Informazione
Fede, madre, pane, fucili.
I morti lo sanno.
I vivi non dimenticheranno.
Fiumi di sangue
divisero due Popoli.
Li unisce oggi
il sacrificio
dei Compagni migliori
Compagno,
quando vedrai piangere mia madre,
dille di non piangere.
Non sono solo.
Giace con me
un Compagno jugoslavo.
Nessuno ardisca gettare fango
sul sangue versato
nella lotta comune.
Se ne è andato l’ultimo nostro Partigiano
NELLO MARIGNOLI
Radiotelegrafista della Marina militare italiana, Combattente nell’Esercito popolare di liberazione jugoslavo, Presidente onorario del Comitato provinciale Anpi Viterbo
Alle 4,30 di questa mattina, presso l’Ospedale di Belcolle, ricoverato a seguito di un’insufficienza renale, è morto Nello Marignoli. Nato a Viterbo, il 19 aprile 1923, figlio di Giuseppe, benzinaio - gommista presso viale Raniero Capocci, Nello è arruolato il 26 gennaio 1942 nella Regia marina militare italiana, in qualità di radiotelegrafista. Nel maggio dell’anno successivo è inviato sul Fronte greco - albanese, a bordo del dragamine Rovigno, ove ha compiuto cinque missioni. L’Armistizio lo sorprende al porto di Valona. Proprio in qualità di marconista aveva captato la notizia dalle emissioni ad onde corte di Radio Cairo. Portata l’informazione in plancia, il Comandante in seconda gli aveva puntato la pistola intimandogli di non divulgare quello che considerava solo un messaggio della propaganda nemica. Il 12 settembre i tedeschi salgono direttamente sulla nave e chiedono ai marinai chi vuole passare immediatamente a combattere per il Terzo Reich. Solo uno aderirà; gli altri saranno fatti prigionieri. Marignoli è internato in Bosnia, nei campi di concentramento di Dubrovnik, Zitomislici e Citluk, dove, tra sofferenze, soprusi e privazioni d’ogni tipo, svolge la professione di vulcanizzatore, cioè riparatore di gomme. Grazie ad uno stratagemma organizzato dall’Esercito popolare di liberazione jugoslavo (Eplj) tramite infiltrazioni nel campo di concentramento, Marignoli riesce ad evadere nell’agosto 1944. A Mostar, gli ufficiali jugoslavi gli propongono di entrare nella Lotta di liberazione. Proprio nel passaggio alla Resistenza, si ritrova in un accampamento con diverse migliaia di alpini della Divisione Tuarinense, in procinto di diventare la Taurinense - Garibaldi. Così, in un esercito che per le comunicazioni si serviva delle staffette, Marignoli diviene radiotelegrafista presso la X Brigata Herzegovaska dell’Eplj. Prende parte a diverse battaglie sul fronte di Bileca, Dubrovnik, Mostar e Sarajevo sino a raggiungere Trieste, la città contesa, nel maggio 1945. Durante la Resistenza, Marignoli è stato, altresì, testimone dei crimini commessi dal nazifascismo contro le popolazioni balcaniche e contro i soldati italiani stessi, dopo l’8 Settembre. Farà ritorno a piedi e in autostop sino a Roma, per giungere a Viterbo con il treno della Roma nord. Al posto però della casa, in via Garibaldi, troverà un cumulo di macerie, in una città semidistrutta dai bombardamenti alleati. A riconoscerlo, un cugino di secondo grado, Domenico Morelli, che lo accompagnerà dalla madre, sfollata con tutta la famiglia in via delle Piagge, nel quartiere di S. Faustino.
Per i meriti di guerra, Marignoli, riconosciuto con il grado di Maresciallo, conseguirà la Medaglia di bronzo, la Croce di guerra e la Qualifica di Partigiano combattente all’estero, dal Ministero degli interni. Dal Presidente della Repubblica federativa socialista jugoslava, Josip Broz Tito, riceverà, nel 1964, la “Spomen medalju”, la Medaglia commemorativa in ricordo della Lotta partigiana nel territorio jugoslavo.
Da civile, Marignoli riprenderà l’apprezzata attività di gommista. Da pensionato otterrà, quindi, il Leone del Comune per l’impegno nell’imprenditoria.
