— From the Madrid meeting and the British Conservative Party Conference in London — The Madrid meeting of EDU and IDU was the fifth highest-level meeting of these very large and influential unions in European and world political life. EDU, or the European Democratic Union, includes representatives from all Western European countries and some of the new democracies. It operates as a distinct body within the IDU, the International Democratic Union, whose membership includes representatives from every continent. From our earliest days, the DP has maintained contacts with these two giants of political organization. Recently, we stepped up our efforts to join EDU. At the EDU executive meeting in Sofia in September 1992, its executive accepted the DP into the organization as a permanent observer, a status that gives the DP chairman the right to attend all meetings of EDU leaders and is the status closest to full membership. The Madrid meeting, attended by representatives from many countries in Europe and around the world, including presidents, prime ministers, party leaders, senators, ministers, and others, covered a wide range of topics, from introducing new full members (Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia) to European integration and security and environmental pollution. Speaking on behalf of the DP, after thanking them for the status, I gave a brief account of the progress of democratic processes in Albania, the DP’s policies, and its structures. I briefly tried to clarify the DP’s structure and internal democracy, how decisions are made, and how the DP functions. I also asked EDU to consider the possibility of the DP joining EDU as soon as possible, since we believe we meet all the requirements. EDU chairman Mr. Alois Mok took the request into consideration and asked that a special EDU commission come to Albania to take a closer look at the DP, with a view to enabling full membership as soon as possible. EDU and IDU offered a way and a plan for us to strengthen democracy, because in practice we would be present at the tables where important issues are discussed and opinions formed. We would be present where common European policy is discussed and drawn up. This is a major step forward toward political integration in Europe. We in the DP have taken our membership in EDU seriously, and I believe that the mission coming to Albania will be convinced that the DP deserves membership in EDU at the earliest opportunity. After Madrid, where I had the chance to take part in a historic moment for the DP, I set off for London at the invitation of the British Conservative Party, a member of EDU, to attend the British Conservative Party Conference, one of its interesting conventions. It was the 109th annual conference, where the party’s political platform is discussed. For me, it was very valuable to see in practice how democracy works in one of Europe’s oldest and most successful parties. Discussions within the party were already heated before the conference, but they intensified particularly on the first day. In an extremely charged atmosphere, the first arguments for and against Maastricht began. In fact, whether Maastricht is approved or not is now a key issue in all 12 countries of the European Community. The British came to this conference before the treaty was put before the British Parliament. At first, it seemed that the line opposing Maastricht would prevail, but after the vote, it was [?]—once the vote was held, it became clear that it remained in the minority. It was truly interesting and useful to see how the heated debates for and against within the party gave way to a vote that would decide the party line. The pro-Maastricht position won the vote. Nevertheless, debate continued, with arguments from various fields. The conference was organized around debates on specific areas: the economy, the military, foreign policy, finance, medicine, education, and so on. These party debates examined the policy being pursued and its prospects, and responded to criticisms from the opposition. Every minister who belonged to the Conservative Party took part in these debates, which were chaired by the party leadership. The minister delivered a report explaining his position, arguing for the actions taken, and setting out his objectives. Many party members discussed this platform until they reached a common view. Thus there was a very organic party-government relationship. Government officials considered themselves ministers of the Conservative Party and implemented its platform. Party members considered government officials part of their own group, people who needed their assistance, suggestions, and criticism, and so they moved forward together. Meanwhile, in the Conservative Party the leader is the prime minister, and the prime minister is also the party leader. Seeing at first hand how these relationships worked in one of Europe’s oldest and most successful parties (in government for four consecutive terms), I was reminded of some “criticisms” from our ideologues, who, in the name of the rule of law, preached the separation of government officials from the party, saying they had nothing to do with it. The concept of a party-state is far removed from the relationships between a party and government officials in a democratic society. They are fundamentally distinct, but severing their ties, mutual assistance, and criticism is not only absurd, but harmful to both levels—the government and the party. At the end of the conference, John Major spoke and was greeted with great applause. He made clear to those present that the Conservative Party was a winning party, thanked them for the discussions and debates, and called for unity. “When we TORIES stand together,” he said, “we are a force no one can withstand.” John Major later explained Maastricht, emphasizing