TRANSITION OR

RECOLONIZATION COMPLEX
DISASTER?
vera.veritas@gmail.com
• transition from command economy and
dictatorship to market economy and democracy or
transformation of ownership relations through
military occupation and threat of it
• the need for ever wider markets to sell goods (&
for cheap raw materials, work force, waste
dumping grounds), “chases bourgeoisie over entire
 COLONIAL EMPIRES
and “Balkanization” of the rest of the
world 1914 - 2005+: divide et impera
• Imperial condominium over
Congo 1665; 1884-5; 1922;
1946; 1960-1963 USA/BEL,
2003 +FR/ GER troops
• Declaration of Belgian
Foreign Affairs’ minister
from Brusselles (+EU) just
before the elections in Congo
2004: it should come under
the “protectorate”* of
international community
 Socio historical context of
recolonization
• exhaustion of the WWII disastrous destruction
effects on the coming out of Great Depression crisis
> stagflation since the end of 1960’s
• US FR (50% WB) abolished golden standard 1971-
75 in order to finance Vietnam war > speculative
parasitism of financial capital; petro-dollars in
Western banks > 40 real BNP:400 trillion$ balloon;
• Since 1980 heightened interest rates, conditioning
of loans through neoliberal “structural adjustment
programs”-”opening”, deregulation, privatization
• > debt slavery in TW; welfare state crisis in the
West; counter/revolution of enbourgeoised
nomenclature in the east > 500TNC dispose of 50%
of world income
 PAX AMERICANA since 1989 -
“Latinoamerikanization” of the
“Second world” as well

External privatization of national

banks > disinherited are crediting the
Geostrategic motives of recolonization
- oil corridores, military bases, illicit arms, drugs,
white slaves’ trade, natural monopolies (water)
International crisis group (Soros), 26. November 1999: “... “simply
handing Trepca over to the Kosovars is ruled out” after “UNMIK
and KFOR implement a rapid and categorical takeover of Trepca
complex”, but “before any elections in Serbia”

US corridor8 VS German corridor1

• The results of KFOR and UNMIK rule in Kosovo and Metohija can be best seen
if we compare human development indicators before and after June 1999.
According to the 2002 Human Development Report for Kosovo (Izveštaj o
humanom razvoju - Kosovo 2002, Grafika Rezniqui, Priština, www.ks.undp.org),
in this autonomous province of Serbia more than half of population lives in
poverty, out of which 12% in extreme poverty (p. 5). More than 80% out of
around 350 social and big public enterprises resumed to work after the 1999
conflict, but they use only 35-40% of their original capacity and employ only
one fourth of work force from 1989, producing just 0.367 of the prewar GDP,
while the estimated unemployement rate amounted to from 50 to 55% (69).
• According to the Human Develop[ment Report for Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) published in 1997, the share of the pore in
the total population in 1995, after four years of genocidal economic sanctions
and two years after the mega inflation amounted to 22.9% in rural areas and to
32.8% in urban areas (p.30), while unemployment rate in the same year was
24.65% (p.37) (Human Development Report, Yugoslavia 1997, Economic
Institute, Belgrade)
• About the deteriooration of quality of life since depleted uranium bombing and
coming of NATO troops in Kosovo and Metohija testifies as well the fact that
percentage of babies born with less than 2.5 kg rose from 2.1 in 1989 to 6.1% in
2001 (p.90), mortality rate rose from 5.2 per thousand in 1991, to 5.8 per
thousand in 2000 (p..89, while the natality rate drastically dropped from 28.5 per
thousand in 1991, to 18.9 per thousand in 2000.
 “Peaceful” mechanismes of
recolonization
• Mass media demonization of one side in
local conflict
 Violent mechanismes of
recolonization
• Covert and overt financing, arming,
training, diplomatic and logistic support to
chosen local ethnic group in its separatism
and terrorism
 Consequences of violent
recolonization
using prohibited casset bombs and
those coated with deplated uranium
• Death, maiming, infrastructure and work
places’ destruction, permanent
contamination with radioactive, toxic,
cancerogenic and mutagenic supstances
 Postbombardment privatization:
double standards and interests’ conflict
• US state apparatus opens
and defends the markets
for US TNCs
(Haliburton)
• Metalurgic complex and
port on Danube sold for
23 mil$ but over one
billion of credits will
pay the people of Serbia
• Minister for
privatization and co-
owner of the private
consulting firm
 Attitude toward privatization in
Serbia 1989-2003
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00% strongly for
40.00% strongly against
30.00% only partial

20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1989 2000 2001 2003
•Strong agreement diminished 12% (the most for 30% in case of banks)
•Compete opposition increased 14% (the most against 71% in case of elect
•2001 law on privatization in opposition to the relative and absolute
majority opinion
Pozitive attitude toward private
ownership in Serbia 1989-2003
70
60
50
40
30 1989
2003
20
10
0
agr nqw hqw offic exp lowerr higherr
dir dir
COMPARISON OF STATUS OF HOUSEHOLDS IN SERBIA
ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPOSITE INDEX OF MATERIAL
STATUS AND OF CONSUMPTION INDEX, FOR 2002/ 2003

40
35
30
25
20 low
high
15
10
5
0
02matstatusi 03matstatusi 03consumptioni
 Perspectives of the resolution of the
actual accumulation of capital systemic
crisis & recolonization?
•Further Fascization and aggression of
the transnational financial oligarchy’s
and local compradores’ alliance >
escalation of media, nuclear,
meteorological, chemical, biological
war of recolonization?
• Neo-Keynesian New Deal – state
investments in redistributive reforms
of national bourgeoisie and trade
unions?
•Revolutionary refoms of antisystemic
movements - “realistic utopie of
emancipation?