by pkurdo-11602 » Sat May 15, 1999 7:00 am
Article by Pedro Kurdo (business corespondent, Internet Express News) . would be a good idea to take note about the events that are taking place in the background of the current crisis in Yugoslavia. This can have great consequences on the way some organisations will have to conduct their business, now and in the near future. . . recently we learned that US Department Of Justice (US DOJ) commenced an action against NATO alliance under Section 2 of the Sherman Act for unlawfully gaining its monopoly in the market of terrorist activities. . US DOJ put it "NATO is engaged in unfair business practices and anticompetitive agreements directed at gaining total monopoly in the terrorist business." . to US DOJ, "Carrying illegal attacks on Afghanistan, Somalia and now Yugoslavia, NATO is trying to use backdoor entry to the market, and with all its financial and technological might to push out numerous, small and often independent terrorist groups out of the spotlight." . clearly feel threatened", says Osama bin Laden, managing director of a relatively small but well-established terrorist group. "They have all the technology and know-how to carry out mass murder and destruction on a scale we can only dream of. They have a superior infrastructure and propaganda machine required for getting away with this sort of business. This market has to be regulated as soon as possible." (Terrorist Digest, April 99) . architect of NATO's new policies Madeleine Albright vigorously defends their position "It's a nonsense. Stating that NATO is engaged in unfair practices is just an attempt to put blame on somebody else, which is not uncommon in this sort of business. They have to take a better look into their effectiveness and, if necessary, restructure in the most critical areas of their activities." . say that, though the marked is still not saturated a sudden arrival of such a powerful organisation into the world, for a long time dominated by small, ethnically and religiously organised businesses, has sent shockwaves throughout the industry. . prominent terrorist leader, who wanted to remain anonymous, accused NATO of "dumping" practices, without a doubt another new tactic in the market. "They are ready to invest enormous amounts of time and money in killing and destruction without getting any political profit from it," he said. "You don't have to be a guided missile scientist to figure out the motifs". . he finds especially disturbing is the use of the latest generation humanoid remote-controlled robots of "Solana" type for public relation exercises. "You can always say, after things start to go wrong, that you didn't want it or you didn't mean it, and put all the blame on a brainless dummy", he complains. "and that will give them enormous advantage by keeping the core of the organisation with all the decision-makers invisible for prosecution." . Rubin, a prominent advocate of NATO's involvement in terrorist business finds the whole case "misplaced". "We love to compete, and more so, we support competition", he replies passionately. "If our unconditional support for KLA does not illustrate our commitment for small terrorist organisations I don't know what does." . many industry watchers dispute the idea of NATO's commitment for small subversive organisations, and find it just a cover for achieving the organisation's goals. . terrorist business is definitely not what it used to be. It has institutionalised and moved mainstream. Like it or not, NATO is here to stay, one way or the other, for a long time to come.