Iscrittosi all’Anpi nell’immediato Secondo dopoguerra, ha partecipato assiduamente all’attività dell’Associazione, presenziando alle cerimonie pubbliche, finché le condizioni di salute glielo hanno consentito. Nel Congresso del 29 gennaio 2011, difatti, il Comitato provinciale Anpi lo ha eletto Presidente onorario.
In questi anni l’Anpi si è impegnata a divulgare l’esperienza di Marignoli, promuovendo e sostenendo pubblicazioni cartacee, audiovisive e drammaturgiche. Dieci anni fa uscivano le sue memorie di guerra, scritte su invito del figlio Massimo e curate dall’on. Angelo La Bella (Diario di guerra di Nello Marignoli, Radiotelegrafista della Marina Militare, Partigiano combattente all’estero, Viterbo, Anpi Comitato provinciale, 2004). Tre anni dopo, veniva prodotta una docuintervista (Mio fratello Gojko, Intervista a Nello Marignoli, partigiano viterbese combattente in Jugoslavia, di Giuliano Calisti e Francesco Giuliani, Dvd_Italia_2007_60’). Nel 2008, su iniziativa del Comitato provinciale Arci, le vicende di Marignoli si inserivano in un progetto per la salvaguardia della memoria partigiana locale. Ne sortivano uno spettacolo teatrale - musicale, La Cerimonia, di Ferdinando Vaselli, e una mostra audiofotografica, Morale della favola, a cura di Daniele Vita, che riceverà il premio Epson - Le Logge, completate da una monografia (Morale della favola, Raccontare la Resistenza oggi, a cura di Marco Trulli, Roma, Purple Press, 2009). È del 2012 il debutto dello spettacolo Drug Gojko, di e con Pietro Benedetti, per la regia di Elena Mozzetta, il cui testo è stato pubblicato presso l’editore Ghaleb: un monologo teatrale interamente dedicato all’esperienza bellica di Marignoli, con all’attivo ormai decine e decine di repliche e migliaia di spettatori in giro per l’Italia e presto, auspichiamo, anche all‘estero. Sempre nel 2012, i trascorsi resistenziali di Marignoli sono inseriti in un volume collettaneo di respiro nazionale con le testimonianze dei partigiani ancora in vita (Io Sono l’ultimo, Lettere di partigiani italiani, a cura di Stefano Faure, Andrea Liparoto e Giacomo Papi, Torino, Einaudi, 2012, pp. 214-219).
Con Nello se ne va l’ultimo Combattente partigiano di Viterbo. Per noi viene a mancare una figura umana esemplare, una testimonianza resistenziale eroica proprio perché priva di retorica e di autocelebrazione, un’esistenza onesta segnata dal proprio lavoro nell‘artigianato, senza prebende o vantaggi dati dalla politica. Il Partigiano Nello è stato tutto questo, “e poi.., quello che te dico è poco”.
Facciamo le condoglianze ai figli: Claudio, Giuseppe, Massimo, ai familiari e ai parenti tutti.
Invitiamo la cittadinanza a partecipare all’Ultimo saluto, domani, lunedì 24, ore 10,30, presso la Chiesa del Sacro Cuore al quartiere Pilastro.
Silvio Antonini
Presidente Cp Anpi Viterbo
23 novembre 2014
http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/206019-eu-foreign-crisis-kosovo/
‘EU foreign missions open to abuse, bribery, financial crime’ – Kosovo prosecutor
The EU’s biggest foreign crisis mission, expected to tackle corruption in troubled Kosovo, has itself become a target of bribe-taking allegations. Maria Bamieh, the prosecutor who shed light on the crimes within the EULEX program, is on SophieCo today, to talk about who’s to blame and why the EU still hasn’t properly investigated her revelations.
Sophie Shevarnadze: Prosecutor, member of the EU Rule of Law Mission to Kosovo Maria Bamieh. Welcome to the show, it’s great to have you with us. Now, you accused top officials who were part of the EULEX mission in Kosovo of corruption and taking bribes. Did you confront them right away?
