Colombia model for Kosovo Albanian mafia

Colombia model for Kosovo Albanian mafia

December 17, 2008 – 11:55 amKosovo Albanian mafia that is pushing for independence wants to turn the province into a criminal center like Colombia says Italian reporter and writer Roberto Saviano.

“I am very curious about the Albanian mafia, because great Albanian mobsters have a big dream. They want to turn Kosovo into new Columbia in Europe,” Saviano said.

Saviano said that Kosovo Albanian mobsters want to differentiate their cocaine from Colombia’s by mutating its genes so it can grow in Kosovo where the climate is colder then in Colombia.

“They want to grow transgenic cocaine which is grown in temperatures that are different from those in Latin America,” Saviano said.

Saviano noted that the goal of the Kosovo Albanian mafia is to make the province the cocaine monopoly center.

“Grow transgenic cocaine in Kosovo and to enable the Albanian mafia to have monopoly over cocaine,” Saviano said.

However, Saviano says that Kosovo Albanians need 20 years to achieve this and, in the meanwhile, they are augmenting their sales operation by importing cocaine from Colombia.

“Today this cannot be done because the transgenic cocaine that exists in Kosovo today is very expensive. Therefore, it does not pay off. It is better to import it from Latin America than to grow it. But in 20 years, Kosovo will undoubtedly be the new Columbia,” Saviano said,” Saviano told the Tirana based Top Channel media outlet.

December 16, 2008

http://www.serbianna.com/blogs/newspost/?p=1161

Werbeanzeigen

“UN Officials Stole €400 Million in Kosovo”

“UN Officials Stole €400 Million in Kosovo”
Albanian Economy News ^ | December 18, 2008 | Staff

Tirana, Dec. 18, 2008 (AENews) –Two independent groups from the European Union and the UN have discovered that international officials in Kosovo mismanaged more than 400 million euro, reported the German daily “Die Welt” on Wednesday.

According to the alleged reports, EU funds that had been destined for Kosovo’s energy sector, were misappropriated by UN officials in Kosovo, in conduit with local politicians.

The investigation conducted by the EU Anti Fraud Office, UN investigators and the Italian Financial Police has found more than 50 cases of financial embezzlement.

In twelve of these cases there is proof of criminal liability. According to EU data roughly 2.3 billion euro have been granted for Kosovo as aid since 1999, after the NATO bombing of the forces of former Yugoslav strongman Slobodan Milosevic.

It is expected that by 2011 the EU will grant Kosovo another one billion euro, for the development of independent institutions and its infrastructure.

The reports highlights the high levels of corruption in Kosovo, Europe’s youngest state.

In Clinton List, a Veil Is Lifted on Foundation

If anyone asks – Clinton might say: I am not a crook. I am an average American, new-type politician only!! (Boba)
===============================
In Clinton List, a Veil Is Lifted on Foundation
Published: December 18, 2008

WASHINGTON — Former President Bill Clinton has collected tens of millions of dollars for his foundation over the last 10 years from governments in the Middle East, tycoons from Canada, India, Nigeria and Ukraine, and other international figures with interests in American foreign policy.

Lifting a longstanding cloak of secrecy, Mr. Clinton on Thursday released a complete list of more than 200,000 donors to his foundation as part of an agreement to douse concerns about potential conflicts if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state in the Obama administration.

The donor list offers a glimpse into the high-powered, big-dollar world in which Mr. Clinton has traveled since leaving the White House as he jetted around the globe making money for himself and raising vast sums for his ambitious philanthropic programs fighting disease, poverty and climate change. Some of the world’s richest people and most famous celebrities handed over large checks to finance his presidential library and charitable activities.

With his wife now poised to take over as America’s top diplomat, Mr. Clinton’s fund-raising is coming under new scrutiny for relationships that could pose potential conflict-of-interest issues for Mrs. Clinton in her job. Some of her husband’s biggest backers have much at stake in the policies that President-elect Barack Obama’s incoming administration adopts toward their regions or business ventures.

