A question mark: WILL ALL ALBANIANS BECOME OWNERS?! Interview by our editor Dedë Kola with PS MP doc. Anastas Angjeli - Why the strategy and practice of privatization must be brought before Parliament - A decision that could pave the way for speculation and corruption - Privatization under the supervision of SHIK and the Ministry of Public Order!? Question: Recently in Parliament, you raised concerns about the progress of the privatization process. More specifically, what is your opinion on this? - This is not merely my opinion: the transition to a market economy is fundamentally based on privatization, and it is now clear to all political forces here that privatizing the economy, primarily through its privatization, is the essential moment determining the fate of economic reform in our country. From the outset, I want to emphasize once again that I have supported and continue to support the privatization of the economy. Indeed, as far as the privatization of small and medium-sized enterprises is concerned, I would say that we are already late. The progress of this process, its methods, paths, forms, legal framework and implementation in practice, alongside the other areas in which reform is taking place, will determine the future of the Albanian economy. From this perspective, any mistake made today could cost us dearly tomorrow. The concerns being raised about this process relate first and foremost to a number of general problems, especially the legal framework concerning the privatization of the economy. First: It has repeatedly been requested that the Albanian Parliament be presented with the Government’s program for the development of economic reform, its stages, the necessary legal framework, and so on, for approval. It is said that there is a program, even a draft drawn up together with the IMF, and that the results achieved so far in economic reform, according to the program, will be even greater in the future. Would it not be normal to present these successful programs, which the world describes to us, to Parliament and, through it, to the people, so that they can be informed and better assured? Of course it would. Then why this lack of transparency, concealment, and fear of publication and debate? Regarding the privatization of enterprises, I do not know whether such actions are constitutional. Second: The same thing is happening with the privatization process. You were recently informed that the Government had issued a decision (No. 248, dated 27.5.1993) on “Some measures to support…” The proposals concerning this issue are: - It is essential and urgent that the strategy for continuing the process of privatizing the economy in our country be submitted to Parliament and approved by it. - The establishment and operation of these enterprises is regulated by law; therefore, their privatization must also be carried out by law. - This process must also be accompanied by the necessary legal framework, since privatization cannot be carried out simply through “good intentions,” but through action. - The distribution of the proceeds from this process under the Government decision also appears, in some respects, to conflict with the general law on the Budget and the State Budget for this year. - Finally, the experience and practice of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe show that these processes must bear Parliament’s seal. Question: More specifically, which laws do you mean are necessary for the privatization process? - Amendments to change the existing law have been before Parliament for some time for approval: “On the sanctioning and protection of private property, free enterprise, independent activity and privatization, and on foreign investment.” Parliament returned them to the Government, with the explicit promise that they were essential for economic reform and privatization, but that they would have to be brought before Parliament after the issue of former owners’ property rights had been resolved by law. But even after that was done, these amendments did not reappear in Parliament, and… suddenly the Government’s decision on “Some measures to speed up the privatization of small and medium-sized enterprises” emerged. Thus, alongside a law on the general privatization strategy, the principal laws (the relevant amendments) that must be approved by Parliament include the one independent activity and privatization,” since many elements of… (Continued on page 3)

DASHK’IM ZENELI Deputy Chairman of the Foreign Policy Commission of the People’s Assembly In recent days, the President of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Gligorov, gave an interview to the Czech newspaper «Ceshki Dnevnik», in which he openly declared that Albanians would not be recognized as a state-forming element. Indeed, he treats Albanians as a minority that arrived there from elsewhere. The 75-year-old President, Gligorov, has now spoken openly. I say “now” because, at least publicly, until today he has kept circling around the issue with general phrases and general commitments. He has always left it to be understood that something would be done. We Albanians, both here and in Macedonia, have not asked for just anything; we have asked that the population of 800 thousand Albanians be recognized as a state-forming element, and not merely within a humanitarian framework of fundamental rights and freedoms. There is nothing surprising about the fact that one day the icy Gligorov, with his metallic undertone, would speak as he did. In his speech at the UN in April this year, he said that «Macedonia today is the homeland of the Macedonian people; of Albanians, Turks, Serbs, Roma, Vlachs and representatives of other nationalities». Thus, only the Macedonians are a people, while he equates Albanians with other minorities! And when Mr. Arbnor was in Macedonia, the chairman of the Macedonian parliament, at a press conference, was asked about the right of Albanians to be a constituent element and replied: «This matter is regulated by the constitution, and changing the constitution is not under consideration at present.» Both statements were published in the newspaper «Flaka e Vëllazërimit» dated 11 April 1993. Up to this point, several exchanges of visits by senior officials of the two countries had taken place. There had also been several meetings between President Berisha and President Gligorov. I recall the last meeting, when the Tushemisht border crossing was inaugurated, and the press conference held by the two presidents. Without prejudging the other occasions, at that meeting Berisha spoke openly and clearly, repeatedly calling for Albanians to be recognized as a state-forming element. Gligorov, meanwhile, talked around the issue again and again. The time came to discuss Albania’s recognition of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. President Berisha sought the views of the parliamentary political parties. We, too, as the Socialist Party, did not oppose recognition at that meeting and stressed that the admission of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to the UN was an opportunity to avoid total isolation and to… (Continued on page 4)

