Mexico’s I’rcsident Vicente Fox when herncame to Washington on September 5.rnHis American snpporters, eer concernedrnahont the “safetv” of illegals asrnthe sneak across die border, do not knowrn—or perhaps do not want it known—thatrn1^’ox has initiated a “Southern Plan,” usingrnmass deportaHons and a stepped-uprnmilitar’ presence in anti-immigrant operahonsrnto choke off tlie flow of CentralrnAmericans crossing into Mexico fromrn(hiatemala. According to a feature in thernMexican newsmagazine Proceso (June 26);rn() er a period of 1 •> da s, startingrnon June 4, the southern border ofrnMexico was the stage for a largescalernpolice action that resulted inrnmore than 6,()()() deportations of illegalrnaliens to Guatemala fromrnMexico .. . ‘I’hc prelude, know n asrn”orderK and secure repatriation,”rnmobilized ocr 200 police agentsrnfor sceral weeks. ‘VUev checkedrnhotels, parks, bars, brodiels, andrnpublic areas in search of illegalrnaliens li ing in border cihes . . .rnThe Mexican arnu was used torncordon off certain areas . . . andrnbuses carr ing deportees were mo’-rning out on a dail basis . . . Nowrnthat the deportees hae beenrnnuned out, crime has begun to decrease.rnPerhaps the United States should followrnPresident Fox’s example, ratlier thanrnhis rhetoric. The LNS, assisted bv and hundreds of police agents (if itrncannot do die job alone), should do nornmore to ]3rotect our southern border Hianrnits Mexican counterparts do to protectrntheirs —random checks, roadblocks, etc.rnW hen the flow of illegals across thernsouthern border is reduced to one percentrnof those who tr-, the problem of illegalrnimmigration will be soKed.rnIll the first week of September, thernmainstream press carried agency reportsrnof “wild and extraagant accusations” byrnthe president of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko,rnwho accused representatives ofrnthe Western powers of plotting a “Yugosla’rnscenario” as his countrv’s presidentialrncampaign drew to a close. But thernimage of a paranoid dictator uniusd}- accusingrnbencolent foreigners of w roiigdoingrndid not fit widi an extraordinar- re-rn|5ort from Moscow in the Times ofrnLondon (September •>):rnThe I’S J’,i]ibass in Belarus hasrnadmitted diat it is pursuing a policyrnsimilar to that in 198()s Nicaragua,rnin which anti-goeriiment Contrarnrebels were funded and supported.rnPresident Lukashenko, a dictatorialrnCommunist, is heading for vietor-rnin presidential elections on SundawrnIn an unusual admission,rnMichael Kozak, the US Ambassadorrnto Belarus, said in a letter to arnBrihsh new .spaper that America’srn”objectixe and to some degreernmethodolog’ are the same” in Belarusrnas in Nicaragua, where thernUS backed the C]ontras against thernleft-wing Sandinista Goeniinentrnin a war that claimed at leastrn30,000 lies.rni’he amba.s.sador’s disclosure, thernThnes continued, has coincided witii reportsrnin seeral Furopean newspapers indicatingrnthat former U.S. ser’ieemen beliexedrnto be working for the CIA werernescorted, with .Albanian guerrillas, fromrnthe illage of Araeinovo in Macedoniarnlast June. Ambassador Kozak apparenri’rnhas had a career similar to his illustriousrncolleague illiam Walker: He sered asrnprincipal depuh assistant sceretarv’ for inter-rnAmerican affairs under PresidentsrnReagan and Bush, working in Panama,rnNicaragua, and El Salvador, and alsornserved as ambassador to Cuba. WhilernAmbassador Kozak was stationed in Nicaragua,rnPresident Reagan famouslv comparedrndie Contras to the French Resistancernfighters. However, tiie Times continues,rnthere is a problem:rnPresident I .ukashenko is popularrnand most Belarussians fear that arnnew, pro-Western leader wouldrnbring the povert}’ experienced bvrnmanv Russians and I Ikrainians afterrnthe transition to a market economv.rnA spokesman for the US Fmbassvrnin Minsk told I’he Times thatrnthe embassv helped to fund ?00rnnon-governmental organisationsrn(NGOs), including non-state media,rnbut did not fund political partics,rnsince that is banned bv law.rnI le admitted that some of diernNCOs were linked to those whornwere “seeking political cluinge”.rnThree hundred NGOs? And still nornchange in President Lukashenko’s stubbornrnpopularitv? Small wonder the BBC’srnNorrii American broadcasts claimed onrnSeptember 5 diat “his eountr) is home tornan authoritarian regime often comparedrnto that of deposed Yugoslav PresidentrnSlobodan Milosevic.” In Belarus, PresidentrnKozak will have to try harder in tiicrnyears ahead. How ever, if is a comfortingrndiought diat, in Macedonia at least, allrnwill be well now that NATO has enteredrnthe countrv—at least, that is what die mediarnwould have us believe. ‘I’he ugly truthrnwas revealed bv Chronicles’ foreign-affairsrneditor, Srdja Trifkovic, in an op-ed in HiernPhiladelphia Inquirer on August 30:rnOn die eve of the war in Kosovo, 1rnwrote in die Times of London thatrnNATO support of ethnic Albanianrnseparatists in Kosovo would unleashrna chain reaction whose firstrnvictim would be Macedonia, becausern”once KL veterans acting asrnpolicemen start to patrol Kosovo,rnthe rising expectations of Macedonia’srnAlbanians w ill be impossiblernto contain.” “Nonsense,” a U.S.rnState Department official snappedrnat a conference in Washington arnfew days later. “I’he problem inrnKosovo is Milosevic. In Macedoniarnthe Albanians don’t need tornmake trouble because their rightsrnare respected.” The issue was thatrnof “hunran rights,” he said, not nationalism:rnthe notion of Greater Albaniarnwas a Serb paranoid invention.rnTwo-and-a-half vears, one bombing,rnand SI00 billion later, we know better.rnThe same pattern of NATO blunders isrncontinuing, but to correct it, we need tornrecognize that no institutional arrangementsrnshort of ethnic partition will assuagernAlbanian separatism.rnFor the latest news and commentary, visitrnChronklesrnat www. Chron icIesMagazine. orgrnNOVEMBER 2001/41rnrnrn