-Caveat Lector- ----- Original Message ----- From: blagovesta doncheva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 4:21 PM Subject: Bulgaria/"Partnership For Peace" > N A T O > PARTNERSHIP FOR PEACE > > > The Partnership for Peace (PfP) Programme has been > launched at the January 10-11 1994 NATO Summit in > Brussels. This Programme has turned out to be the main > instrument of carrying out NATO's relationships with > all non-NATO countries in Europe and in former Soviet > Union. Practically all of them take part also in the > Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) that has been > created in May 1997 with the participation of 28 > countries, namely: Albania, Armenia, Austria, > Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, > Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Hungary, Kyrdgjhyz > Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, Romania, > Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, the > former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tajikistan, > Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan. All but > Tajikistan were also members of RfP. (Later the Czech > Republic, Hungary and Poland became regular NATO > members.) > Politically the PfP Programme appeared after a period > of certain discussions about the future of the > Alliance that has followed the end of the "Cold War". > These discussions have been carried out both among the > wider East and West public and to some extent - within > certain NATO circles in the days of former General > Secretaries Werner and Klaas, immediately preceding > Solana on this post. > For some time it was difficult to explain to the > world the necessity of preserving NATO after its main > adversary, the Warsaw Pact, has unilaterally declared > its self-dissolvement. Just in this period the idea of > transforming NATO into an all-European (and even > transcontinental) POLITICAL SECURITY SCHEME was > launched. It was liked and advocated mostly by the > former Soviet and East European politicians. They > somehow believed in this though they did not have any > evidence of intentions on the side of their NATO > "partners". (?) > In this atmosphere most of the long Declaration of > the Heads of States and Governments taking part in the > meeting of the North Atlantic Council on January 10-11 > 1994 could be interpreted (and obviously has been > interpreted) as a kind of a step towards such a > POLITICAL SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY. > It underlined the necessity of a Pact of Stability in > Europe, of unconditional continuation of the Nuclear > Arms non-proliferation Treaty, of the importance the > Conventions on chemical and biological weapons come > into operation as soon as possible, etc. > On this general political background the measures > that have been proposed by the PfP Programme looked > quite reasonable and acceptable. Briefly, they covered > fields like: > - transparency in national defence planning and > budgeting; > - providing democratic control of defence forces; > - strengthening the ability to undertake peacekeeping > missions, search, rescue and humanitarian operations; > - modernising military forces so that they become > better able to operate jointly with those of NATO > members in the view of fostering a common approach to > security in the Euro-Atlantic era, etc. > These detailed suggestions together with a number of > considerations of a general political nature were > revealed in 26 paragraphs in the Jan 1994 NATO Summit > Declaration, in the Partnership for Peace Invitation > and in the PfP Framework Document launched by the same > Meeting. > We can only guess what have been the reasons that have > made Russia, all former Warsaw Pact countries and a > number of classically non-aligned and neutral European > countries accept unanimously this Invitation. Perhaps > they believed that after the demise of the Warsaw Pact > there will be an end of the military counterpoise in > Europe and world-wide, and more room for free choice > and expression of their opinions, interests and > policies. Or was it possible that the end of the > so-called "Cold War" has marked a new period in the > history of the international relations? A period in > which all these countries lose their national > independence and turn into puppets and serfs of the > USA and NATO as the only remaining unrivalled super > power in Europe and world-wide? > Whatever the case, all these countries seemed not to > have noticed the closing sentence of point 13 from the > Declaration of the Meeting in Jan. 1994. It said that: > "Active participation the PfP will be of great > importance for the revolutionary process of NATO > enlargement." In the ocean of good words and > considerations only that one sentence strikes another > note, and it maybe could well be ignored. > However just that sentence seems to contain all the > main objectives both of PfP Programme and of USA-NATO > policies in the world of nowadays. > The Framework Document and the other materials of the > PfP Programme create the impression that the Programme > will; provide for the further development and > modernisation of the participating countries' national > armies in view of strengthening their defence capacity > and assuring a higher degree of security for any of > them. > The almost six years of Bulgaria's active > participation in the various PfP activities have > however shown something quite different. > First of all, it is difficult to evaluate the degree > of reciprocity between NATO and Bulgaria regarding the > processes of military plans' elaboration and the > formation of the military budgets. What can be > witnessed is rather a continuous process of detailed > inspections and evaluations practically of all sides > and aspects of Bulgaria's defence potential by various > NATO - and first of all, US - military experts and > study groups. "We have no secrets from our US-NATO > partners." That philosophy has been unilaterally > repeated practically by all the Bulgarian top > officials, f.i., the Head of the Reconnaissance > Service, MPs, Cabinet members, military officials, > etc. There is no reason to doubt them since, for > example, pictures of the only few remaining powerful > rtocketR-300 weapons of Bulgaria have appeared in > Turkey shortly after the visit of several US officials > to what used to be one of our most secret military > bases. > US generals have formulated the basic recommendations > (or rather orders?!) for what has turned later to be > Plans "2004" and "2010" of the Bulgarian Government > according to which the total number of the Bulgarian > army should not exceed 45 000. NATO insists that even > the war-time mobilisation of the army should not > exceed 150 000!The most significant combat units like > the Rocket Forces, the tank units and the Air Force > have been dismissed or turned practically > unfunctional. The army has been practically withdrawn > from vast regions along the Southern borders of the > country without reciprocal measures on the side of > Turkey or Greece. Allegedly for financial reasons and > for the sake of "modernisation" the number of the Air > Force bases has been cut from 17 to 4 at the > beginning, and then - to only 2. After the Agreement > with NATO in March 2001 all of them seem to be just > given to NATO forces. Bulgaria however is supposed to > spend $ 40millions for the adjustment of the Graff > Ignatievo airport (near Plovdiv) according to the NATO > standards though the Bulgarian Air Forces are not > going to use it anymore. A number of many other > similar financial engagements have been imposed on > Bulgaria by the March 2001 Agreement with NATO which > is the same as the infamous Albright's Annex B to the > Rambouillet Treaty. > The Navy exists also just symbolically: solely for > welcoming NATO units that are practically on > never-ending visits to the Bulgarian ports. Still the > USA constantly insists that we scrap even our last > remaining submarine that we still have alongside with > the "R-300" rockets. > Apparently, the very limited Army number is planned to > have at its disposal no serious military equipment > from now on. It is obviously planned that the remnants > of the former Bulgarian Army are to perform > exclusively gendarme and guarding functions, or to > participate in "peace-keeping missions" abroad when > USA-NATO finds that necessary. In such a condition the > armed forces just cannot fulfil their basic > Constitutional duty and obligations to ensure the > national sovereignty and the territorial integrity of > the country. In reality that has turned out to be the > most characteristic and conspicuous result of > following the main principles and recommendations (or > rather, orders?!) related to the participation in the > PfP Programme and its activities. > Following the same instructions, the Bulgarian defence > industry has also been ruined and nowadays a soldier > can often shot no more than 5 (five) bullets during > his full-time army service... At the same time, no > matter that Bulgaria is such an obedient and loyal > partner, the USA and NATO have so far always been > giving directly negative answers to the Bulgarian > top-official s' questions if they - US and NATO - are > ready to guarantee the international security of > Bulgaria. > The joint military exercises within the frame work of > the PfP Programme (the Bulgarian side pays for them > too) are usually planned and carried out in a way that > dopes not contribute significantly either to the army > forces' combat skills and capacity improvement, or to > the security degree increase of the non-NATO partner > countries. > When PfP exercises take place in the USA or some NATO > countries usually only small Bulgarian units go there. > Apart from mere propaganda functions, their > performances there are more likely to serve some > certain laboratory-testing purposes and studies of > physiological, biochemical, psychological, etc., > characteristic of the human potential of actual or > probable adversaries. (No wonder that Russians so far > have never participated in such kind of activities.) > The US Army had such study programmes during the > Warsaw Pact times and apparently those programmes are > still in force. > When the joint PfP exercises of search and rescue or > other various humanitarian operations take part for > example in the Black Sea, it gets obvious once again > that US-NATO guests are to benefit from them. Though > so far they are declared to be peaceful in character > (f.i., Cupertino in saving operations during > catastrophes and the likes), they are getting each > time closer and closer to the Russian shores and the > Russian main naval bases around Sevastopol. (No wonder > that the Russians refuse to participate in such PfP > activities too). > PfP activities offer also a good opportunity for > reconnaissance, getting acquainted or even recruitment > for various purposes of some officers at suitable > positions from the partner countries. Similar > approaches to various ranks of the military personnel > from friendly countries have been a widespread > practice of the US Army in Latin America, f.i. The PfP > General Framework apparently aims at turning the > European new partners' armed forces into Latin > American-type armies - i.e., armies, unable to ensure > the international security of the respective country > but destined to fulfil mostly gendarme repressive > functions in respect to its own population. It is > "natural" then to take care that new type army > officers come into being: a generation of army > officers capable of coping with such tasks. > Once liked and selected by the masters, such officers > usually enjoy extraordinary rapid and fascinating army > careers. Bulgaria has already generals who have never > commanded a platoon in their lives! Among other things > such phenomena have a definitely demoralising and > corruptive effect over the rest of the Army officers. > Obviously enough, the image of a skilful professional, > capable of waging modern warfare for the sake of his > homeland defence is being replaced by the dream of a > prospective position somewhere closer to the PfP > initiatives and NATO Headquarter' offices. > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices > http://auctions.yahoo.com/ > <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