Maria Bamieh: No, I didn’t. I confronted one of them in 2012 as I was reporting the evidence that I’ve found to the Head of Justice. Myself and my direct manager, line manager both went to see him as a result of the interceptions that I came by innocently, and one of the perpetrators was in his room and I was made to confront her directly. The main perpetrator, Judge Florit (former chairman of EULEX’ Assembly of Judges - RT), I didn’t confront directly. I thought EULEX were investigating the matter, but I subsequently found out they weren’t, but recently on KTV in Kosovo I confronted the other perpetrator directly.
SS: But you voiced your corruption concerns back in 2012. Why is it only getting attention now?
MB: It’s only getting attention now because following my report of corruption I suffered victimisation by one of the persons involved who continued to be my second line manager. Then it came to the point where I was being interviewed for my own position and she was sitting on the panel. And with the greatest of respect, if she was innocent she would have hated me, and if she was guilty she would have hated me. So she shouldn’t have been on the panel at all. I objected, and then there was a second selection exercise where two of senior colleagues who worked closely to her were on the panel. Now, on this panel some of the candidates apart from myself were very strong candidates with tons of prosecution experience, but then they just selected a few friends which they had gone on holidays with, which they had gone to visit the Pope with, just a week before my interview. And I was not selected. There were some hard-hitting American DAs who had applied – they were not selected, it was only the friends. I accepted that, I was ready to go, and then they came and frog-marched me out of the building as if I were a criminal, with two security staff, and said that I committed an act of gross misconduct. I hadn’t done anything. Then I discovered they were alleging that I leaked documents to a newspaper, which I had never done: the journalist has confirmed to everybody that I just never was his source. Furthermore, in EULEX documents are being leaked on a daily basis that had nothing to do with me. So there’s obviously someone within EULEX who’s leaking information, but they just jumped to a conclusion that it was me, without a shred of evidence. Kosovo is a small place and everybody talks, everybody would have thought that I’ve done something terribly wrong, and the only way I could explain my position was by going public about what had happened within EULEX. It was not done out of revenge, it was not done out of maliciousness, it was done to protect my own reputation.
SS: But back then, when you actually said that there was something wrong, did you know why the case wasn’t moving along, or did you perhaps not realize?
MB: Well, no, I didn’t know that the case was not moving along. I drafted my indictment in that case in the firm belief that there was an internal investigation going on. My first line manager believed that they were investigating. It was only till some time later that I realized nothing had been done about the first case. And then, when I discovered the bribes that the family were claiming that bribes had been paid to this judge, my officers went to see head of mission, and initially he refused to investigate. Then my two police officers, one from America, one from Belgium, told them in no uncertain terms that it would look bad for EULEX if they did not investigate, so in 2013 they opened preliminary investigation into the judge, half-heartedly, because then the judge was under investigation by a task force. But the line managers invited him in for a quiet chat – I don’t know why they needed to speak to him while they were investigating him, the investigated should’ve only been spoken to by the investigating officers – and then when I looked on the act in the Kosovo programme, he quite clearly had been given confidential investigation documents. I could not believe that they had passed this information to him.
SS: Tell me something – were highly placed EU officials covering the case? How far up did that go?
MB: I think this scandal goes all the way to the Civilian Commander’s Office. Because there is no way…
SS: Hm. And what’s in it for them?
MB: Oh no, I don’t say that the Civilian Commander was corrupt. The hiding of the complaint and the failure to deal with it goes up to the Civilian Commander’s Office. In relation to the officials, I believe that there was a scam that just didn’t involve my two cases, but involved a number of cases under investigation whereby they were just milking suspects and defendants for money for manipulating the judicial process.
SS: But why didn’t you take your concerns to Brussels straight away, or at least now, instead of going to the press?
MB: Because they wouldn’t listen.
SS: How do you know?
MB: I wrote to the Civilian Commander, I sent e-mails to Alexis Hupen, I sent e-mails to a number of people in the Civilian Commander’s Office. I believe that they just covered this up and they did not pass it in the chain of command. Although I cannot say what they did or didn’t do, it’ll be a matter for them to answer you as to what they actually did with the information I gave them.
SS: Tell me something, have you been intimidated? Has anyone tried to intimidate you?