- From the press conference of the President of the Republic, organized yesterday in Tirana - At midday yesterday, President of the Republic Sali Berisha held a press conference with journalists. As expected, the main subject of this press conference became the political situation that has arisen! The opposing sides took different positions on the issue of the Constitution. At the press conference, Mr. Berisha also addressed other problems in the Balkans. According to the decisions taken by the deputies of the three parties in recent days, he called the reason for this departure unacceptable and artificial. It seems that the departure of the Social Democratic Party deputies from Parliament has caused problems for the party in power, because perhaps it had hoped for their support, as on other occasions. Now we must wait and see whether after… Yesterday at midday, President of the underworld the main subject of this press conference was the political crisis in our country and Berisha also addressed issues concerning the situation in the Balkans. Would the president support the PD parliamentary group’s intolerant position on the Constitution, or would he make an effort to reach a compromise or a final agreement? That was the question the president did not answer. In his answers, the president laid bare the circles’ lack of tolerance and desire for dialogue on an issue that was never the Constitution. Did he justify and support the delays and abuses committed so far with the draft Constitution? Asked how he viewed the Social Democratic Party parliamentary group’s departure from Parliament, Mr. Berisha replied that it was a hasty decision by that party’s MPs. “I am sorry,” he said, “because this party has made a positive contribution in Parliament, and I hope it will reconsider its decision.” Leaving Parliament is unacceptable, he went on, speaking about the departure from Parliament. Regarding the departure of the Socialist Party parliamentary group, the president did not comment directly. But he tried to use the method of a saboteur against this party, saying that certain elements seeking to advance their careers were looking for a pretext to block reforms, democracy and Parliament through destructive actions. “The greatest absurdity,” the president said, “was when they rose up against the law on human rights.” The departure was an irresponsible act intended to block Parliament and leave the country without a Constitution. Leaving Parliament is merely ... the deserters are not supported by the people. As can be seen, the president’s language was harsh. But the people still remember the departure of the Democratic Party parliamentary group from the Assembly a year and a half ago. (Continued on page 4)

concerned, I would say that we are somewhat late. The progress of this process, its methods, paths and forms, the legal framework and its practical implementation, privatization of small and medium-sized enterprises, the composition of the privatization boards in the districts is being produced by people in power from the PD, who are known to have come from…? …in relation to… The first period… from this party’s personnel offices or from the state party. The first period of the state party’s rule is still alive. Communist monism, dressed in a democratic veneer, will be guided through these boards by the monist slogan “Politics first.” The Government’s decision “On the privatization of small and medium-sized enterprises” will leave the keys to the local authorities, which will be dominated by the socialists. The formation of the boards that will carry out this privatization has clear political motives, because “unintentionally” a guarantee has been created that at least 12 members will belong to the PD, not counting its chairman in each district. They are: 1. Chairman of the Privatization Agency (PD) 2. District secretary (PD) 3. Secretary of the central municipality (PD) 4. Director of the Agriculture Directorate (PD) the State Audit Branch (PD) 7. Head of the Tax Office (PD) 8. Bank director (PD) 9. Head of the Financial Police (PD) 10. Head of SHIK (PD) 11. Head of Public Order (PD) 12. Head of the Employment Office (PD) All twelve are appointed from above, that is, by the PD. Although the other board members vary from district to district, in every case the PD “unintentionally” secures an absolute majority of the votes. A concrete example is Fier. Although the PS holds most of the local power, of the 25 members on the privatization board in this district, only 9 belong to the PS. This Government decision does not resolve the contradictions between local authorities throughout the country, dominated by the socialists, and the central government, dominated by the democrats; on the contrary, it deepens them. Lengthy comments are pointless. known to have come from… The voice of the citizens and of… regarding the privatization processes… for… assured? In my opinion, and according to the arguments from the most… viewpoints, there are… an economic-legal aspect and a practical one; assessing it this way, the process is more secure. (The force and stability of the law are greater than those of a… .) This is because, from both the economic-legal and practical points of view, assessing it in this way makes the process greater than those of a…).

In a… 225 families, who came from various centers, from Macka [??], made up of NB, were left… Everyone… out in the field, without any… They… in the face of injustices and… concerning the division of land and directed… with… high… democratic… through petitions and… For… Berisha and… cal… … At the reception, for… after…

- The PS parliamentary group continues its preparatory work on the Constitution - The discussion on the Constitution begun by the Socialist parliamentary group entered its third day yesterday. Yesterday it was the turn of renowned jurists and well-known constitutional law experts, who in their responses dwelt at length on an analysis of the procedures to be followed to discuss and approve the Constitution expected to be brought before Parliament by the Constitutional Commission. This analysis by the renowned constitutional law experts clearly identifies, ...? ... The greatest problem is ... in the debate ... between the specialists ... and the MPs was ... the transfer of the right to the Constitution to a ... (Article 18, point 2 of the ... Constitutional) ... for example, a Constituent Assembly ... ... The version ... ... Constitutional ... ... (Correspondent for «Zëri i Popullit»)

The membership of the privatization boards in the districts is being made up of people in power from the PSD, who are known to have come out of this party’s personnel offices… 5. Director of the Education Directorate (PD) 6. Head of the State Audit Branch (PD)

All members of the General Governing Committee of the PPSH are hereby notified that a meeting of this Committee will be held on Monday, 28.6.1993, at 10:00. The Presidium of the PPSH