Translation by K. Imholz
st/September 2000

We see the future with hope but also with an unanswered question: In the new millennium, will nations get rid of ethnic and religious conflicts? ...Will we be able to walk together, regardless of the normal differences that make life more interesting?
In the new century, how will patriotism be defined: as faith in a high dream, or fear and hatred toward the dream of others?
Will we be able to save ourselves from the fear of weapons of mass destruction, or will we be forced to teach our grandchildren how to survive nuclear, chemical or biological attacks?
Will globalization bring mutual prosperity, or will it make the world’s despair even more despairing?
With this concern, I offer three solutions for the new millennium…

Bill Clinton (from his remarks at the United Nations, September 1999)

"Let us now choose, at the beginning of this new millennium, a new stage, in which our desire to create will overcome our destructive capacity. If we do this through the UN and far-sighted leaders, at last humanity will live while deserving this name: human being."
Bill Clinton

The opinions and deductions expressed in the pages of this book are an attempt to realize and analyze the core of international relations after the 1990’s. Without denying the contribution, the efforts and the responsibility of many distinguished politicians of this period, the author aims at identifying the core of the international politics of the period. The new epoch also requires new political thought, both in domestic policy and in foreign policy. The epochal changes require not just the contours of a new politics, a new political code in international relations, but something more. Above all, they require a change of mentality in the heart of the political classes of the countries that lead international relations.

In the history of world political opinion, there has been a series of doctrines that have taken on the names of the authors who formulated their basic principles. Such, for example, are the "Monroe Doctrine", the "Truman Doctrine," the "Brezhnev Doctrine" and so forth. In the treatment that follows, the author’s opinion and conclusion is that the core of international relations after the 1990’s is connected above all with the contribution of the American President Bill Clinton. Calling this contribution the "Clinton Doctrine," the author attempts to analyze its genesis, the necessity for elaborating it and the prognosis for its longevity.

Bill Clinton was elected President of the United States of America in November 1992. It was a time when the Communist system had been toppled, when the Berlin Wall had fallen and when a new world order was beginning to be foreseen for international politics. But the mentality and psychology cultivated during 50 years of the Cold War had not ended.

Before the 1990’s, the psychology and mentality of the American political class had been directed essentially to preserving and consolidating what had already been achieved and in attempts to eliminate Communism and neutralize its principal rival, the Soviet Union. At the same time, a number of countries that found themselves under the Socialist sphere of influence were outside the concern of America. Not merely that, but its position towards them was cold, in some cases even hostile.
The post-1990 period created a new situation for the American political class. It can be said that on the whole, the American political class was not prepared psychologically, politically or organizationally to meet the role that it would thereafter have in the area of international relations. From 1990 until 1992, total confusion existed in international relations with respect to facing and solving dozens of international problems. The assertion that at the beginning, the American political class was not psychologically or politically prepared to meet the new situation is not a casual one, but rests on several factors.

First, for some time, America had been a member of various organizations that up to that time were characterized as of the capitalist camp. Naturally, it had a fundamental role in these bodies. Figuratively, it was their leadership. Its relations with many of the member countries were complex and multi-faceted. The inclusion of other states, formerly socialist, in the capitalist camp created a new situation. On one hand, they were required to build capitalist structures as fast as possible, while on the other hand, assistance for them in doing so was very small. The problems that grew up among the various states were myriad, and in all cases, they looked to the United States to solve their conflicts. The psychological excitement and amiability of the first phase after the fall of Communism passed quickly. Calculations and political interests, far more lasting than momentary emotions, took their place.

A second factor is the existence of various lobbies in the United States and the influence they have on American politics. As everyone knows, the United States is a young country, made up for the most part by Europeans who emigrated from different countries. Despite the long time that has passed and the change of generations, many of them have not forgotten their old national origin, and have created lobbies on its basis. The influence of these lobbies on the foreign policy of the United States, so far as concerns these states and the conflicts among them, varies with the place they occupy in the state administration, as well as with their financial assets. Among the most powerful lobbies are the Jewish lobby, the Greek lobby, the Irish lobby, and the Serbian lobby. In the first years of the Balkan crisis, America supported Serbia, although Serbia was openly fighting for the creation of a greater Serbia. The Serbian-American lobby in the United States was instrumental in securing this support. Milan Paniç, a Serbian-American who became Prime Minister of Yugoslavia for a short time, is one of the richest individuals in California and a member of this lobby.

Third, political pragmatism has always been the axis of American foreign policy. Not only was the philosophy of pragmatism born in the United States, but it found its fullest and most precise application in foreign policy. However, it can be said that until 1992, American pragmatism as a philosophy and as a policy was "without a heart."

For almost 50 years, Eastern and Western policy was built on the basis of realpolitik, or the policy of keeping equilibrium in the world. One of the greatest politicians of the second half of this century, Henry Kissinger, acknowledged this truth quite openly in a meeting with the Czech foreign minister Jiri Haçek a little before the 1968 Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. In the meeting, Haçek was seeking Euro-American support for the separation of his country from the Soviet Union. Here is how Kissinger responded: "Certainly, what you are doing is good, but if you get into a conflict with your Soviet friends, I am sorry to say that no one in the West will help you, because this has to do with the balance of power."

The assertion of Kissinger, although cynical to the core, was completely real and justified. America could not start World War III with the Soviet Union for the sake of Czechoslovakia.

At the time Clinton became President of the United States, Europe in particular had created a system of psychology and political logic, and the mentality was prevalent that the right of peoples was such only when it was supported by military and economic power. Several examples are sufficient to make the point. How was Europe divided up after the Second World War? In Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam, Europe was divided not on the criterion of the right of every nation or state, but on the basis of the strength of the three large powers, America, Russia and England. After the war, "force" was in these three forces. They had the might and the right. And so, for 50 years, the various states of Europe remained as they were divided during the Second World War. For 50 years, the right of many nations and states remained a right only on paper, fictitious, sufficient only in the documents of international bodies and the words of politicians of powerful states.

