---------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------

The general, who has turned down over 300 recent interview requests from the world media, leaned back in his chair, crossed his arms on his chest, and paused as if to reflect on what he had just said.

"He is not talking about America," I thought, but didn’t say anything. "He is talking about himself, and how the Serbs have betrayed their hero."

Indeed, as if reading my thoughts, the man whose approval rating among the Serbs has gone from 80% before Dayton to 93% in a recent poll of 900 Serb civilians conducted by I-FOR (NATO), continued almost wistfully... "The Serbs should (also) stand up one for all, and all for one."

Instead, just the opposite was the case. The Serbs bickered and backstabbed each other while (their) "Rome burned." For their enemies, it was a classic example of a successful "divide and conquer" strategy.

Last August, for example, Radovan Karadzic, president of the Bosnian Serb Republic, and Gen. Mladic feuded publicly while the Croats and the Muslims "ethnically cleansed" more than 200,000 Serbs from their centuries-old ancestral homes in the Krajina and Western Bosnia.

Then the Belgrade strongman, Slobodan Milosevic, sold out the Bosnian Serbs in Dayton, confirming a July 1995 prediction by a Western diplomat in Belgrade: "Milosevic isn’t for a Greater Serbia; he is for a Greater Milosevic."

"Milosevic has shown himself to be a less than brilliant negotiator," noted a senior Western diplomat in Belgrade. The 49% of Bosnia which the Serbs still control, according to Dayton, is a far cry from their once vast territory (70% of Bosnia in 1995; 64% before the war started). No wonder Momcilo Krajisnik, the speaker of the Bosnian Serb Parliament who headed up the Bosnian Serb delegation in Dayton, literally passed out when told that Milosevic had ceded the Serb Sarajevo to the Muslims.

And even what’s left of the Serb lands may also split into two parts. The western section, centered in Banja Luka, has traditionally gravitated toward either Belgrade or Zagreb, not toward Sarajevo. The eastern part, centered in Pale and led by the Karadzic’s clique, has been effectively beheaded with the loss of Serb Sarajevo. It will shrivel up and die, unless it is economically attached to Serbia.

One might think, therefore, that Milosevic is now reaping the reward from America for this colossal betrayal of the Serb national interests.

Talk to anyone in Belgrade, from cab drivers and shopkeepers, to the top political, academic and artistic leaders, and you’ll hear the same story: "Life sucks. Mafia rules." One taxi driver said indignantly that it would insult his intelligence to vote for any politician under these circumstances. "The whole system is corrupt," he said. "I don’t want to be taken for a fool."

A small group of people, including Milosevic and the former communist elite around him, have gotten enormously rich by smuggling "forbidden goods" during the three and a half years of the U.N. sanctions. Most of the rest of Serbia’s population, however, has had to fight for bare existence. And to support the nearly one million refugees from Bosnia and Croatia, while being branded as "aggressor" by the international community.

Meanwhile, by refusing to lift the so-called "outer wall" of sanctions, the U.S. has ensured that no new capital is entering Serbia, except for the payments from the Serbian "Gast Arbeiters" (guest workers) in Europe. "Americans are blocking all the funds," a Western diplomat said.

But what specifically is he expected to do about Kosovo, for example?

"It’s kind of like what they say about pornography: You know it when you see it," replied a U.S. diplomat close to the situation.

In other words, even if Milosevic were to meet all these conditions, the U.S. could still claim that his acting is not yet up to the American "pornography" standards. And it could send Milosevic back to try harder before auditioning again for the role of the "Great Balkan Prostitute."

But even some NATO allies are balking at such a one-sided U.S. power play. The British position on Kosovo, for example, is that Milosevic should extend an olive branch to local Albanians, and make a "bona fide" offer for them to gain some form of autonomy. "If the Albanians turn the offer down, why should we continue to blame the Serbs?" wondered a senior British diplomat.