MB: Have I been intimidated? Of course, I have! They brought a parking investigation against me. When everyone just gets a little warning on the e-mail, “Please don’t do it again”, I went through a full-scale investigation. There is evidence of people from Brussels under the influence of alcohol overturning cars, and they didn’t investigate them. There is evidence that the mayor of Pristina wrote to EULEX about an illegally parked vehicle, which happened to belong to a very senior member of staff close to the head of mission – nothing happened. But for me, I had to have a full-scale investigation when I parked outside my house, no inconvenience to anybody – it just did not make sense. Then I was attacked constantly by the second line manager I had complained against.
SS: Do you believe there are other cases of corruption other than the bribes that you witnessed?
MB: Yes, there are. I hope that this is not widespread.
SS: Do you feel the media attention to the case will help bring about justice?
MB: Well, I certainly hope that some lessons can be learned from all of this. I don’t know what the terms of reference of the new EU investigator are and whether they are wide enough to cover all the issues surrounding the conduct of high EULEX officials, but that is something that I have to wait and see.
SS: EULEX was planned to stay for two years, but it’s been in Kosovo for seven years. Now, you’ve been there all the time. Is it working?
MB: I think, having EULEX in Kosovo is important. It does create stability and it is one of the mechanisms, I hope, that will help Kosovo to develop and help the various communities living and working in Kosovo. But there is another side to EULEX, which appears to me to be a bit totalitarian in a manner which I have been treated.
SS: Like you’ve said, it does seem like EULEX is behaving like it thinks it is above the law.
MB: Absolutely.
SS: And some would argue that EULEX is now part of the problem, rather than solution in Kosovo.
MB: The problem really is that they haven’t been open and transparent, and people just don’t trust them. When it comes to their own staff, they treat them appallingly. They do not recognize the rights of staff, they preach rule of law and don’t practice rule of law. And when you behave in that manner, you lose credibility with the people, because you cannot give a message that it’s OK to hide corruption, not in Kosovo, anywhere. But you cannot give a message that people who report corruption, that you can penalize them or dismiss them, or treat them appallingly, because you believe they have no legal rights. You cannot behave like that, not in this day and age, no.
SS: Moreover, Kosovo opposition politicians, they insist that corruption has only grown under EULEX. Do you feel the same?
MB: I don’t think it’s grown and I don’t think it’s diminished. There is still tons of corruption. You have to understand, in Kosovo, it’s almost endemic in the culture. In order to get a contract, you have to pay a percentage, in order to do business with THIS person, you have to pay THAT. If you want to win a tender, you get friends to intermediate, to get a percentage or to win the tender. I mean, it’s in the Kosovo health system with the drugs, it’s everywhere you look. There is corruption in every sector of life. But the ordinary people live very poor and frugal lives. And, quite honestly, the corruption in Kosovo… EULEX being there to deal with corruption in Kosovo hasn’t improved the lives of the ordinary people.
SS: From what you’re saying, it seems to me that EULEX mission is kind of useless.
MB: Well, it’s not as effective as it could be, and really is not effective as it should be.
SS: In volatile regions like Kosovo, corruption is often part of the culture, it’s part of the mentality. So can a rule of law mission change that around?
MB: I believe, a rule of law mission can change that around, but it will not be just through prosecutions and convictions, although those will be an important part, but it would be by looking at other areas, where you encourage people to come forward and report. By making sure you have proper witness protection schemes, by making sure that people who do come forward are not penalized if they happen to work in one of the government institutions, by huge media campaigns, education in the schools and in the universities to help future generations break out of that culture. It’s the whole system change…
SS: Is it happening within the EULEX mission?
MB: I don’t believe so, but you’re welcome to ask them.
SS: But since you worked with them.
MB: Well, I work in the judicial side, I’ve seen some media campaigns, but they have a central bank, they don’t have the kind of regulation, internal regulation like we do in the UK or the US, or Germany, or France. So, a lot of corruption goes behind the scenes through the banking system. And also I don’t know what programmes, if any there are, in the schools to change the mentality of accepting corruption as the price of living in Kosovo.