In 1956, Hungary had the right to decide its fate as a state and as a nation, but, since it did not have force, the right that mattered belonged to Soviet tanks and the army. The world accepted the right of force and not the real right. In 1968, Czechoslovakia had the right to leave the Warsaw Pact, but again, since it did not have force, the "right" belonged to the Warsaw Pact’s army and Brezhnev’s theory of limited sovereignty. In 1956, Egypt had the right to establish sovereignty over the Suez Canal, but not having the force to face the English and French army, it was compelled to accept their force and their concept about what was "right." In 1981, the Albanian people in Kosova had the right to seek the status of a republic, but not having force, they were forced to accept as much "right" as the Yugoslav tanks and army would give them.

These examples clearly show that in the past, right without force was replaced by the right of force. An analysis of a problem, and dialogue about it, did not determine what was right; the number of tanks and territory or military alliances determined it. On this basis, we can say that definitions of what was right in the programs of international bodies have been essentially a massive fraud on various peoples and states. Nonetheless, we will accept for a moment that under the conditions of the existence of two blocs and two diametrically opposed systems, in order to preserve world equilibrium in international relations, it was necessary for force to be used to establish what was right. But even accepting this assertion as true, after 1991 the question began to be posed: Now how are we to act?

Although officially there now existed only one system, the capitalist one, and although many things had changed in international relations and relationships, still human psychology and the mentality of the political classes of the various countries remained to a considerable extent as it had been. Whether in the classical capitalist states or the states that were building capitalism, for 50 years a mentality of hostility, coldness and contempt for one another had become rooted through powerful propaganda. Confrontations, irritations, a river of books and thousands of articles and broadcasts mutually against one another created the core of the psychology of people in the two blocs.
Changes in psychology and mentality do not occur as fast as changes of governments, parties or ministers. They need time to become new. Whether this goes fast or slow depends on the predisposition and the determination of the international bodies to solve in a just way the problems and conflicts that arise in relations between states. But meanwhile, a ‘reminiscence’ of the old mentality continues to weigh on the political classes of different countries, constituting one of the principal reasons for the creation of chills in international relations and lack of trust in one another. Democracy, to the extent it cultivates freedom of opinion and freedom of speech, to the extent that it creates new relations between people, also creates new relations between states.
But on this issue, the Western European powers, while seeking the democratization of relations between the former socialist states, forgot to seek the democratization of their own international relationships. In the years 1991-1992, various politicians in the capitalist states of Western Europe, despite a declaration or two, continued to look at the political classes that arose in the former socialist states with contempt and occasionally with hostility. This was nothing else than an expression of their own 50-year-old mentality.

In the former socialist countries, the problem was more or less the same. The classes that led the political and economic life of these countries in the years 1991-1992, with a few exceptions, were either a direct continuation of the Communist political class or a consequence of it. In several countries, particularly those created after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this political class continues in power even today. It was formed with people born, raised and educated in the 50-year psychology and mentality of Communism.
And the problem is the same as on the other side. In the mentality inherited and cultivated for 50 years, which cannot be exorcised like a bad dream, capitalism is seen as the product of all the world’s evils and the capitalist countries as enemies.
Nor should the fact be ignored that the people, as political subjects, are the same, both in the classic capitalist countries and in the formerly socialist countries that have begun to construct capitalism.

Many of the countries of the former socialist camp, again in particular several of those that came out of the break-up of the Soviet Union, had to be treated with great care because of the powerful military arsenals that they possessed. It was true that their prior system had been overthrown, it was true that their governments were beginning to be considered democratic, the market economy was beginning to operate, but all the military arsenals, almost all the arms produced during the Cold War with the purpose of being used by one camp for the elimination of the other, still existed in their warehouses and depots.

Indeed, the risk they carried was even multiplied. If until yesterday they had been under the strict control of Communist states, after the downfall of the system they began to be sold en masse, under the cloak of democratic relations and under the power of the thirst for profit. In many cases they fell into the hands of terrorist sects or organizations that were liable to use them without any political reason, causing a genuine human tragedy.

One example is sufficient to support this thesis. The case of the suicide sect of young persons, the modern day "kamikazes" of Japan, which caused the well-known tragedy in the Tokyo subway, clearly shows the risk of the spread of arms into anyone’s hands. The leadership of this sect, as the investigations of the Japanese police revealed, had commercial relations with Russia for buying the sophisticated military technology that Russia had in profusion.

The above subtitle encapsulates the most essential phenomenon of political relations after the 1990’s. Until the beginning of the 1990’s, we had this scenario: political pluralist existed in international relations, represented by the capitalist bloc, the Communist bloc and that of the unaligned countries. With all their aggravating and mitigating circumstances, this political pluralism in international relations also determined the development and maintenance of the doctrines that they kept alive for almost half a century.

On the other hand, in dozens of states of Eastern Europe and Latin America, there was an internal ‘monist’ system formed into a party-state and preserved either through totalitarian methods or by dictators. After the 1990’s, in almost all states, especially the former socialist ones, political pluralism was established (although in several of these states it exists only in the form of juridical pluralism, while several others continue to be in the transition phase).

In international relations it has been completely otherwise. Political pluralism, which existed in international relations until the year 1991, was eliminated, and monism reappeared on the scene, in the form of the existence of the market economy in almost all the countries of the world. And so, in fact, after toasting to the victory over Communism, the world found itself confused and disoriented. "OK, we’ve won, but what are we going to do now with our victory, because now we’ve all become the same, there are no more enemies, the evil empire has disappeared."

In this brief political and social tableau of the world of 1991-1992, with the change of the Communist system and the existence of the mentalities of the past both in the countries of Western Europe and in the former Communist countries, in order that the world not be immersed in chaos and anarchy, it belonged to American President Clinton to devise and develop a doctrine that would lead the world and international relations at the end of the 20th Century and into the beginning of the 21st Century.
And thus, after the downfall of the Communist system at the beginning of the 1990’s, after the victory toasts, urgent questions arose for analysts, political scientists, world politicians: - how will the world be led from now on? - how will international relations be constructed? - how will relations within the states themselves be constructed? - how will the notions of the left and the right be conceptualized now?
There were also related questions: has only the façade changed, or must the very core of international relations be transformed? The need to answer these questions became even more imperative because of another very important phenomenon that was seen in international relations after the 1990’s.