Saudi Arabia alone gave to the foundation $10 million to $25 million, as did government aid agencies in Australia and the Dominican Republic. Brunei, Kuwait, Norway, Oman, Qatar and Taiwan each gave more than $1 million. So did the ruling family of Abu Dhabi and the Dubai Foundation, both based in the United Arab Emirates, and the Friends of Saudi Arabia, founded by a Saudi prince.

Also among the largest donors were a businessman who was close to the onetime military ruler of Nigeria, a Ukrainian tycoon who was son-in-law of that former Soviet republic’s authoritarian president and a Canadian mining executive who took Mr. Clinton to Kazakhstan while trying to win lucrative uranium contracts.

In addition, the foundation accepted sizable contributions from several prominent figures from India, like a billionaire steel magnate and a politician who lobbied Mrs. Clinton this year on behalf of a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement between India and the United States, a deal that has rankled Pakistan, a key foreign policy focus of the incoming administration.

Such contributions could provoke suspicion at home and abroad among those wondering about any effect on administration policy.

Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said donations from “countries where we have particularly sensitive issues and relations” would invariably raise concerns about whether Mrs. Clinton had conflicts of interest.

“The real question,” Mr. Levitt said, “is to what extent you can really separate the activities and influence of any husband and wife, and certainly a husband and wife team that is such a powerhouse.”

Mr. Clinton’s office said in a statement that the disclosure itself should ensure that there would be “not even the appearance of a conflict of interest.”

Stephanie Cutter, a spokeswoman for Mr. Obama, said the president-elect had chosen Mrs. Clinton for his cabinet because “no one could better represent the United States.”

“Past donations to the Clinton foundation,” Ms. Cutter said, “have no connection to Senator Clinton’s prospective tenure as secretary of state.”

Republicans have addressed the issue cautiously, suggesting that they would examine it but not necessarily hold up Mrs. Clinton’s confirmation as a result. Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, which will consider her nomination, was in Russia on Thursday and unavailable for comment, according to Mr. Lugar’s office.

But in an interview on Nov. 30 on “This Week” on ABC, Mr. Lugar said Mr. Clinton’s activities would raise legitimate questions, adding, “I don’t know how, given all of our ethics standards now, anyone quite measures up to this who has such cosmic ties.”

Still, he indicated that he would vote for Mrs. Clinton and praised Mr. Obama’s team for doing “a good job in trying to pin down the most important elements” in its agreement with Mr. Clinton.

To avoid potential conflicts, the Obama team, represented by its transition co-chairwoman, Valerie Jarrett, signed a memorandum of understanding on Dec. 12 with the William J. Clinton Foundation, represented by its chief executive, Bruce R. Lindsey. The five-page memorandum, provided to reporters on Thursday, required Mr. Clinton to disclose his past donors by the end of the year and any future contributors once a year.

The memorandum also requires that if Mrs. Clinton is confirmed, the Clinton Global Initiative, an offshoot of the foundation, will be incorporated separately, will no longer hold events outside the United States and will refuse any further contributions from foreign governments. Other initiatives operating under the auspices of the foundation would follow new rules and consult with State Department ethics officials in certain circumstances.

Federal law does not require former presidents to reveal foundation donors, and Mr. Clinton had until now declined to do so, arguing that many who gave expected confidentiality. Other former presidents have taken money from overseas sources, including President George Bush, whose son has sat in the Oval Office for the last eight years. The elder Mr. Bush has accepted millions of dollars from Saudi, Kuwaiti and other foreign sources for his own library.

Mr. Clinton’s foundation has raised $500 million since 1997, growing into a global operation with 1,100 paid staff members and volunteers in 40 countries. It said it had provided medicine to 1.4 million people living with H.I.V./AIDS, helped dozens of cities reduce heat-trapping gases and worked to spread economic opportunity.

Mr. Clinton’s advocates said that the disclosure on Thursday showed he had nothing to hide and that most of his largest contributors were already known.

Yet while unprecedented, the disclosure was also limited.