England’s national interests. He used the words Britain and British 52 times in his speech. It seems that the beautiful dream of European unity will still take time. The biggest issue was a united Europe. The British favor a Europe that is not highly centralized, but is simply a common market. The conference ended amid a very festive atmosphere. Throughout, the BBC radio and TV station covered the conference of the party in power extensively. The press and public opinion did so as well. soon as possible. EDU (the European Democratic Union), of which we are now observers, is headquartered in Vienna and was founded as an organization in 1978. Its main aim was the struggle against communism. EDU was founded at a time when Nazism was in power in Europe, communism was on the offensive, and the European socialist parties were speaking increasingly about the convergence of systems. EDU disagreed with this policy; on the contrary, it called for a hard-line policy toward communism in order to defeat it rather than compromise with it. For this reason, they established this European union within the world union, supporting the administration of R. Reagan in its uncompromising struggle against communism. The collapse of communism and the danger it faced ten years later in the USSR and Eastern Europe clearly demonstrate that EDU’s political line was correct. EDU and IDU are organizations that bring together center and center-right political parties. Their essence is the preservation and development of humanity’s greatest values, and when they are strongly exposed to significant changes, they also emerge under the name conservative parties, distinguished by the care and attention they show toward traditions. At their beginnings, they defended the interests of society’s wealthy classes, believing that the wealthier the individual, the wealthier society would be. In the economic sphere, they support the market economy in its purest form and are distinguished by clear and highly successful economic policies. They oppose extensive state intervention in the economy and encourage private initiative. They have taken the economic reins of their countries at the most critical moments and are known for strong measures to emerge from crises. Their politicians are implacably opposed to communism and have made the principal contribution to the struggle against it. Although they are accused of lacking social policies and told that they know how to manage the economy but not solve people’s problems, their response is that there is no better social policy than economic success. They have played an important role in the process of European unification and are unquestionably the greatest economic force in Europe. EDU and IDU exist as two separate formations, but are closely connected. EDU’s working practice involves very strict rules for new membership and a highly orderly internal structure. In addition to the annual meeting of party leaders, special meetings are also held in the four main sections into which EDU is divided. These meetings discuss bilateral and multilateral issues, as well as the most fundamental political problems of the countries. The DP’s participation in this union is undoubtedly a major political victory for

The Bank of Albania de jure has branches in every district of the country. De facto, however, it has also had them in various world capitals: our diplomatic missions, with powers that even a real bank might envy, have carried out transactions on behalf of third parties without having funds. From their own funds, our embassies in Vienna, Paris, Rome, and Bonn made purchases and payments worth thousands of dollars during 1990–1992, which have not been reimbursed. This emerged from a general financial audit carried out during September by the Finance Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at these missions. At the Vienna embassy, as if its difficult financial situation were not enough (it has even received an interest-free loan worth $150,000 from the “Tyrolean” company), payments totaling about $108,000 were made in 1991 alone. The largest debtors are the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Transport. The official responsible for health affairs in Vienna ordered a payment of nearly $100,000 to be made from health funds. This was for 23 patients, without the necessary documentation confirming that they had been sent to Vienna for treatment. Medicines worth about $6,000 were also purchased and sent to Tirana, but their receipt has not been confirmed. Meanwhile, the embassy has unpaid invoices amounting to $451,800. During the period January 1991–August 1992, the embassy in Bonn advanced $33,788 to debtors in Albania, and the embassy in Paris advanced $77,805. The Rome embassy spent about $27,100 during January 1990–August 1992. Typical debtors, not only for this period but for many years running, are the former Central Committee of the PPSH, the Council of Ministers, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Foreign Trade. Payment documents were found at all the embassies for transactions on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well. The documents have not been reconciled between the embassies and the central ministry. With an order sent by fax or telex, these “banks” hand out loans with ease. These transactions cannot simply be called administrative exchanges, when it is already known that our embassies—primarily those in Vienna, Rome, and Paris—were, until the end of 1990, entirely “rear-echelon units” serving former members of the ruling bloc and their families. Their extensive correspondence is filled with long lists of goods and the most absurd requests, sent through the former Reception Directorate, now the Government Services Directorate. The facts presented relate to the last two or three years, a period when the embassies’ financial situation has been difficult and their ability to pay limited. Only the state’s meager budget knows what it has suffered for years because of transactions carried out through them. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, held responsible for these matters, answers the questions with concern: Will the expenses be reimbursed, or will the Ministry of Finance and Economy approve recognition of these liabilities? In any case, looking beyond the walls of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, one question cannot be ignored: Amateurism in finance, or professionalism in abuse? (ATSH)