SS: The EU has also missions similar to the one in Kosovo, in Ukraine, Afghanistan, Palestine, number of African countries. How big is the danger of corruption in all these schemes? You know the system from inside, that’s why I’m asking.
MB: Well, I think, the EU is open to abuse, and I’ll explain to you why. And this would apply to all the missions. They are liable to have abuses in any one of these missions, because there is no oversight and there is no accountability beyond their respective Civilian Commanders.
SS: But how come, why is there no accountability? Why is there no public oversight of those?
MB: Well. That’s the way the EU planned these missions, that’s the way they did the structure. It’s never made sense to me, that anyone can hide information. Say, a colleague of mine wrote to the Member State Committee, the permanent social committee at the EEAS, their demission came and took his letter, said: “No, no, no, internal matter, not for you to deal with, leave it with me, I’ll sort it out.” So, whilst the Member States agree the direction of the mission and the various missions carry out the direction the Member States want, the Member States do not get to hear of the day-to-day matters that occur in the various missions, and therefore matters can hidden from them and from the Parliament. There is no independent oversight that maybe could report directly to the Parliament or directly to the head of the EAS, the External Action Service. Even the ombudsman, the EU ombudsman has difficulties finding anyone to accept responsibility when issues arise. The External Action Service says ‘no assets to Council’, the Council says ‘no assets to External Action Service’, nobody provides documents to enable the ombudsman to do his job. Even basic data protection – I asked for documents they had that contain my name, which I’m entitled to by law. They didn’t respond, I’m going to have to go court to have these documents, but that’s the kind of thing that’s lacking within the structure.
SS: But also, all the money that’s being spent on these missions, I know Kosovo mission is about one billion dollars. Is it worth it, does anyone even know where it all goes? I mean, as a taxpayer are you willing to fund this?
MB: Personally, I do believe there is considerable wastage within this mission. For example, these downsizing exercises that they’ve had – they had one two years ago, they had another one this time. Everybody spends the first month sitting on interviews for their own jobs. Then they spend the next three months being on panels for interviews for other people’s job. Why that could not be done as a paper exercise based on performance, I do not know. Another example. We had a case of medics, which involved organ trafficking – very important case. I do not detract from that, but the prosecutor went to Israel so many times, to America a number of times, to Turkey, globe-trotting in order to make this case succeed. This case ended up with a conviction of a six month sentence. That is all. So value for money, the amount of they went in the case, compared to the sentence that was achieved, whereas other people within the unit, for example, myself, I’ve never taken a duty trip to gather evidence. Yeah, I’ve got sentences of 25 years, 15 years, 5 years, without having to waste money on travelling round the world to get evidence. And they should be in audit of how we investigate our cases or whether the resources are properly applied to the cases. There is just two examples of it, you sit with me for another hour - go through many more, where there is wastage within the EU.
SS: Maria Bamieh, thank you for this interview, we were talking about EU mission scandal in Kosovo. Thanks a lot for this interesting insight. That’s it for this edition of SophieCo, we’ll see you next time.
KOSOVO: Kajtazi, “Dall’inchiesta su EULEX dipende la credibilità dell’UE”
Sospetti di corruzione a carico di alti funzionari e responsabili di giustizia di Eulex, la missione europea in Kosovo, sono stati denunciati da Maria Bamieh, procuratore britannico della stessa Eulex. A riferirlo e’ il quotidiano di Pristina Koha Ditore. Bamieh avrebbe raccolto in particolare elementi su almeno tre inchieste penali chiuse da funzionari Eulex in cambio di denaro. La stessa Bamieh e’ stata sospesa nei giorni scorsi e accusa la missione europea di voler insabbiare lo scandalo. EastJournal ha intervistato il giornalista Vehbi Kajtazi, autore di una serie di articoli investigativi sulle accuse di corruzione pubblicati sul quotidiano kosovaro Koha Ditore.
Vehbi Kajtazi, sembra che abbiate scoperto uno scandalo all’interno di EULEX. Si sospetta che alcuni magistrati abbiano preso contatti e soldi per “chiudere” questioni giudiziarie. Può dirci come è iniziato tutto questo? Come ha avuto sentore di questo scandalo?