The list posted on the foundation’s Web site — www.clintonfoundation.org — did not provide the nationality or occupation of the donors, the dates they contributed or the precise amounts of their gifts, instead breaking down contributors by dollar ranges. Nor did the list include pledges for future donations. As a result, it is impossible to know from the list which donations were made while Mr. Clinton was still president or while Mrs. Clinton was running for president.

Many benefactors are well-known Americans, like Stephen L. Bing; Alfonso Fanjul; Bill Gates; Tom Golisano, a billionaire who ran for New York governor; Rupert Murdoch; and Barbra Streisand. Bloomberg L.P., the financial media empire founded by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, contributed, as did Freddie Mac, the mortgage company now partly blamed for the housing market collapse.

Another potentially sensitive donation came from Blackwater Training Center, part of the private security firm hired to protect American diplomats in Iraq. Five of its guards have been indicted for their roles in a 2007 shooting that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead.

The potential for appearances of conflict was illustrated by Amar Singh, a politician in India who gave $1 million to $5 million. Mr. Singh visited the United States in September to lobby for a deal allowing India to obtain civilian nuclear technology even though it never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He met with Mrs. Clinton, who he said assured him that Democrats would not block the deal. Congress approved it weeks later.

Other donors have connections with India, a potential flashpoint because of tensions with Pakistan. Among them was Lakshmi Mittal, a steel magnate and, according to Forbes magazine, the fourth-richest person in the world. Mr. Mittal, who donated $1 million to $5 million, was involved in a scandal in 2002 in London, where he lives. After Mr. Mittal made a large donation to the Labor Party, Prime Minister Tony Blair helped him persuade Romania to sell him its state steel company.

Another donor was Gilbert Chagoury, a businessman close to Gen. Sani Abacha of Nigeria, widely criticized for a brutal and corrupt rule.

Mr. Chagoury tried during the 1990s to win favor for Mr. Abacha from the Clinton administration, contributing $460,000 to a voter registration group to which Democratic officials steered him, according to news accounts. He won meetings with National Security Council officials, including Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s choice to be ambassador to the United Nations.

HAMBURG/LYON/BASEL – 19.12.2008

Newsletter vom 19.12.2008 – Weiß gewaschen

HAMBURG/LYON/BASEL (Eigener Bericht) – In einem neuen Anlauf sucht die
Hamburger Alfred Toepfer Stiftung F.V.S. französische Kritik wegen der
NS-Aktivitäten ihres Gründers abzuschütteln. Toepfer hatte enge
Kontakte zu höchsten SS-Kreisen unterhalten und als Abwehroffizier in
Frankreich Kollaborateure betreut. Erst kürzlich hat eine französische
Institution deswegen eine Finanzierung durch die Stiftung abgelehnt,
die als einzige private Kulturstiftung im NS-Reich zugelassen blieb
und bis heute den Namen ihres Gründers trägt. Jetzt kündigt die
Stiftung an, ein Stipendium an einen französischen Historiker vergeben
zu wollen, der „den aktuellen Forschungsstand“ zu den
Auseinandersetzungen um Alfred Toepfer aufarbeiten soll. Zur
Abwicklung des Plans wird das Generalkonsulat Frankreichs in Hamburg
herangezogen. Die bislang von der Stiftung in Auftrag gegebenen
Studien über Toepfers NS-Aktivitäten werden von Historikern scharf
kritisiert. Schwer nachvollziehbare Bewertungen ließen ihn vor allem
vermuten, dass „ein führender Mann der braunen Privatwirtschaft aus
der Wehrmachtsabwehr, also aus der zweiten Reihe der
NS-Funktionselite, weiß gewaschen“ werden soll, urteilt der Baseler
Historiker Dr. Michael Fahlbusch im Gespräch mit dieser Redaktion. Wie
Fahlbusch berichtet, erhebt sich auch in der Schweiz scharfe Kritik an
der Stiftung sowie an mit ihr verquickten Organisationen.

mehr
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/57426

TEROR LOŠIH MENADŽERA – Intervju, Radivoje Petrović sa Milanom Nonkovićem-Medjunarodni expert produktivnosti rada – Komentar Dušana Nonkovića-urednika „Glasa Dijaspore“