Parliament through a teacher’s lens As the highest link in the chain and the foremost institution of our democratic state, Parliament performs, among other things, a very important educational function: its influence on social education at both the micro and macro levels is considerable. It is a force that suppresses evil, but can also pave the way for it. In this respect, Parliament as a whole, and MPs in particular, act as direct educators. They are a social and pedagogical force with a powerful influence on us and our children, on pupils and students, and on broad sectors and masses of people. These influences are diverse and far-reaching. They touch on various spheres of our activity as citizens, whether fully formed or still developing. Their impact is evident in the political, economic, and social spheres, and especially in our understanding and observance of the law. Such influences have not only intellectual value; in many cases, they also carry volitional and emotional value. Their genuinely educational values are particularly striking. The substance of Parliament’s proceedings; discussions, debates, and replies; the organization and conduct of sessions; the discipline, order, and ethics of communication among MPs; every aspect or small detail of activity inside and outside Parliament conveys education as a whole, but also its particular aspects. It has been observed that the most tangible are moral and civic education, patriotic education, intellectual education, work education, and aesthetic education. This ranking classifies these aspects of education according to the degree of influence Parliament’s proceedings have on each. When it comes to moral and civic education and patriotic education—the two aspects ranked as the most important, and those on which Parliament has the greatest influence—students, in conversations with them, value such character traits in MPs as honesty and sincerity, responsibility and dedication, courage and determination, being principled and consistent, simplicity, and good manners. They express admiration for an MP who possesses these qualities; who makes no concessions when it comes to the national cause and the fate of the country; who proceeds unwaveringly along the path of democracy; who does not back down and does not retreat in the face of difficulties; who feels responsible for the successful progress of reform and supports it with dedication; who does not separate words from deeds. But who also speaks openly; who with

Nationwide popular protest for Albanian-language schools in Kosovo In Prishtina and other towns and localities, public, peaceful and non-violent demonstrations were held throughout the country in support of Albanian-language education, with the fundamental demand that the schools and the University of Prishtina, closed to Albanians by the Serbian police regime, be reopened. The capital of Kosovo resounded with applause and chants: “We want schools, we want a university,” “The schools are ours,” “Schools without locks,” “Violence out of the schools,” “Police out of the schools,” “Open the schools,” “Long live the university,” “Freedom, Peace, Freedom-Democracy,” and others. According to reports from the ground, Serbian police forces also carried out brutal interventions during the nationwide protest, mistreating, beating, and arresting demonstrators. In Pejë, for example, Serbian police beat and wounded more than 120 young people, some of whom were hospitalized. In Istog, police wounded one demonstrator with gunfire. There were also numerous arrests in this town, as well as in Klinë, Malishevë, and elsewhere. Reports of violence and arrests by police during and after the protest in defense of Albanian-language education continue to arrive from the ground.

On 9 October 1992, the draw for “RD Lottery - 2” was held in the presence of a commission composed of the following gentlemen: 1. Luan Malltezi — Chair (Director at the State Archives) 2. Mehmet Elezi — member (journalist at the newspaper “Bashkimi”) 3. Bashkim Trnova — member (Editor-in-Chief of the newspaper “RD”) 4. Xhevat Mustafa — member (Secretary of the editorial board of the newspaper “RD”) 5. Adem Durma — member (Atarici) 6. Halim Agimi — member (Administrator of the newspaper “RD”) 7. Kasem Seferi — representative of the Central Lottery Commission at the Ministry of Finance and Economy. The following winning numbers were drawn: a) First prize No. 189.172 — wins 66,000 lek b) “ second prize No. 142.687 — “ “ 34,000 c) “ third prize No. 125.071 — “ “ 7,000 d) Fourth prizes No. 067.528 — “ “ 3,300 “ “ No. 017.642 — “ “ 3,300 “ “ No. 198.645 — “ “ 3,300 “ “ No. 017.779 — “ “ 3,300 “ “ No. 182.483 — “ “ 3,300 “ “ No. 225.020 — “ “ 3,300 “ “ No. 031.472 — “ “ 3,300 “ “ No. 174.741 — “ “ 3,300 All numbers belonging to unsold tickets were excluded from the draw. Note: 1. Of the 300,000 tickets printed in advance, about 40 percent were sold. For this reason, the winning prizes were set in proportion to the tickets sold. 2. Holders of winning tickets should present themselves at the editorial office of the newspaper “RD,” 49 “Asim Vokshi” Street, Tirana. FROM THE “RD LOTTERY 2” COMMISSION