Come giornalista lavoro all’investigazione sulla corruzione e la criminalità di alto livello, come nei casi in cui sono inclusi i politici e alti funzionari di governo, avevo una conoscenza generale su molte inchieste giudiziarie, su cui ho anche scritto. Ho seguito i noti casi “Sekiraca”, di Ilir Tolaj (ex alto funzionario) o Fatmir Limaj (ex comandante dell’UCK), perciò sono sempre alla ricerca di indizi sulla corruzione. In questo caso avevo sentito che qualcuno aveva pagato delle tangenti, ma non avevo ancora alcuna prova concreta. Circa tre settimane prima della pubblicazione del primo articolo sono riuscito a scovare alcuni file che gettano forti dubbi in merito alla partecipazione di EULEX in attività di corruzione in cambio della chiusura di diversi casi importanti come quelli di cui sopra ho citato. I documenti che ho li ho ottenuti dalle mie fonti all’interno di EULEX, come ho anche altri numerosi file nel corso degli anni”.
Kajtazi, l’ex procuratore internazionale di Eulex, la britannica Maria Bamieh, è l’unica “testimone” che ha confermato il coinvolgimento nella corruzione dei suoi colleghi nei ministeri e giudici EULEX. Ma ci sono altri testimoni che vogliono parlare?
Il Procuratore internazionale Maria Bamieh in Kosovo è venuto prima dell’avvento della missione EULEX. Lei faceva parte della missione ONU, UNMIK, nel 2007. Lady Bamieh è uno dei pubblici ministeri internazionali di maggior successo che ha lavorato in Kosovo. Oltre 30 casi gravi sono stati oggetto delle sue indagini. Lady Bamieh non aveva mai parlato pubblicamente di corruzione prima della pubblicazione del mio primo pezzo su Koha Ditore il 27 ottobre. Tre giorni prima della pubblicazione, Lady Bamieh è stata sospesa. Certo quando è stata sbattuta fuori dal suo ufficio e gli sono stati presi tutti i file, ha parlato prima con me e poi per molti altri media. Io credo che dentro Eulex ci sono altri funzionari che vogliono parlare. Mi aspetto che alcuni entrino in contatto. Ciò sebbene la missione EULEX abbia adottato alcune misure di austerità dopo lo scandalo per impedire il flusso di documenti e di cooperazione con i giornalisti, in particolare con me”.
Se non esiste una voce qualcosa c’è, dice un proverbio albanese. Lei pensa che ci sarà un’indagine approfondita su questa materia? E come ha visto la prima reazione delle istituzioni internazionali?
EULEX e alcune istituzioni dell’Unione europea sono stati a conoscenza almeno una settimana prima della pubblicazione della prima parte del caso su cui stavo lavorando. Inizialmente hanno deciso di non dichiarare niente su questo tema. Nel frattempo, si è deciso di dare una breve dichiarazione dal nuovo capo della misione EULEX, Mr. Meucci. Ma quando lo scandalo è emerso e i media hanno cominciato a trattare la faccenda, a Bruxelles hanno deciso di avviare un’indagine completa e nominare un esperto. Credo che Bruxelles, con la maniera con cui ha cercato di gestire questa situazione, lo faccia sembrare più un tentativo di nasconderlo piuttosto che dare il messaggio che sono pronti per un’indagine significativa. Dubito che ci sarà una indagine profonda, anche se questa indagine sarà cruciale per il futuro delle missioni al di fuori dell’UE.
Il nuovo capo della politica estera e di sicurezza dell’Unione europea, Federica Mogherini, ha chiesto che le accuse di corruzione nelle file di EULEX, siano trattate con la massima trasparenza. Cosa ne pensa? Cosa si aspetta da queste indagini?
Non mi aspetto che qualcuno arrivi davanti alla giustizia, anche se questo è necessario. I dubbi sono molto forti. Con questi indizi i procuratori EULEX in precedenza hanno arrestato e portato davanti alla giustizia funzionari del Kosovo. Bruxelles è spinta a indagare sul caso fino in fondo perché da esso dipende anche la credibilità e serietà dell’Ue.
Tre paesi hanno votato NO alla risoluzione contro la glorificazione del nazismo, adottata dalla III Commissione dell'Assemblea Generale dell'ONU: si tratta di USA, Canada e, ovviamente, Ucraina.