Teror losih menadzera.pdf

Komentar Dušana Nonkovica-urednika Glasa Dijaspore

Dragi brate Milane,
ovo što si naveo i veoma sugestivno opisao(pod naslovom,Teror losih menadzera.pdf) je samo jedan stub na kojem podčiva moderna , konkurentno-sposobna privreda.
Nama nebi pomogla niti produktivnost brzinom svetlosti ako niko tu robu neće, odnosno ako za tu robu nema potražnje.
Da bi se postigla potražnja za tim proizvodima potrebna nam je konkurentna inovativnost a te neće biti sve dok nam vrhunske stručnjake, iztraživače i pronalazače kao i talente svaojakih vrsta, za sitne pare kupuje zapad odnosno zemlje koje poseduju foru u samom startu za utrkavanje i koji su već zauzeli sve atraktivne tezge sveta a uz to i potrebni novać za odkup svetskih klasa inteligencije i talenata za realizaciju novih patenata. Samo novi kvalitetni produkti nalaze željeni put do tržišta i konzumenata a samim tim i do visokog standarda u zemlji za koju rade ti svetski talenti. Nije toliko bitan kvantitet koliko kvalitet. Manja količina dobre robe može daleko veći doprinos ostvariti preko viših cena koje omogućava kvalitet a koje opet odredjuje tržište a ne brzina i količina robe koju niko neće. Znači treba nam roba koja je tražena a kako da je imamo kad nam naši kreatori, od izuzetnog talenta, rade za druge!
Banalan primer, fudbalski tim koji raspolaže vrhunskim fudbalerima, sposobnim da osvoje vrh tabele i ko zna koje kupove, nema šanse niti da se održi u ligi ukoliko prodaje svoje najbolje fudbalere, pogotovo ne ako ih prodaje konkurentskim klubovima. Ostali fudbaleri mogu trčati koliko hoće, bez izuzetnih talenata nema izuzetnih rezultata. Eto tu je ključni problem. Privredno razvijene nacije odnosno države izdvajaju basnoslovne sume za kupovinu specijalista, talenata, vrhunskih kreatora, sa svih strana sveta. Stim obezbedjuju sebi foru u trci koja im garantuje pobedu. Lud bi bio onaj koji pod takvim uslovima ulazi u takvu utrku jer stim služi samo za popunjavanje zadnjih mesta. Trezveno gledano, to je njihov(”razvijenih zemalja”) ključ za stvaranje ovisnosti na globalnom nivou odnosno stvaranje neokolonijalnih ovisnosti pod zastavom globalizacije-i komunizam je pokušao da globalizuje svet pod premisom komunističkih ideja. Isto to, samo na drugačiji način, pod premisom ideja kapitala, odvija se pod današnjom zastavom globalizacije. I jedno i drugo ograničava demokratiu na sebi specifičan način!
Da me ne razumeš pogrešno, tvoja analiza je jedan nepobitan stub uspešnog privredjivanja ali samo je jedan stub koji sam za sebe ne igra odlučujuću ulogu. Jena privredno-konkurentna država koja je u stanju stvoriti i obezbediti svojim državljanima blagostanje mora biti na tim od tebe navedenim principijama zasnovana ali mora, da bi to sve funkcionisalo, prvo biti gospodar u svojoj kući kako bi bila u stanju sprovesti u delo i obezbediti okvir za uslove koji bi omogućili da se to sve nesmetano i razvije. Da bi se u tome uspelo mora obezbediti uslove koji bi učinili nepotrebnim odliv pronalazačke i inovativne inteligencij. U isto vreme bi trebala staviti akcent na realizaciju produktivnih metoda i stvaranje kliničkih centara za ozdravljenje obolelih firmi. Da bi to funkcionisalo morala bi naša vlada da se otrese stranih tutora da bi postala gospodar u svojoj “kući”.
Sve dok se to ne desi ostaće ove konstruktivne analize samo mrtvo slovo na papiru. Niko nije protiv ulaska Srbije u EU ali to mora biti tako organizovano da se ne odliju vrhunski stručnjaci i da ne služi samo kao telo za davanje svojih organa kako bi neko drugi mogao preživeti pa i u velikom luksuzu uživati!
Sve dotle dok srbijom vlada takva vlada koja misli da je sa ulaskom u EU sve elementarne probleme Srbije rešila i sve dotle dok su na odlučujućim mestima države i glavnim raskrsnicama političkog života takvi ljudi, koji misle da ako dadu ključ svog bogatog imanja drugima na raspolaganje sa nadom da će im tudjin frižider bolje napuniti i da će biti sitiji, ukoliko prepuste svoje ključeve bogatom tudjinu sa nadom da će i sami postati bogati, sve dotle neće biti oporavka Srbiji. Da bi se tu nešto na bolje promenulo mora sam narod da trezveno bira na izborima svoje kandidate i da ih veže za predizborna obećanja a u slučaju kršenja istih morao bi narod burno i snažno reagovati uz slogi kao jedan. Ali i to nije dovoljno ako se najsposobniji i najinteligentniji državljani drže po strani ne prihvatajući se političkih funkcija sa parolom, politika nije za poštenog i pametnog čoveka. Nije dovoljno znati kako bi bilo bolje nego treba i konkretno uraditi da bi bilo bolje. Predlozi ne vode daleko i retko do konkretnih rezultata. Bez konkretnih instrumenata, alatki koje bi promene omogućile ne vrede ništa, niti najbolje namere niti znanje ako nema mehanizma sa kojim bi se to realizovalo u konkretne rezultate. Umesto očekivanja od drugoga da uradi ono što i sami možemo, moramo prvo sami preći u praktičan rad odnosno zasukati rukave ali ne samo radna klasa već i inteligencija kao i oni koji sebe smatraju da su pozvani da vladaju državom.