The role of Clinton in developing and applying the doctrine that later took on his name is closely connected to the position and role of America in international relations. For almost 50 years, the United States and the Soviet Union were the two principal superpowers of the word and the main leaders of the two blocs. After the fall of Communism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States remained alone. Even in relation to its most powerful allies within the capitalist bloc, it had and has several distinctions that the others do not. This is not by chance. There are a number of factors that have given the United States this role in today’s international relations.
First: Economic, technological, scientific and military factors have turned the United States today into the world’s only superpower.

Until 1990, there were two states in the world that were figuratively NUMBER ONE in their respective camps. They were the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. With the fall of Communism, not only did the socialist camp dissolve, but the very Soviet Union disintegrated, and from it a number of states came out, the most powerful of them being Russia. Even today, Russia is a superpower in the military field, but it is economically weak and it is undergoing severe difficulties of political and social stabilization. The existence of dozens of political parties in Russia, and the existence in an acute form of ethnic problems such as the case of Chechnya, clearly reflect this absence of political and social stability. This being the case, America remains alone as a world superpower.

Second: The United States is young in comparison with the other states of Europe. It was created as a nation by the Europeans themselves, with their long emigrations during the last centuries. Furthermore, it was created not by one nation, but by numerous European nations, whose citizens were transformed into Americans when they went there.

Third: In contrast to many countries of Europe and Asia, even powerful ones like France, Germany, England, Italy, Japan or China, America is privileged geographically. Why? Because it is not bordered by states that have been or are its enemies, that have been or are in conflict with it. The two countries it borders, Canada and Mexico, are not only less developed than it, but also are interested in keeping good relations with it. On the other hand, China, for example, has had numerous problems with Japan and has gone to war with it several times; Japan conquered it in 1934. Japan itself has had tensions with Russia. Remembrance of the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 is in the middle of the quarrel; but even today there is the question of the Kurile Islands. Similarly, China has had acute problems with the Soviet Union, especially about territorial questions, reaching a state of armed conflict in the 1960’s. In the same manner, Germany has had many problems with France and vice versa, leading to numerous wars. The disputed border territory of Alsace-Lorraine has for many decades been a key conflict between them. And similarly, Germany has had hostilities with Russia at least since the First World War.

All of these problems of the powerful states of Europe and Asia, which are only a few of many, have become so intense at times that they have led to bloody conflicts, such as the First and Second World Wars. On the contrary, America does not suffer from these wounds (although it eventually participated in both World Wars). In its immediate vicinity, a long peace has reigned. That is why it is so privileged geographically. Alexis de Tocqueville, the Frenchman who visited America in the 1830’s, observed this phenomenon well, and wrote in his book Democracy in America that "Without neighbors, that is, without enemies, the American state has escaped the fetters of diplomacy and war, it has kept the spirit of the pioneers, in the same way as those who came first, the Puritans. Peoples always feel their origin. The circumstances that accompanied their birth and served their development influence their whole career." (Vol. I, page 635).

One of the most important problems facing Bill Clinton from the beginning was the penetration, behind the façade, of numerous studies that saw the contradictions and conflicts of the period known as the Cold War as the product of ideology, or, in the instant case, of Communism. But after 1990, after Communism fell, ideology fell too, while the same states existed as before.

Many conflicts arose, especially in the former Russian Empire and the former Yugoslavia, but if ideology and political organization had divided them previously, now those barriers had disappeared; the ideology was the same, the political organization was the same. What President Reagan had called the "evil empire," that is, Communism, had disappeared. And it had not been overthrown with force; no arms were used in eliminating it. As Jaçek Kuroni says, "We didn’t overthrow Communism, it fell down on our heads."

In conclusion, it has to be acknowledged that since the existence of Communism was the reason for the chill in international relations and constant aggravations, logically, with the downfall of Communism, international relations should have become completely harmonious, completely brotherly and completely social, without any discord and without any sign of hostility. The logic of this reasoning generally holds in the theoretical conclusion of the many analysts of the socialist system and also in the very reality of things and phenomena, seen as political notions.
For 50 years, the world had been divided into two blocs that fought against one another because of their contrary ideologies. Without trying to deny this fact, let us be permitted to make a counter-argument in the form of a question: Who chilled and aggravated international relations historically? Only Communism as an ideology, only the existence of two systems? The answer to this question does not aim at historicism or the defense of any ideology. On the contrary, its purpose is simply methodological facilitation for a full analysis of international phenomena, as the starting point for a full prophylaxis for future international conflicts and phenomena. The answer to this question is connected with the answers to two further questions: Did the First World War begin as a war between two political systems or as a war within a system? Was it a war inspired by Communist ideology, or a war of ideologically undifferentiated states, but with obvious economic differences?

History shows us clearly that this war began as a conflict within the capitalist bloc and has the aim of re-dividing the spheres of influence that existed until that time. At the time of the assassination in Sarajevo, and for the next three years, Communism did not exist. The Soviet Union was, it is true, created through revolution, but it was the product of the crisis of the capitalist world, already immersed in war. On the other hand, the Second World War, while it developed as a war between two systems, had the nature of a global catastrophe of a special kind. It broke out and concluded as a conflict between anti-Fascists, who existed both in the capitalist and the Communist world, and the Fascists, who, situated in several capitalist countries, desired to conquer the whole world. History affirms that the famous Anglo-American-Soviet alliance was an alliance of states with an antagonistic ideology, against Italo-German Fascism, the worst variant of capitalist ideology.

In the midst of this turmoil, of fear for the future and guesses or political prognoses, within the existence of a Cold War mentality in almost all political classes, with the idea of world leadership and the creation of a new mentality, a doctrine that has now taken the name of the "Clinton Doctrine" began to take shape. In its beginning, several of the men of state who inherited in their mentality both the experience of the Second World War as well as that of the Cold War reacted skeptically and dubiously to the young President of the United States, who not only did not inherit the mentality of the World War but generally not even that of the Cold War, from the time when, as a student, he took part actively in student demonstrations against the Vietnam War. In addition, he was elected president after having been governor of one of the poorest states of America, Arkansas. (The word "poor" has a relative meaning in this case. The comparison is done only taking into account the other American states). Gradually, such leaders as Kohl, Mitterand, Chirac, Major, Yeltsin, Jan Xe Min and others began to accept that Clinton’s ideas would be the ideas of the future of international relations. And so as a whole, little by little, the world in its international relations and even some politicians within different states began to recognize and adapt to the fundamental elements of this doctrine.