The British have a similar attitude vis-à-vis the outstanding border and financial disputes between Serbia and Croatia. "Otherwise, the Croats could hold us all up for ransom forever," the diplomat said.

But if Serbia continues to get the "stick," even after all Milosevic’s concessions, who gets the "carrot?"

The Muslims and the Croats, first and foremost, of course, but also Montenegro, a junior partner in the new Yugoslav federation. Unlike Serbia, Montenegro is getting some Western capital. Its Prime Minister and President (Milo Djukanovic and Momir Bulatovic) have been wined and dined during the last six months in all the right places (read top government and banking circles) in Washington, New York, London...

What did the tiny Montenegro (500,000 people) do to deserve all this attention?

Well, it is strategically located between Croatia, Bosnia and Albania. And it provides Yugoslavia’s only access to the Adriatic Sea. If the current U.S. "carrot" policy bears fruit, it will create an economic gap between Serbia and Montenegro. Sooner or later, the wealthier Montenegrins may start to wonder why they need Belgrade in the first place. If Montenegro were to leave the Yugoslav federation, Serbia would become a land-locked country, starved of capital, yet full of refugees and ethnic minorities (Albanians, Hungarians, Rumanians, etc.) - a cesspool of internal trouble. If Milosevic/Serbia resisted the Montenegrin secession, a civil war among the Serbs would not be out of the question.

Either way, such an outcome would be the fulfillment of the "How to Defeat Serbia" scenario written by David Gompert and published in the July/August 1994 issue of FOREIGN AFFAIRS, the voice of the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR globalists’ recipe which usually becomes U.S. policy, advocated the "conduct of a cold war against Serbia - one of indefinite duration but certain outcome." Gompert, the former director for Europe and Eurasia in George Bush’s National Security Council, also urged an "economic war in perpetuity" and "unforgiving punishment" against "an unrepentant Serbia."

Today’s Serbia is anything but unrepentant, but the globalists’ punishment is nonetheless still unforgiving. Why?

Because the genocidal idea inherent in "How to Defeat Serbia" is still not complete. For, there are still some 10 million Serbs living and breathing...

Before World War II, the Serbs were a 60% majority in Kosovo. Now, they are a less than a 10% minority. Like the Bosnian Muslims, the Albanians (also mostly Muslims) have the highest birth rates in Europe. The Serbs’ birth rates are stagnant or declining. As long as Kosovo remains a part of Serbia, and the Bosnian Serb Republic is a part of Bosnia, the Albanians and the Muslims respectively can continue their demographic expansion.

So, like their Muslim brethren in Chechnya, Lebanon and elsewhere, the Kosovo and the Bosnian Muslims have become the obedient soldiers of the New World Order. They tread where the Pentagon or the U.N. dare not. And they do it without condoms.

Similarly, the Kosovo Albanians’ job is to eat away at Serbia from within, like a tumor.

What do the doctors recommend when a tumor spreads?

Amputation, of course. Their reasoning: it’s better to lose a limb than a life.

Well, the same pragmatism should apply to political life of a nation. In order to survive, Serbia must give up Kosovo. But only provided that this concession is conditioned by its (gradual) admission to the European Union.

As long as Milosevic is in power, however, the Serbs don’t need any foreign tumors to eat away at them. Which means that several amputations may be needed if this little nation is to survive.

Intended as a lesson to would-be rebellious nations who may want to challenge the CFR’s power, the tragic "Defeat of Serbia" may end up serving as an example why smaller peoples must never, never, never... compromise when dealing with ruthless and duplicitous powers, such as those who conduct the "U.S." foreign policy in the name of democracy.

"Is the U.S. a democracy?" Gen. Mladic asked at one point during our conversation.

"Most Americans think it is," I replied.

"And what do you think?" he persisted.

"I think it’s a plutocracy."

He nodded affirmatively.

"Do you know what a plutocracy is?" I asked.

He nodded again, looking rather grim.