Dušan Nonković-urednik Glasa Dijaspore

http://service.gmx.net/de/cgi/g.fcgi/mail/print?folder=inbox&uid=5vUvOWInZCEX39zUbW0hvxZwIGhpZUY8&CUSTOMERNO=17346226&t=de2058335410.1229687593.9de3e164

WillyWimmer, MdB – Die amerikanische Seite scheint im globalen Kontext und zur Durchsetzung ihrer Ziele bewußt und gewollt die als Ergebnis von 2 Kriegen im letzten Jahrhundert entwickelte internationale Rechtsordnung aushebeln zu wollen. Macht soll Recht vorgehen. Wo internationales Recht im Wege steht, wird es beseitigt.

WillyWimmer, MdB
Mitteilungen aus Bratislava
vgl. dazu auch den Kommentar  Rainer Rupps. Herrn
Gerhard Schröder, MdB
Bundeskanzler der Bundesrepublik Deutschland
Bundeskanzleramt
Schloßplatz 1
10178 Berlin

– vorab per Fax –

Berlin, den 02.05.00
Sehr geehrter Herr Bundeskanzler,

am vergangenen Wochenende hatte ich in der slowakischen Hauptstadt Bratislava Gelegenheit, an einer gemeinsam vom US-Außenministerium und American Enterprise Institut (außenpolitisches Institut der republikanischen Partei) veranstalteten Konferenz mit den Schwerpunktthemen Balkan und NATO-Erweiterung teilzunehmen.
Die Veranstaltung war sehr hochrangig besetzt, was sich schon aus der Anwesenheit zahlreicher Ministerpräsidenten sowie Außen- und Verteidigungsminister aus der Region ergab. Vorn den zahlreichen wichtigen Punkten, die im Rahmen der vorgenannten Themenstellung behandelt werden konnten, verdienen es einige, besonders wiedergegeben zu werden:

Von Seiten der Veranstalter wurde verlangt, im Kreise der Alliierten eine möglichst baldige völkerrechtliche Anerkennung eines unabhängigen Staates Kosovo vorzunehmen.

Vom Veranstalter wurde erklärt, daß die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien außerhalb jeder Rechtsordnung, vor allem der Schlußakte von Helsinki, stehe.