115 paesi hanno votato a favore, 55 si sono astenuti tra cui i paesi UE.
Attraverso questa risoluzione, promossa originariamente dalla Federazione Russa, l'ONU "esprime preoccupazione per la diffusione in tutto il mondo di vari partiti politici, movimenti e gruppi estremisti, tra cui i neo-nazisti nonché movimenti estremisti e ideologie razziste" e impegna i paesi a prendere misure adeguate per combattere questi fenomeni nella sfera della salvaguardia dei diritti umani.
Il testo mette in guardia anche contro la glorificazione del movimento nazista e degli ex membri dell'organizzazione Waffen-SS biasimando la costruzione di monumenti e memoriali in loro onore. (http://en.itar-tass.com/russia/761115)
The resolution was passed [ http://www.un.org/en/ga/third/69/docs/voting_sheets/L56.Rev1.pdf ] on Friday by the committee, which is tasked with tackling social and humanitarian issues and human rights abuses, by 115 votes against three, with 55 nations abstaining, Tass news agency reported.
The document voiced concern over the rise of racism-driven crimes around the world and the influence that parties with extremist agendas are gaining.
It called for a universal adoption of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [ http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx ]. Many nations including the US, the UK, China and India, signed the convention but did not recognize a mechanism resolving individual complaints it establishes, which makes the convention unenforceable in their jurisdictions.
The resolution also decried attempts to whitewash Nazi collaborators by depicting them as fighters of nationalist resistance movements and honoring them as such.
It condemned any form of denial of Nazi war crimes, including the Jewish Holocaust.
“The fact that the US, Canada and Ukraine voted against, while delegations from EU member states abstained in the vote on this draft resolution, which was supported by an overwhelming majority of the UN member states, is extremely regrettable,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
“Ukraine’s position is particularly dispiriting and alarming. One can hardly understand how a country, the people of which suffered their full share of the horrors of Nazism and contributed significantly to our common victory against it, can vote against a resolution condemning its glorification,” the ministry said.
Moscow proposes similar documents to the UN General Assembly annually, but the US and Canada have consistently voted against them. Ukraine is a new nation among the opponents, as in previous years it has abstained.
Kiev’s representative at the session, Andrey Tsymbalyuk, said that while Ukraine did condemn Nazism and neo-Nazism, it could not endorse the Russian resolution, because it suffered not only from Nazism, but also from Stalinism in the past.
“As long as Stalinism and neo-Stalinism are not condemned as strongly as Nazism, neo-Nazism and other forms of hatred, Ukraine would not be able to back this document,” the diplomat said.
The resolution is to be formally adopted by the UN General Assembly as a body in December.
Le giuste dichiarazioni di Vladimir Putin a "Politika": << Il ‘vaccino’ al virus nazista perde efficacia in Europa >>
https://aurorasito.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/putin-il-vaccino-al-virus-nazista-perde-efficacia-in-europa/
https://it.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/crj-mailinglist/conversations/messages/8034
http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140703/190798678/Putin-Says-Legal-Initiative-to-Counter-Nazism-Timely.html
http://comunicati.russia.it/vladimir-putin-ha-accusato-l-ucraina-e-lettonia-dell-espansione-del-neonazismo.html
http://rt.com/politics/official-word/196284-ukraine-putin-nazi-europe/
di Marco Santopadre, 22 Novembre 2014
http://balkans.courriers.info/article26014.html
Mardi 11 novembre, la Russie s’est abstenue lors du vote au Conseil de sécurité sur une prolongation de la mission de l’EUFOR en Bosnie-Herzégovine. L’ambassadeur russe à l’ONU, Vitali Tchourkine, a même souligné qu’il était « inacceptable que la Bosnie-Herzégovine soit poussée vers l’UE depuis l’étranger ».