The "Clinton Doctrine" has been felt even in Albania, but so far only in a spontaneous way or in a sporadic manner. In general, Albanian politics, either because of the absence of experience or because of momentary power interests, has stayed on the surface of this doctrine, without trying to understand its core. But the incorporation of Albania in the Stability Pact for the Balkans, and the successful realization of the requirements of the pact, is not satisfied by spontaneity in Albanian politics. On the contrary: it requires, as a pre-condition of success, knowledge of the basic elements of this doctrine and taking them into account in drawing up the internal policies of Albanian political parties and the international relations of Albanian governments.

If it were suggested to the Albanian government that a law should be enacted in Parliament to establish sanctions, going as far as criminal penalties, against parents who remove their children from school, a priori you would get the response "That’s an Enverist way of thinking." Nonetheless, more than a year ago, just such a law was approved by the House of Commons in England, at the request of Prime Minister Tony Blair.
If you were to say that the time has come in Albania for social policy and concern for the underprivileged classes to be the priority of politics and to lead the program of the government, you would hear in response that this means a return to the past. But in his annual report to the American Congress last year, assessing his governance and the State of the Union, President Clinton declared among other things that during his eight years in office, 20 million places of work have been opened up in America: that is, 20 million people have found work.

What is the meaning of these numbers? It is simple for any serious analyst or politician. Before you speak about the concepts of "the left and the right," above all before endless lessons about "deviation" from the left or the right, people have to have work and well-being. And Bill Clinton is the first American president who added "heart," who gave "feeling" to the American political philosophy of pragmatism. In his remarks at a session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, he spoke of the "human face" of the economy.

The coordination of economic policies starts first of all with the determination of what economists call the "policy mix." This means on the one hand, a rigorous budgetary policy that limits the public debt and permits investment costs to rise faster than operating expenses. On the other hand, this means a monetary policy that is, if not accommodating, at least favorable to such an increase. Clinton managed to accomplish this through an agreement with Alan Greenspan, the distinguished economist who since 1987 has been the president of the Federal Reserve System, in effect the central bank of the United States.

His action caused a revolution in American domestic policy. It was not simply an enlightened policy or one taken with a merely charitable approach. On the contrary: it was a political platform with very long term aims, not only for the future of American politics but also for the future of world politics. This is the reason that for some, especially in Europe, Clinton is today considered the most popular president of America in the Twentieth Century, surpassing Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.
Politicians and others in government are not there to give lessons on theory or simply to hold demonstrations, but to draw up concrete platforms so that the people will actually have material and spiritual well-being. The Albanian people have the right to ask: How long must we wait for the "transition" to pass? How long before we see the economic well-being of the market economy?

Let us go further: In the remarks at the UN session, Clinton advanced a series of revolutionary ideas that went beyond the borders of America. He spoke of the need to eliminate poverty in the whole world, defining this as one of the priorities of American policy in the future. Here is his conclusion: "Let us solve the war against poverty and for mutual well-being, because no part of humanity should be left behind in the global economy." Albanian politicians, on the other hand, although belonging to a poor country, still continue to deal only with party wars, propaganda, and patchwork programs. Reading the words of Clinton, especially if you concentrate on the word "us," instinctively you feel that his message is directed also and especially to Albanian politicians, whether of the left or of the right.

After the events in Kosova, after the NATO bombing, analyses and judgments that are often contradictory started to appear, and we still see them. Albanian politics and political science supported the intervention of NATO in Kosova, because it helped a part of the Albanian people. In this case, grasping the problem is easy. Nevertheless, the action of NATO, at the direct initiative of the United States, is many times deeper, and it constitutes one of the new elements in international relations during the last decade.
NATO, led and directed by America, "violated" the sovereignty of a country, namely, Yugoslavia. They did this openly and without prejudgment. At the base of this "violation" was the protection of the human rights and freedoms of the Albanian people in Kosova. Clinton called it a "humanitarian war." What is the significance of the action of NATO in Kosova, under the direction of America? For serious politicians and analysts, it is "We will intervene whenever human rights and freedoms are violated." It is enough to remember that no more than a decade ago, Yugoslavia was one of America’s favored countries, with a large pro-Serb lobby in America and with noted former politicians such as Lawrence Eagleburger, Brent Scowcroft and Henry Kissinger known for their pro-Serb feelings. Albanians, on the other hand, especially the Albanians of Kosova, were almost forgotten by international politics and diplomacy until just a few years ago. Besides political oblivion, the disdainful designation "Moslem" fell on them in Euro-American propaganda.
Thus, NATO’s action is a signal, a warning for all politicians, anywhere in the world, including Albanian politicians. On the other hand, it is also a warning against nationalist or chauvinist practices in any country of the world, including Albania. The immediate reaction against what Sali Berisha said in the Congress of the Albanian Democratic Party about the creation of a pan-Albanian federation was a concrete example of the determination of Euro-American politics to put human rights over the "sovereignty" of any nation.

Not only did American President Clinton defend the intervention of NATO in Kosova, but he deepened the significance of this action. He underlined, "What is the role of the United Nations in disasters and mass deportations? It is a very great one. Even in Kosova, the actions of NATO followed a clear consensus expressed often in the Security Council, which drew the conclusion that the crimes committed by the Serb forces were unacceptable, and that the International Community was interested in ending them. Can we keep our arms folded in the face of this brutality? …Acting in this way, we helped defend the principles of the UN and gave it the possibility to play a central role in the future of Kosova. In the real world, principles often conflict, and hard decisions have to be taken. The result in Kosova gives us hope."

The stage of 1990-1999 is a qualitatively new stage in international relations, it is a stage that is not yet archived, one that has become the object of history. It is current, it is the time we are living it. In addition, it is a stage that has not been well studied or deeply studied so far as concerns most of its events. In many cases, these phenomena are explained more with propaganda than with scientific analysis, more from euphoria than from seriousness, more from a narrow point of view than from a many-sided opinion. The scientific debate is lacking.

