thing as an Albanian army! There is a U.S./British-backed operation. The United States is running the dirty part of the operation, inside the Albanian operation, and the British are running the cover operation from the standpoint of the overall operation inside Macedonia.
First, if you don't say that, if you don't describe the issue, which we try to do with our publications. And we should do more of this, because we are the only ones who are going to do it. Maybe some friends of Macedonia will do it, but we have to take the lead, and get this thing going. Because what we have to do, is to say: "This must stop!"
Now, Germany is very upset about this. You get this crazy thing with Rudolf Scharping—or Grau-Scharping, since he married. But, Germany is very divided on this issue, of putting German troops into that area, partly because it's a hopeless situtation, it's a worthless situation, and they don't want it. And they don't have any money to do it anyway.
As a joke, I told them in Europe, about Scharping: They turned around and said, "You've got to put German units into Macedonia." He said, "We don't have any money." So they came up with a solution. They got one naked Bundeswehr soldier, who was sent to infiltrate an Albanian nudist camp, where he picked up all the heavy weapons and uniforms that they needed—probably of U.S. manufacture!
Europe, Continental Europe, doesn't want this thing!
Fourth Phase Of International Terrorism
Now, you also have to take another element of the context into view: that we are now having in Washington, D.C. the fourth stage, or the fourth phase of new international terrorism.
The first phase was the 1960s, 1968, with the terrorist groups related to that, we had the crazy Weathermen group, which were not too serious, and other groups here in the United States. Europe was the center of it. You had the terrorism in Italy, and especially in Germany, with what became known as the Baader-Meinhof Gang. This stuff developed in the 1970s, and in the mid-1970s you had the second wave. It started from France, in about '74 or '75, in a big way in France around the so-called nuclear energy issue. This was the Baader Meinhof Gang, the second phase of that. This was spread into Italy, with the terrorist waves in Italy of the 1970s, which complemented those in France and in Germany. Then in the 1980s, you had the third wave of terrorism, especially concentrated in Germany, at Wackersdorf [nuclear reprocessing plan] and so forth, where you had full-scale irregular warfare, deployed as full-scale warfare. It was deployed there.
Now, in Seattle, we had a terrorist deployment, and this was a full-scale terrorist deployment. If you understand terrorism as special warfare, this was a terrorist, special warfare, full-scale deployment, based out of Canada into Seattle. Then they went through a second phase. The second phase was a meeting in Pôrto Alegre, Brazil, headed by Teddy Goldsmith, an old British intelligence hand. The third phase was a murderous riot in Genoa, Italy. The fourth phase is the biggest of all, so far, a planned terrorist upheaval in Washington, D.C., which is now being deployed from centers in Virginia and Maryland. In other words, they have groups of terrorists that are sitting in Virginia and Maryland, including Loudoun County, [Virginia], from which they are to be deployed into Washington, D.C. to do dirty work.
There is, visibly, no centralized capability of the type needed to deal with that kind of threat, from an intelligence standpoint, an organization. This group in Washington is tied to known terrorist organizations. These are not simply successor generations; there is an unbroken continuity of cadre connections among all successive generations. This interfaces the kind of Hell that is being stoked by the Israeli terror operations in the Middle East. This is being stoked and directed largely by the ETA, the Basque terrorist organization, which is one of the keys in the whole operation. And I could go through a long list of things that I know about this other stuff.
This Is A Strategic Deployment
You have to look at what is being done in the Balkans, and what is being done in the Middle East in that context. Now, this is not a spontaneous terrorist organization. This is an international, strategic deployment of irregular warfare to destabilize civilization, with the intent of preventing the financial crisis from becoming the mobilization for a New Bretton Woods—which it would tend to be. Governments are bankrupt; they tend to want to survive. When nations agree and cooperate to survive, they will tend to go in that direction. That's what this is. This is what it was from the beginning.
Remember: Go back to 1989, when the Wall came down in Germany—even before the Wall came down—the Thatcher government in Britain said, "Kill 'em! Germany must never be reunified. Germany must be crushed, right now!" [President of France François] Mitterrand agreed. He said, "We will crush Germany, provided that you let us steal from the corpse." [U.S. Ambassador to Germany] Vernon Walters said no, and the U.S. government agreed, so they made a compromise, as I have described before.
As I've said before, Desert Storm and the Balkan War were organized, to do what? To prevent the reunification of Continental Europe in economic development, based on the collapse of the Wall. That operation has continued until the present day, and the same operation is now being escalated, as in Macedonia, as a continuation of that process. Who runs this? NATO. This is strategic warfare!
You hear this insane stuff about Donald Rumsfeld and the U.S. military. What is Rumsfeld doing? He is shutting down the U.S. military. Why is he shutting it down? Because the kind of warfare that they intend to use, is of a different variety: It is irregular warfare. Now look, we know, and I know from 1967 at least, that the deployment of terrorism into Italy, by what became the 1970s terrorism, the so-called Compass Plot, the bombing of the Bologna [railway] station, all of these other things in Rome that happened there as terrorist operations, these were run through NATO.
They were run through an operation that was originally set up with the United States government, as a "stay-behind operation," in case of a Communist takeover of Italy. The stay-behind operation, which had been sitting in place for a period of approximately 20 years, was suddenly activated, to become an active operation. The resources of this stay-behind network, suddenly reactivated from sitting in the scenes, was the basis for organizing the terrorist movement in Italy. And it was run out of NATO! As this new type of warfare. And that's the way that this thing functions.
The Principle Of Strategic Defense
Now, if we are not able to say that, you don't have a chance of winning the war. You have to be able to tell the truth! You can't say, "Resist evil." As I said yesterday, in terms of strategic defense, the principle of strategy—in terms of military, or quasi-military conflict, the principle of strategy is strategic defense, as strategic defense was devised by Vauban, for military policy. As strategic defense was defined by Lazare Carnot, for French policy, on the basis of the work of Vauban—because of a change in artillery, which changed the rules of the game, relative to Vauban's period. As it was defined by Scharnhorst in Germany, and so forth; the principle of strategic defense.
Now, to have strategic defense, you have to get the enemy coming at you where you want him. To do that, you have to have a plan, as all plans of strategic defense, based on the truth. You cannot say, we have a problem with [NATO Secretary General Lord George] Robertson, that's not the problem. The problem is that the active forces are coming from the United States, in part, through the Special Forces type of operation, running behind what was set up in Albania. This is where the attack comes from. So, now the British come in and say with the Americans, "Okay, you've got to concede to these invaders." Yes, you have some people of Albanian extraction living in Macedonia, but that's normal, that's been going on for a long time. Why make a war about it now? These are invading forces who are stirring the whole thing up, by well-known methods.
So, therefore, we have to have a policy in which we trap them. How? By catching them and exposing them for what they are. The game is to bring down some governments. By exposing them in such a way as to bring them down. To create crises in the governments which are responsible for this. That's how you deal with that kind of invasion. You don't have the military forces to stop them. You may find that you have to fight anyway. But if you don't have the military forces to win, you've got to outflank them, with strategic defense. You've got to aim to create the pressure on the governments, which are complicit in the operation, to make this thing so painful to them that they withdraw. It is the only chance we have. And the financial crisis, the economic crisis, is an integral part of the operation.
That's my general strategic approach to the thing. There are, of course, other details, that are not necessary to discuss, but that's the point.
