thanks for the reply.
i know you hate point by point posts, but i'll try and ease it up with some readable formatting.
a few remarks:
- i'm not sure it's possible to conflate the state ownership of the trepca mines across this period. the rovokation of the autonomy of kosovo was it seems both an attempt to shift revenues to the centrral govt during the various wars (as you note), but also, since it happened after the waves of strikes, a way of putting a halt to those strikes by (rather effectively) diverting the issue into one of nationalism. i'd also add that pulling the revenues into belgrade was also a way of ensuring that the belgrade govt's compliance with IMF decrees did not undermine the govt's constituency, morphing the class struggle to one of a struggle for relative advantage at a time of decreasing incomes. by all on the ground accounts of those waves of strikes, esp the 88/89 strikes, it was far from the case that strikers regarded themselves as ethnic albanians. it seems fairly clear that the mass sackings, singling out those who were 'albanian', was the single irreversible moment when the class identity of the strikers became ethnicised.
- if a workforce has been sacked for engaging in protests, then workers brought in to work the mines aren't 'guest workers', but scabs.
> About 15% of Trepca work force prior to war
> earlier this year remained ethnic Albanian but attempted new hires
> witnessed few applicants (Kosovar intimidation of Kosovars among
> reasons).
or, it could just be that this "intimidation" is what scabs are regularly subjected to. if there are still unlawful dismissal cases pending, then surely the only thing that would force the employer back to the table or to settle would be holding fast against replacing the workforce. what's so strange about that? and isn't it also possible that given this was one of the largest employers in the region, then bitterness at the sackings would be fairly excessive, as it is in any mining town in australia after and during a major dispute?
> Trepca government corporation and Greek company Mytilineos reached
> a second agreement in 1997 that will, over five years, increase
> the latter's participation. Mines were mentioned in government
> economic report that year, document acceding to IMF credit term
> demands that state-owned industries be privatized (officially,
> Yugoslav government committed itself to selected privatization some
> years ago in pursuit of what it calls 'mixed economy'). Ethnic
> Albanians lobbied prospective trans-national interests against
> 'doing business' with Milosevic prior to last spring, arguing that
> an independent Kosova would negotiate terms more favorable to
> foreign investors.
the aim of privatising the state-owned mines goes back to 1984 and the proposals of the so-called Milosevic Commission of inquiry. that report wasn't implemented because it was resisted, across yugoslavia. the passage between that and 1998 (last spring) was a long one. it certainly looks like a haggle over who gets to to work for which foreign investor rather than whether the mines will be publicly-owned or not. presenting it as the latter is not quite accurate, is it?
> Post-war situation finds UN 'missionaries' claiming that they
> will protect state-owned assets in face of claims from ethnic
> Albanians, both former managers and 'private investors.'
well, NATO have honoured the legal ownership of the trepca company, which includes the assets of the private investors.
>Of course, *only* 'interests' with sufficient capital to exploit
> this richest mineral resource region in Balkans are trans-
> nationals that will put the screws to mine workers no matter
> who they are.
yes. but i would add it makes little difference whether the owners are transnational capitalists, local capitalists, a KLA govt or a Belgrade govt. the last two seem to be conduits for the former two in any case. i wouldn't back either option as one holding out promise for the workers in the region.
Angela _________