Clinton became President of the United States as the bloody civil war in Bosnia had began. Within democratic Europe, the painful events in Bosnia in the period 1992-1995 were conducted under the slogan "Long Live Death." The origin of this slogan was the year 1936 in Spain. During a ceremony in the amphitheater of the University of Salamanca, the phalangist crowd responded to the end of the speech of Franco supporter General Milan Astraj with the words "Viva la muerte" ("Long Live Death").
People thought that the slogan no longer existed, but unfortunately, they saw it materialized in the Bosnia massacre. Although times had changed, although the passage from dictatorship to democracy had taken place, the slogan had remained the same as that of the phalanges of Generalissimo Franco.

After the United Nations, the Contact Group and others had successively failed, it was Clinton’s slogan that entered the Bosnian drama: "Peace through force." Considering inter-state relations and problems today, this is like the role of a prosecutor who makes a decision and asks all parties to a conflict to comply, but when they do not comply through dialogue, puts force is put into action. This slogan stands at the basis of the Dayton agreement effected in the United States and signed in Paris; it stands as the basis for the decision to deploy NATO troops in Bosnia.

At that time, especially in Europe, few had much appreciation for this slogan, which later would become one of the main principles of the "Clinton Doctrine" in international relations. But the events in Kosova would show the contrary. The Clinton Doctrine there showed that to stop genocide, such concepts as "integrity and sovereignty" had to be overcome; even the UN itself, its rules and laws, had to be overcome.
What was the position of the European "great powers," and the world powers, toward the Albanian question? In the past, their position towards Kosova was at bottom a totalitarian position. Just as the violation of the right of an individual to be free leads to totalitarianism, passing through authoritarianism, in the same way the violation of the right of a people to be free and determine their fate themselves leads to totalitarianism. If the violation of the freedom of the individual leads the state to totalitarianism, the violation of the freedom of people by several states at once leads these states to a totalitarianism that is many times greater. Peoples are made up of individuals. But the freedom of an individual or a community of individuals outside the state and state organs does not mean freedom of a people or of a nation, it does not a priori mean real freedom.
In the case of the Albanian question, the "Clinton Doctrine" rose above the mentality of the past, over traditional European friendships and the politics of the American lobbies, putting a new element into international politics: humanitarian war. In his remarks before the United Nations, Clinton’s position towards intervention in Yugoslavia was unequivocal: "The crimes committed by Serb forces were unacceptable, and the International Community had an interest in ending them. Can we keep our arms folded before this brutality?"

One of the priorities of the "Clinton Doctrine" during its ascendancy has been the undertaking of a series of reforms in many sectors of American political, social and economic life. Dozens of laws approved during the time of his leadership of the United States stand on the basis of these reforms. Albanian politicians, on the other hand, although most of them have been in America, have not gotten to know the essence of these reforms deeply. This is also one of the reasons that Albanian politicians, since 1991 and to date, understand reform not as the need to prepare laws and rules, but as the numerical removals of people from the state administration. The reforms of Albanian politicians so far have relied on ideological notions and not on the implementation of these various laws and regulations.

"We should refuse to accept that in the future, part of humanity shall live in full well-being, while the other part at the fringes of existence."

Bill Clinton

Albanian President Meidani has baptized the new government headed by Ilir Meta as the Stability Pact government. Naturally, the name is alluring. But is just a name sufficient, or should we penetrate to the core of the Stability Pact?

In his remarks at the UN, Bill Clinton declared that "We should refuse to accept that in the future, part of humanity shall live in full well-being, while the other part at the fringes of existence." Albanian politics needs to analyze this socio-philosophical sentence. They should not wait for someone to bring well-being, but rather they should construct the concrete programs that will bring will-being to the Albanian people.
Albanian politics currently finds itself before two large problems.

The first problem has to do with the stability of Albania itself. The Balkan Stability Pact cannot be realized without the stability of every country of the Balkans. On this point, Albanian institutions, whether that of the Presidency, the Government, or the opposition, are far from the meaning of the Stability Pact. None of these three institutions of Albanian political life is an a position to present a genuine, concrete platform, short term, medium term and long term, as to how the stability of Albania can be realized. Until now, the three parties fight only on the battlefield of propaganda and with the "rusted" arms of 1991.

The second problem has to do with improving relations between the different countries of the Balkans, with the aim that instead of conflicts, we shall pass to co-existence between them. This presupposes establishing and applying an open door policy. However, until now, Albanian politics has in fact followed a policy of "wide open" doors, turning Albania into a transit country for various kinds of illegal traffic. This is the worst example of the meaning and implementation of the Balkan Stability Pact.
The phenomenon keeps occurring that Albanian politics, whether in power or in opposition, "misses the mark" so far as concerns making progress, instead of working out political prognoses and alternate possibilities for the future. An example: Some months ago, the newspaper "Koha Jone" published an article entitled "Will Skopje be the Capital of an Albanian-Macedonian Federation?" At a press conference shortly thereafter, former American Ambassador Frowick launched the idea of holding a four-party meeting in Tirana, among the governments of Macedonia, Albania, Montenegro and Kosova. After the press conference, Albanian politics and diplomacy should have dealt seriously with the idea, studying it in all its complexity. What was hidden behind this proposal, and what steps should be taken to seize the political and diplomatic initiative, should have been kept clearly in mind. It should have been considered whether the proposal was simply a personal initiative of Frowick or whether it might have been a plan of the American Department of State. It is difficult to believe that the idea of an Albanian/Montenegrin/Macedonian/Kosovar rectangle came solely from the former American ambassador. It seems likely that he was taking the pulse of Albanian politicians, who showed in practice that they didn’t understand anything of what he said. And quite "coincidentally," after this, American politicians of all levels "forgot" to ask Tirana again.

Since the Stability Pact has all of the countries of the Balkans as its object, and since it will lead to considerable investments of material and monetary assets, naturally, the thought may strike you that various Balkan countries will be trying to get as much as they can, even on one another’s backs. The efforts will take two directions. The first will consist of preparing concrete, convincing projects for donors. The second direction will be the political, economic and social stability of the respective countries towards the foreign donors. Within this logic, it would seem normal, indeed imperative, that Albanian politicians study fully what risks might come to Albania from its neighbors, of course "democratically," pressing the idea that "Albania is insufficiently stable, politically and socially, therefore it’s not worth investing much there. Better to invest our financial assets in Macedonia, Greece, Montenegro, Slovenia, etc.". Let us hope that Albanian politicians will finally succeed in understanding that in politics, there is no "love and friendship," but only interests.