Le ministère allemand des Affaires étrangères, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, à de son côté salué la prolongation du mandat de la mission militaire européenne. « Il est regrettable que, cette fois, tous les membres du Conseil de sécurité n’aient pas activement soutenu cette mission. La Grande-Bretagne et l’Allemagne ont récemment lancé une initiative pour engager des réformes visant à accélérer le rapprochement de la Bosnie-Herzégovine avec l’Union européenne. Mais l’avenir de ce pays est entre les mains de ses dirigeants », a déclaré un porte-parole du ministère des Affaires étrangères à Berlin, faisant allusion à la déclaration de Vitali Tchourkine. Lors du débat sur la mission de l’EUFOR, l’ambassadeur russe a ainsi déclaré que l’on avait déjà constaté « de mauvais exemples, où l’intégration d’un pays à l’UE s’est faite sur la base de pressions exercées depuis l’étranger ».
Un signal clair à la Russie
Pour Tobias Flessenkemper, expert des Balkans auprès du Centre international de formation européenne (CIFE) à Nice, le vote de la Russie est le signe que ce pays a le potentiel d’influencer positivement ou négativement le cours des événements dans les Balkans. « Même en tenant compte de cette dernière abstention, jusqu’à maintenant, la Russie a soutenu le chemin de la Bosnie-Herzégovine vers l’Union européenne. Les déclarations récentes de Vitali Tchourkine sont un motif de préoccupation, puisque ce soutien ne semble plus d’actualité. Cependant, une grande majorité des citoyens de Bosnie-Herzégovine, les autorités, les partis qui négocient actuellement pour former un nouveau gouvernement et même le Président de Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, ont soutenu le processus d’intégration européenne. Je ne vois aucune raison de dramatiser », a-t-il déclaré. De fait, la Russie aurait pu amorcer un changement radical de stratégie sur le dossier bosnien, si elle avait mis son veto au Conseil de sécurité, pour empêcher la poursuite de la mission EUFOR.
La nouvelle stratégie russe
Pour Erich Rathfelder, correspondant à Sarajevo du journal allemand Tageszeitung, ces derniers évènements au sein du Conseil de sécurité et les déclarations de l’ambassadeur russe Tchourkine indiquent que la Russie n’est plus seulement de manière rhétorique « du côté serbe ». « La Russie soutient de plus en plus clairement Milorad Dodik sur les questions de politique intérieure. Cela pourrait favoriser à long terme une sécession de la Republika Srpska ».
Pour Erich Rathfelder, les embryons de cette nouvelle stratégie sont apparus dès 2011 et 2012, avant le début de la crise en Ukraine. En mai 2014, des désaccords sont apparus au sein du PIC (Peace Implementation Council – Conseil pour la mise en œuvre de la paix). La Russie n’était plus prête à garantir la souveraineté et l’intégrité territoriale de la Bosnie-Herzégovine. « Le fait que la Russie ait refusé de soutenir la prolongation du mandat de l’EUFOR est une continuation de cette nouvelle stratégie », explique-t-il. « La Russie a brisé le consensus qui existait au sein du PIC depuis la signature des Accords de Dayton. Cette stratégie vise à contrôler la Republika Srspka et la Serbie et à les pousser à s’interroger sur le bien fondé d’une intégration à l’Union européenne », affirme-t-il.
La réponse de l’Ouest
Tobias Flessenkemper croit néanmoins que les déclarations de Vitali Tchourkine vont avoir l’effet inverse. Les ministres des Affaires étrangères de l’UE discuteront cette semaine de l’initiative germano-britannique pour une nouvelle approche du processus d’intégration de la Bosnie-Herzégovine. Selon lui, il est nécessaire que l’Accord de stabilisation et d’association (ASA) prenne rapidement effet et que des réformes économiques et sociales soient rapidement appliquées en Bosnie-Herzégovine. « Je pense que les déclarations de Vitali Tchourkine vont favoriser l’initiative germano-britannique. Cela crée désormais une pression sur les épaules des chefs de la diplomatie européenne. Il est devenu encore plus clair que la Bosnie-Herzégovine a besoin de davantage de soutien pour intégrer l’UE ».
Erich Rathefelder souligne pourtant que les pays occidentaux sont toujours divisés sur la question bosnienne, tout comme sur les initiatives de la Russie dans les Balkans. « J’espère que l’initiative germano-britannique va renforcer le rôle de l’Allemagne en Bosnie-Herzégovine. J’espère que cette question ne sera plus abordée d’une façon aussi légère ».
