• Bosnian Serbs bombard Sarajevo, causing dozens of casualties... Yesterday, the mission of US Assistant Secretary of State Ricard Hollbruk began, to implement the new American peace plan. At a press conference before his departure, Mr. Hollbruk made known some details of this plan, as well as part of its timetable. According to his statements, among other things, it was pointed out that “if peace is not achieved within a short period, the situation on the ground will become more difficult.” In Yugoslavia, Mr. Hollbruk openly stated that it was the Bosnian Serbs who could lead to… “We must force the Bosnian Serbs to accept, without any modification, the 51% to 49% division once proposed by the contact group.” The US assistant secretary of state pointed out that “the existence of the state of Bosnia within its internationally recognized borders will not be called into question. As for any objections the Bosnian Serbs may raise concerning the plan’s details presented by Hollbruk, he said that in this case the Serbs would face NATO air strikes.” But while the senior Washington official was asking… in the region, Karaxhiq’s Serbs made a “gift”… …the latest action by the Bosnian Serbs is part of their continued insults and humiliation of the UN, NATO and the international community in general… (continued on p. 6) (continued on p. 6)

. The DP cooperates with the SP and accuses it! The debate over the Law on the Sale and Purchase of Land, and the theory of compensating lawful owners with land and plots on the coast, have recently taken an important place in the DP’s propaganda. It is a universally known fact that right-wing organizations opposed both of these laws, which directly stem from Law 7501, signed by Ramiz Alia, while the socialists, having been the principal designers and supporters of the above-mentioned law, could hardly oppose its consequences. But an article published in “RD” by the DP offices seeks, from its very headline, to present opposition to the latest measures taken by the DP as its own “achievement.” Continuing along this line, the SP is criticized for “not having presented a clear agrarian program, a concrete alternative for developing the countryside under democracy,” while the DP’s agricultural policy is promoted—even though it is fundamentally far-left, and its central principle is the one expressed in SP programs some time ago. To conceal this, the DP’s officials and various leaders claim authorship of the Law on the Distribution of Land, presenting it as “an achievement of democracy.” Thus, while Marx and some of the pillars of his philosophy are denounced, an agricultural policy based precisely on the ideas of that philosophy is praised. What should we call the distribution of the lawful owners’ land under Law 7501? Is this not the brazen daylight robbery of lawful owners, something for which the DP’s own propaganda criticizes the communist system? And what name do the DP comrades advise us to give to the violence used against the owners two years ago? Although the DP and the article published in “RD” harshly attack E. Hoxha’s Agrarian Reform, which, according to the article, “left 20,000 peasant families without land,” none of the DP’s economic theorists takes the trouble to explain to the public what difference exists between that reform and the current reform implemented under Law 7501. Judging by the concrete facts, there are two possibilities: either the land distribution carried out now resembles the reform of 1946, or simply… Continued on p. 5 …increase its consequences. But an article is published in “RD” by the DP offices, which, from its very headline, seeks DP as a “work” of the left leadership, which is absurd given what was mentioned above: that Law 7501 is the work of the SP, or more precisely, the PPSH. …presented praised. The “RD” article speaks of “expropriations” and “fragmentation” through violence and terror, based on Marx’s theory, but we do not know…

. On August 28, the chairman of PRSH, Mr. Sabri Godo, was invited to a working breakfast at the Ambassador’s residence with Egypt’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, His Excellency Amr Musa. The minister spoke about the ancient ties and friendship between the two peoples. On the issue of Bosnia, the minister said that Europe was not showing the necessary energy in resolving the problem. The minister focused in particular on the Egyptian initiative for a conference of Mediterranean countries. So far, 12 countries have given their agreement, including Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Turkey and Greece. The minister said that he would do everything possible to ensure that Albania was also invited to this conference. In general, the Egyptian side sees good prospects for the development of relations between the two countries. For his part, Mr. Godo spoke about some events from the past that testify to their longstanding ties. He agreed with the Minister’s conclusion that no political problem exists between the two countries. Mr. Godo said that he considers President Mubarak one of the most distinguished representatives of the Arab world, and asked the Minister to contribute to establishing recognition and contacts between the political parties of the two countries. Mr. Godo spoke about the problems of the Albanian nation and expressed the opinion that the influx of Serbian refugees into Kosovo was bringing war dangerously close to the southern Balkans. Mr. Godo said that he disagreed with the party of Mr. Hajdaraga regarding Serbian-Greek relations, which he had presented as favorable to Albania. The working breakfast took place in an open and very friendly atmosphere.

Meeting between Mr. Sabri Godo and Mr. Rifat Blaku, deputy chairman of the Parliamentary Party of Kosovo Yesterday afternoon, the chairman of PRSh, Mr. Sabri Godo, received Mr. Rifat Blaku, deputy chairman of the Parliamentary Party of Kosovo, at the Party’s Central Headquarters. After thanking him for the welcome, Mr. Blaku described PPK as a party that fights to realize the aspiration for Kosovo and genuine political pluralism. “We,” the PPK deputy chairman said, among other things, “are the initiators of the establishment of the Kosovo Parliament’s committees, and we have proposed organizing an all-Albanian consultation to define and present clear strategies and demands to international public opinion regarding our national issue.” In his remarks, Mr. Godo said, among other things, that we are living through difficult times and that bilateral consultations and meetings between us are essential. The chairman of the PR further stressed that Albanians must win the right to self-determination, and this can be achieved only through the joint efforts of all Albanian parties, setting aside divisions and disagreements. Both sides condemned the colonization of Kosovo and said that every effort must be made to stop it.

The Socialist Party selectors announced that there are two parallel conflicts preventing the holding of the 11th Socialist Congress. One is that Bënçë does not have a suitable venue for holding the Congress, and the other is the possible resurrection of Marx[?], which would sink many realistic candidacies. Since the first is well known, we clarify that, according to the latest reports from the better-known Eastern agencies, news has been given of the resurrection of the father of socialism (K.M.). Mr. Pellumbi himself has expressed his wish to postpone the SP Congress until the above news is fully confirmed. This has sparked heated debates within the Albanian left-wing party. One faction appears skeptical about this event, reminding its colleagues that resurrection is a phenomenon that exists only in the minds of those who spread opium for the people. “The SP,” they say, “must not fall into the trap of this reactionary, however insignificant, as long as we are not talking about that Orthodox man.” Another group within the SP considers this news even more dangerous. They think it implies that resurrection might then also be possible for Enver Hoxha, and that makes everything confusing. In the event of a resurrection, it is not known in what capacity the above-mentioned persons would take part in the Congress. Would they be the aforementioned dignitaries, guests, or delegates from the grassroots, with or without the right to vote…