It would be hard to find a person in Albania who has not heard the phrase "Stability Pact." Television, the newspapers, declarations by politicians, government plans, international meetings in Rome, Skopje, Thessaloniki, Brussels and so forth use this term as their key word. Problems outside reality are often spoken of propagandistically. But in politics, concrete action and precise accounts are required. The Socialist Party and its government have the great chance to turn the core of the Stability Pact into their political platform for the future of Albania. But in order to accomplish this, the mentality about the pact has to be modernized, even within the very ranks, both in the Socialist-led administration and in the Socialist Party.
First: It is not only in the ranks of the opposition that leaders or publicists have "pyramidal foundations" in their heads. As Edi Rama rightly noted in the Albanian Parliament, they consider the Pact to be another Sudja, with Hombach its the chief treasurer. There are people like this even in the leading party structures of the SP itself, even among the government leaders. These individuals consider the Stability Pact, and the fact that they are in leading positions, a great chance for personal profits, as a pact for the "stability" of their wealth. The pro-Albanian platform has to change this regressive orientation, turning it into a pact for the stability of the "wealth" of all Albanians. But this is not done with propaganda; this requires concrete actions.

Second: Today’s great powers, such as the United States, Germany, France, Italy and so forth, made a pact among themselves last year. The essence of it was that they agreed that the Balkan region was to be stabilized not only within each country, but also in inter-state relations. With this pact, on the one hand they indirectly accepted that it had been their influence that in the past had brought turmoil to this region, while on the other hand, as a consequence of the action of the "Clinton Doctrine," they agreed, in the framework of the new millennium, not to incite local conflicts in this region any more.

Third: All the countries of the region, including Albania, are the object of international relations in the political opinion of the powerful Western countries who made this pact with one another. It now depends on Albanian political forces themselves whether Albania will become a subject of these relations and if so how quickly this will happen.
Fourth: The Stability Pact of the Balkan region is a political concept of the Western countries about the future of this region. But in Albania, there are politicians on both sides who speak of the pact with the mentality of the Cold War, who speak about the pact with a mentality of conflict, the mentality of the "anti" vote. A serious political platform that looks toward the future will awaken hope in the Albanian citizen about the days to come. An electorate that understands that tomorrow in Montenegro, Macedonia, Kosova, Bulgaria, or Romania, we will move freely without embassies, without needing to pay bribes for visas: the citizen will be motivated to support the political force that opens this perspective.

In the bombastic declarations of politicians, in various writings and interviews, an "equal" sign is inserted between the Stability Pact of the Balkans and the Marshall Plan of Western Europe after the Second World War. In the field of propaganda or political culture, the comparison is not harmful. But in the field of politics and concrete actions, the problem changes. Both the political concept and the concrete action that equate the Pact with the Plan are harmful and have inherent risks for the future. What is the reason? The Stability Part for the Balkan region after the bombardments in Yugoslavia and the establishment of NATO troops in Kosova is not the same as the Marshall Plan for Western Europe after the Second World War. Serious people should not be seduced by naive, romantic and simplistic judgments. The countries of post-World War II Western Europe had a functioning market economy, a well stabilized and stable administration and, in most of them, a democratic tradition.

On the other hand, in many of the countries of our region, the Stability Pact process is sought to be accomplished in the absence of a functioning and experienced market economy; under the conditions of an unstable state administration, with a tendency to corruption in many cases; and without a democratic tradition in the countries of the region. And political relations between them have in the near past had the creation of conflicts as their joint signifier.

For all these reasons, we have to carry out, and we are carrying out, a series of duties all at once. Besides reforms to consolidate the market economy, we have to carry out reforms to consolidate the state administration; besides these, reforms to consolidate democracy and political pluralism, under the conditions of the absence of an early tradition. We have to undertake regional political initiatives to create relations of regional good understanding and cooperation, while we are conscious of the continued existence of phenomena of a conflictual mentality among the various peoples and states of our region.

What I set out above is not of a justifying nature, but rather an explanatory one, to familiarize readers with the difficulties we are faced with, and which we are determined to overcome, of course with the assistance of our better qualified Western partners.
And so, if we may say that the Marshall Plan gave Western Europe the possibility to re-establish its traditional model of internal governance, the Stability Pact gives the governments, political players and peoples of the Balkans the possibility to create, build and consolidate Western models of democracy, regional cooperation and the market economy.

Finally and most important, in the field of politics: the Marshall Plan was drawn up and applied under the conditions when a Cold War had just begun in Europe between the Communist bloc and the capitalist one. The countries of Western Europe were threatened by Communist ideology. The Communist parties in several of these countries, such as Italy and France, were powerful. To protect these countries from the influence of Communist ideology, to help then overcome their economic difficulties as quickly as possible, to keep them from solving their difficulties by revolution, the Marshall Plan was both prepared rapidly and accepted without any reservation by the countries of Western Europe.

A number of Albanian politicians have a misunderstanding or a naïve understanding about American support or what is called the "Clinton Doctrine." For some, this doctrine is equivalent to a visit to America; for others, it equals the number of meetings with American representatives; for another it might be no more than a photograph; for still others, the number of declarations or interviews about America, and so forth. These judgments are both naïve and harmful to the present and the future of Albania.

If we were to look at all the activity of Albanian politicians since 1991 until the end of 1999, we would have to conclude that only a small minority of them have understood where the "Clinton Doctrine" really lies. Berisha and Nano are two of the most prominent of these. In a meeting during his presidency with Manfred Werner, former general secretary of NATO, Berisha was the first to float the idea of Albanian membership in the Partnership for Peace. Nano advanced this idea further, with the "sixteen plus one" formula of individual partnership. Similarly, at the end of 1997, Nano suggested the creation of a "Shengen-ized" Balkans, that is, the creation of conditions to permit individuals, ideas and cultures to circulate freely among the countries of the Balkans. Nonetheless, Albanian politics in general is notable for the scarcity of its ideas or political platforms. Most of the time, it is "partisan" politics, agitation with an attractive façade but empty inside. Exactly here we can identify one of the main reasons why various American politicians always seem to change their plans to come to Albania, using a variety of pretexts.

