The exact number of those missing in the ruins of the military base is unknown Page 2

As expected, the Shehu-Nano meeting ended without any concrete result, or, as the latter put it, “the positive thing was that the way was left open for other meetings of this kind.” Despite the insufficient information made public after the meeting, it was clear that both sides stood firm in their previous positions. The main point of disagreement was, of course, the conditions for the elections, first and foremost the electoral law under which they are to be held. From what was learned after this meeting—which could be called unprecedented, given the extremely strained climate between our two main parties—the chairman of the Democratic Party (PD), Tritan Shehu, insisted that the law should not be changed, calling the 1996 law ideal, even though under the current circumstances the PD could be severely penalized by such a law. Setting aside this issue and a few technical matters, which could indeed be discussed by the political forces and might require their consensus, it was paradoxical to discuss restoring order at a meeting of party leaders, when it is known that this is the executive’s responsibility in every country and under all circumstances. Even less time should have been devoted to this issue at the Nano-Shehu meeting, given that the country is now governed by a coalition in which the prime minister is a Socialist, while public order is in the hands of a “partisan” [word unclear in source]. Before asking Nano to disband the committees as a condition for holding normal elections, Shehu should first have made sure whether the Socialist leader had the necessary authority to persuade committee members to go home or hand in their weapons. Perhaps Shehu is asking for this in exchange for ordering the collection of the weapons distributed to activists of his party using a list. Making concessions over something that is not in your hands is the clearest warning that there is no point expecting a positive result. Judging by the tenor of the Nano-Shehu meeting, one gets the impression that it was mainly for propaganda purposes, at least to show the foreign guarantors that “we are trying to pursue dialogue,” or as if Nano and Shehu were asking each other to move across one-third or two-thirds of the country, if the “Berisha” division is to be taken as true. The outcome of this meeting, while representing an attempt to address the grievances of the other parties and other components, which felt inferior, is a major concern for Mr. Fino’s government, which is counting the days remaining until 29 June. In the emergency situation the country is facing, the outcome of such meetings cannot be justified by saying, “it was positive because the way was left open for further meetings.” This is about the “unyielding” stance of the party leaders, where it is clearly stated that the PD will also use its majority in parliament to block a change to the electoral law, even if the government tries to submit a bill to that effect. On the other hand, instead of merely calling for guarantees of the 9 March agreement, it could be used to ensure that the elections are held. G.J.

One day before the election campaigns in England. Reuters photo

Page 8

[Text cut off and partly illegible from the following page: fragments of words and lines, including “ar”, “në”, “lenti”, “etin”, “për”, “Dur-”, “rreth”, “të”, “ka”, “nga”, “eke,-”, “të”, “Ju”, “bi-ba-”, “përi,”, “heri-”, “rast,”, “rake”, “Mar-”, “dhur”, “gjojnë”, “e një”, “pozi-”, “rreth”, “i të”, “tike.”, “r të,”, “sh-”, “ble-”, “me-”, “n në”, “non-”, “teg-”, “e jo”, “edhe”; “EZA”; “PS”; then further illegible fragments, including “ën 5”, “dhe”, “itike”, “kohë”, “nen-”, “ulto-”, “na ai”, “ejtim”, “me”, “ikës”, “i një”, “PD”, “vje-”, “rjes”, “ës”, “idh-”, “të”, “ne-”, “në”, “PD”, “nga”, “ve.”, “kim”, “jera”, “për”, “jes e”, “jo”, “era”; and finally “NI”.