Die europäische Rechtsordnung sei für die Umsetzung von NATO-Überlegungen hinderlich.
Dafür sei die amerikanische Rechtsordnung auch bei der Anwendung in Europa geeigneter.

Der Krieg gegen die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien sei geführt worden, um eine Fehlentscheidung von General Eisenhower aus dem 2. Weltkrieg zu revidieren. Eine Stationierung von US Soldaten habe aus strategischen Gründen dort nachgeholt werden müssen.

Die europäischen Verbündeten hätten beim Krieg gegen Jugoslawien deshalb mitgemacht, um de facto das Dilemma überwinden zu können, das sich aus dem im April 1999 verabschiedeten „Neuen Strategischen Konzept“ der Allianz und der Neigung der Europäer zu einem vorherigen Mandat der UN oder OSZE ergeben habe.

Unbeschadet der anschließenden legalistischen Interpreration der Europäer, nach der es sich bei dem erweiterten Aufgabenfeld der NATO über das Vertragsgebiet hinaus bei dem Krieg gegen Jugoslawien um einen Ausnahmefall gehandelt habe, sei es selbstverständlich ein Präzedenzfall, auf den sich jeder jederzeit berufen könne und auch werde.

Es gelte, bei der jetzt anstehenden NATO-Erweiterung die räumliche Situation zwischen der Ostsee und Anatolien so wiederherzustellen, wie es in der Hochzeit der römischen Ausdehnung gewesen sei.

Dazu müsse Polen nach Norden und Süden mit demokratischen Staaten als Nachbarn umgeben werden, Rumänien und Bulgarien die Landesverbindung zur Türkei sicherstellen, Serbien (wohl zwecks Sicherstellung einer US-Militärpräsenz) auf Dauer aus der europäischen Entwicklung ausgeklammert werden.

Nördlich von Polen gelte es, die vollständige Kontrolle über den Zugang aus St. Petersburg zur Ostsee zu erhalten.

In jedem Prozeß sei dem Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Vorrang vor allen anderen Bestimmungen oder Regeln des Völkerrechts zu geben.

Die Feststellung stieß nicht auf Widerspruch, nach der die  NATO bei dem Angriff gegen die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien gegen jede internationale Regel und vor allem einschlägige Bestimmungen des Völkerrechts verstoßen habe.

Nach dieser sehr freimütig verlaufenen Veranstaltung kommt man in Anbetracht der Teilnehmer und der Veranstalter nicht umhin, eine Bewertung der Aussagen auf dieser Konferenz vorzunehmen.
Die amerikanische Seite scheint im globalen Kontext und zur Durchsetzung ihrer Ziele bewußt und gewollt die als Ergebnis von 2 Kriegen im letzten Jahrhundert entwickelte internationale Rechtsordnung aushebeln zu wollen. Macht soll Recht vorgehen. Wo internationales Recht im Wege steht, wird es beseitigt.
Als eine ähnliche Entwicklung den Völkerbund traf, war der zweite Weltkrieg nicht mehr fern.
Ein Denken, das die eigenen Interessen so absolut sieht, kann nur totalitär genannt werden.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

W i l l y   W i m m e r
M i t g l i e d   d e s   B u n d e s t a g e s
V o r s i t z e n d e r   d e s   C D U – B e z i r k s v e r b a n d e s   N i e d e r r h e i n  V i z e p r ä s i d e n t   d e r   P a r l a m e n t a r i s c h e n   V e r s a m m l u n g   d e r  O S Z E
P o s t a n s c h r i f t :
P l a t z   d e r   R e p u b l i k   1
1 1 0 1 1   B e r l i n

H a u s a n s c h r i f t :
M a u e r s t r a ß e   2 9   /   H a u s   I
1 0 1 1 7   B e r l i n

T e l . :   (030) 227 – 75094/75095
Fax: (030) 227 – 76498
Email: willy.wimmer@bundestag.de

Wahlkreisbüro:
CDU-Geschäftsstelle Grevenbroich
Montzstraße 2
41515 Grevenbroich
Tel.: (02181) 5048
Fax: (02181) 5049