Albanians have felt the series of cancellations of senior American politicians to Tirana deeply. Various justifications have been given by official policy, but the reality is quite different. American policy and pragmatism demand serious partners in Albania, and not propaganda windbags stating that "we are America’s principal partners in the Balkans." American politicians do not come to Albania on a pilgrimage; they do not come to Albania to support one or another political grouping. American politicians will come to Albania when Albanian politicians have concrete ideas and platforms for the future of Albania and of the Balkans.

A strange paradox exists in the political warfare going on in Albania. One of the principal elements of this warfare between different politicians or various political forces involves what is considered the "support" of the United States. As noted above, some politicians try to assure this support through meetings with representatives of the American embassy in Tirana or other American diplomats elsewhere in the world. With such a concept, political rumors and attacks on political opponents generally take the place of ideas or real political platforms.

With another kind of Albanian politician, this American "support" is sought through declarations of the type that "we have America as our ally." And to convince the United States that it is really so, these politicians go so far as to be indifferent towards relations with neighboring countries or other European countries. Their political psychology is: "The main thing is that we get American support, because afterwards, the other things are easily solved."

This mentality could be seen most clearly during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. As is known, several NATO members, neighbors of Albania, in general were wavering in their politics and diplomacy, even permitting various demonstrations in their countries against the bombing. Naturally, the Americans were quite aware of this. Meanwhile, Albanian politics, totally supporting NATO, began to act coldly towards these neighbors, turning away without seeking any arbitration of relations among these NATO member countries, relations that had been established 50 years ago, at the time when Albania was part of the Communist bloc.

If you are 20 years old and not a Communist, you are without a heart; but if you are 40 years old and are still a Communist, you are without a brain. – George Bernard Shaw.
The history of humanity reveals its innumerable attempts in various epochs of development, which, regardless of the form they take, have sought the realization of a better life and human rights for all.

Notwithstanding the dress that these attempts have worn in various phases of the development of humanity, sometimes as wars of slavery, sometimes as religious wars, now as uprisings or even armed revolutions; notwithstanding the names that have been given to these attempts by the official societies of the times when they occurred, at their core, they have transmitted, generation after generation, the desire and the aspiration of man for a better life.

The first major attempt of humanity for a better life is connected with Christianity and its prototype, Jesus Christ. Coming from ancient times, from the depth of centuries, transformed in many cases for political aims, in His essence Jesus Christ is the personification of the dream of millions of people for liberty and human rights.
The second major attempt was Communism, and its most noted representative, Karl Marx. Appearing in the Nineteenth Century, but with an influence – and a large distortion – in the 20th Century, in his voluminous works Marx came out against oppression and inequality, taking millions of people into his camp.
The birth and existence of these two powerful streams are linked with the names of Christ and Marx, and in the space of 20 centuries, that which we call the "new era," they have given the coloration to our political and social life throughout various historical periods, with priority in the spiritual life.

The two doctrines were born as protests against the violation of human rights and freedoms. They have numerous similarities, just as they also have fundamental differences, related to the time of their birth and the evolution they have undergone through the centuries.

Christianity and Communism resemble one another like two drops of water. Both these doctrines promise the salvation of man from oppression, poverty, degradation and so forth. The difference between them is that Christianity, in the 19th and 20th centuries, predicts salvation in heaven, while Communism predicts it on earth. Christianity of the 19th and 20th centuries calls for non-violence to reach a better life, while Communism, until the 1990’s, gave priority to armed force to achieve that better life.
At the time they began, each of these doctrines and their respective followers were persecuted fiercely by the official societies of the time. An analysis of events at the time of the birth of Christianity reveals a horrifying tableau of persecution against Christians and their leaders. The history of Jesus Christ and his crucifixion at the order of the authorities and the histories of hundreds of Communists who were imprisoned and slaughtered at the time of the beginning of Communism demonstrate the similarities between them.

The persecution of Christians continued until 483 A.D., when it was decided at the Council of Nicea that Christianity would become the official religion. Communism, on the other hand, continues to be considered a doctrine that violates human rights and freedoms.
Both Christianity and Communism underwent significant evolution from the time of their birth. The evolution of Christianity is more visible, because of the longer length of time. From the Old Testament we passed to the New Testament. From a unified faith, numerous subdivisions arose, such as Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Calvinism and others. From the violence that was preached at the beginning, later it became non-violence. From an all-encompassing ruling doctrine during the Middle Ages, currently it treats only a person’s spiritual life.

Communism has undergone similar changes, but more slowly and sometimes in a different direction. From "Das Kapital" of Marx, in the framework of its creative development, it passed to "Imperialism as the Last Phase of Capitalism," later to national communism, Euro-communism, and so forth. From these ideological streams it passed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, into a doctrine ruling the political and social life of various countries in the form of a totalitarian state.

Both Christianity and Communism, as two doctrines that have preached the salvation of humanity and of man himself, have had the opportunity at one time to turn into the official ruling doctrines of society, giving the tone to the political, economic and social life of various countries.

The transformation of Christianity into the ruling political doctrine brought what is known in history by that name of ill repute, the medieval Inquisition, which lasted for several centuries. The Inquisition wiped civilization, philosophy, political science and ancient culture from the face of the earth, to start all fields from the beginning. The monopoly of intellectual preparation fell into the hands of the priests, and culture itself took on a wholly theological character. In those hands, political science, jurisprudence and all other sciences became simple branches of theology. The dogmas of the church were transformed into political axioms, while the texts of the Bible took on the form of the law in every trial. Any attempt or reaction against this reality was crushed brutally by the iron hand of the Church.

Essentially the same thing happened with Communism. Turned into the ruling political doctrine in a number of countries during the 20th Century, it took on the traits of totalitarianism. Communism too, and its state organization, preached the beginning of everything from the start, under the flag of building a new world. Several of the verses from the "International" affirmed that "We will destroy the wretched world from its foundations, and then, for ourselves we will build a better world in its place." In many fields of life, the absurdity of these verses passed into the void. (In Albania, their essence echoed even after the fall of Communism, destroying everything that the Communist system had built).

In these totalitarian states, the decisions of political forums made the law. Citations by living and dead leaders of Communism became political axioms. Proletarian politics aimed at subjecting every field of life, culture, science and art. Attempts to oppose this kind of state organization were crushed harshly by the police apparatus of the state. The Inquisition of the Middle Ages was overthrown through uprisings that at the beginning had a religious mantle, while later they took the form of Democratic-bourgeois revolutions. On the other hand, the first attempts to destroy Communism with forceful measures, like Fascism, failed. Communism was defeated as a ruling political doctrine because it violated fundamental human rights and freedoms, because of an understanding of the "emptiness of its dogmas," as George Soros says, and because of the great development of the economic and social level of the countries that applied the market economy. Its downfall happened without force, through a process that Francois Fejteau has rightly called a "revolution without revolutionaries."
And so these two doctrines, for so long as they were at their core only ideological and spiritual, were in the vanguard of human rights and freedoms; but when they were transformed into ruling doctrine of state organization, they savagely violated what they had been preaching about for years and centuries.

Centuries have passed since the time of the French Revolution of 1789, when for the first time humanity became acquainted with the political notions "the left" and "the right," up to our days when the notions have broadened and multiplied. Humanity has for some time been tired of the political war of parties that bear the most seductive names, but which have accomplished nothing. The downfall of Communism was a strong blow not only against Communism as an ideology, but also against the very concept of all these political names.

Although Communism fell as a political system and method of state organization, the dream of man for a better life not only remained but was deepened further, especially in the formerly Communist countries. In the countries of Western Europe, on the other hand, the same phenomenon appeared, but in another form. Until the 1990’s, many negative things about human life in these countries that had to do with the economic and social level were justified by the Communist "bogey man." But after years, the "bogey man" was no more, while the aspiration for a better life, the aspiration to live without fear for tomorrow, became dominant for millions of people. The slogan of the workers demonstrating in Strasbourg, France, at the time when the economic package that bore the name of the then Prime Minister of France, Alain Joupé, is well known. IN this period, France was continued nuclear testing in Polynesia, by order of President Chirac, despite the protests of various countries. "Chirac, we are the next nuclear bomb" ("Chirac, la prochaine bombe nucleaire, c’est nous") was among the slogan that the demonstrators used.

Despite the reformation that Pope Vojtila (John Paul II) brought, even Christianity and its preaching were not enough. A qualitative jump had to be made in the administration of material goods, in economic, social and spiritual life themselves, with the aim that people would no longer be manipulated through such doctrines, not only in the form of Communism, National Socialism or any other form that, although expressing the dream of millions, would brutally violate the dream when it was transformed into the ruling political doctrine.

There were two roads available for this. One had to do with theoretical and academic discussions about the left and the right and the evolution that they had to undergo. The other had to do with the recognition of the myriad problems that national and international reality presented after the 1990’s and in the taking of measures so that they be solved differently than before. In this process, the problems in the heart of the left or the right would also be solved.

While theoretical discussions took first place in Europe in the years after 1990, across the ocean, the new American President, Bill Clinton, elected in 1992, began his work at the head of the American administration and international bodies to solve this raft of problems confronting not only economic and social reality in America but also international reality.

The period 1992-2000 has fully proved the correctness of the road followed by Clinton. Slowly, but uninterruptedly, the passage from antagonism to protagonism in the solution of the problems that arose in international relations; the cultivation of a new mentality in relations between states, rising above the dangerous winner’s mentality of post-1990 that threatened to replace the Cold War with a real and "hot" War; the combination of pragmatism with spirit; the application of social policies America that raised the economic level of the people to new highs; the commitment to remove not only traditional borders, but also the borders caused by inequality of economic development; the change of the mentality that "might makes might" into the concept that "what is right is right," as happened in the case of Kosova – with all this, Clinton managed not only to create a political and social doctrine for today and for the future of humanity, but also powerfully to influence the birth of a new type of leader in Europe. Such leaders, breaking away from sterile discussions about the left or the right, are today among the leaders of Europe who are most listened to, and they themselves have revolutionized their political formations. Blair, Aznar, Shroeder, and Veltron are examples, but the most typical representative of the Clinton doctrine in Europe is Tony Blair.

Tony Blair is the first political leader in Europe who understood that liberal democracy began to be threatened by a crisis not because it was threatened by a particular rival, but because it had no rival. Liberal democracy was falling because it was not sufficiently democratic. It may have been democratic compared to Communism, but not in its core. What had to happen, before discussions could take place, was action: that the democratic state be based in the first instance not only top down, but also bottom to top. That is, top down in the return of power to regional and local bodies, and up to multi-national entities.

For Blair, the key to reality in the new political and social after the downfall of Communism was the "democratization of democracy," with the aim of achieving general transparency in public business and public works, assuring the democratic participation of citizens in the political and social life of the country. Regardless of the name given to the concept of Blair by a part of European social democracy, especially in France, as the "third way," or allegations that he is influenced by the policies of Clinton, which can be applied in the United States but not in Europe, the reality of political developments in the countries of Europe is in the direction of overcoming the traditional political dogmas and in a passage to the development of new realities.
How long will the Clinton doctrine last in social and political life of the United States and in international relations? It is hard to predict. But one thing can be said with certainty. So long as international relations are ruled by pragmatism, politicians will refer to the Clinton doctrine. So long as man and the fulfillment of his dream for a better life are put in the center of politics, future politicians will look back to Clinton. So long as the "little people" are treated as equal subjects in international relations, regardless of the power they have, the Clinton Doctrine will be a guide for future politicians.






BOOKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR:

The Time of Democracy or National Salvation (1993)

Europe’s Tragic Ones (1994)

Fifty Years of Unforgotten History (1995)

Totalitarianism in International Relations (1996)

The Conscience that has been Killed (1997)

A People Betrayed (1998)

The KLA and Political Cynicism (1999)

Idealists: The Tragic Ones who Make History (2000)