Informazione

http://ilmanifesto.it/quanto-ci-costa-il-def-della-nato/

Il governo taglia tutto, ma non le spese militari

Quanto ci costa il Def della Nato

di  Manlio Dinucci, Il Manifesto, 9.4.2014

Men­tre nella «spen­ding review» il governo pro­mette una ridu­zione di 300–500 milioni nel bilan­cio della difesa — senza dire nulla, a quanto pare sugli F35 — , l’Italia sta assu­mendo nella Nato cre­scenti impe­gni che por­tano a un ine­vi­ta­bile aumento della spesa mili­tare, diretta e indi­retta. La Nato non cono­sce crisi. Si sta costruendo un nuovo quar­tier gene­rale a Bru­xel­les: il costo pre­vi­sto in 460 milioni di euro, è quasi tri­pli­cato salendo a 1,3 miliardi. Lo stesso è stato fatto in Ita­lia, dove si sono spesi 200 milioni di euro per costruire a Lago Patria una nuova sede per il Jfc Naples: il Comando inter­forze Nato agli ordini dell’ammiraglio Usa Bruce Clin­gan – allo stesso tempo coman­dante delle Forze navali Usa in Europa e delle Forze navali Usa per l’Africa – a sua volta agli ordini del Coman­dante supremo alleato in Europa, Phi­lip Breed­love, un gene­rale sta­tu­ni­tense nomi­nato come di regola dal pre­si­dente degli Stati uniti.

Tali spese sono solo la punta dell’iceberg di un colos­sale esborso di denaro pub­blico, pagato dai cit­ta­dini dei paesi dell’Alleanza. Vi è anzi­tutto la spesa iscritta nei bilanci della difesa dei 28 stati mem­bri che, secondo i dati Nato del feb­braio 2014, supera com­ples­si­va­mente i 1000 miliardi di dol­lari annui (circa 750 miliardi di euro), per oltre il 70% spesi dagli Stati uniti. La spesa mili­tare Nato, equi­va­lente a circa il 60% di quella mon­diale, è aumen­tata in ter­mini reali (al netto dell’inflazione) di oltre il 40% dal 2000 ad oggi.

Sotto pres­sione degli Stati uniti, il cui bud­get della difesa (735 miliardi di dol­lari) è pari al 4,5% del pro­dotto interno lordo, gli alleati si sono impe­gnati nel 2006 a desti­nare al bilan­cio della difesa come minimo il 2% del loro pil. Finora, oltre agli Usa, lo hanno fatto solo Gran Bre­ta­gna, Gre­cia ed Esto­nia. L’impegno dell’Italia a por­tare la spesa mili­tare al 2% del pil è stato sot­to­scritto nel 2006 dal governo Prodi. Secondo i dati Nato, essa ammonta oggi a 20,6 miliardi di euro annui, equi­va­lenti a oltre 56 milioni di euro al giorno. Tale cifra, si pre­cisa nel bud­get, non com­prende però diverse altre voci. In realtà, cal­cola il Sipri, la spesa mili­tare ita­liana (al decimo posto su scala mon­diale) ammonta a circa 26 miliardi di euro annui, pari a 70 milioni al giorno. Adot­tando il prin­ci­pio del 2%, que­sti sali­reb­bero a oltre 100 milioni al giorno.

Agli oltre 1000 miliardi di dol­lari annui iscritti nei 28 bilanci della difesa, si aggiun­gono i «con­tri­buti» che gli alleati ver­sano per il «fun­zio­na­mento della Nato e lo svi­luppo delle sue atti­vità». Si tratta per la mag­gior parte di «con­tri­buti indi­retti», tipo le spese per «le ope­ra­zioni e mis­sioni a guida Nato». Quindi i molti milioni di euro spesi per far par­te­ci­pare le forze armate ita­liane alle guerre Nato nei Bal­cani, in Afgha­ni­stan e in Libia costi­tui­scono un «con­tri­buto indi­retto» al bud­get dell’Alleanza.

Vi sono poi i «con­tri­buti diretti», distri­buiti in tre distinti bilanci. Quello «civile», che con fondi for­niti dai mini­steri degli esteri copre le spese per lo staff dei quar­tieri gene­rali (4000 fun­zio­nari solo a Bru­xel­les). Quello «mili­tare», com­po­sto da oltre 50 bud­get sepa­rati, che copre i costi ope­ra­tivi e di man­te­ni­mento della strut­tura mili­tare inter­na­zio­nale. Quello di «inve­sti­mento per la sicu­rezza», che serve a finan­ziare la costru­zione dei quar­tieri gene­rali, i sistemi satel­li­tari di comu­ni­ca­zione e intel­li­gence, la crea­zione di piste e approdi e la for­ni­tura di car­bu­rante per le forze impe­gnate in ope­ra­zioni bel­li­che. Circa il 22% dei «con­tri­buti diretti» viene for­nito dagli Stati uniti, il 14% dalla Ger­ma­nia, l’11% da Gran Bre­ta­gna e Fran­cia. L’Italia vi con­tri­bui­sce per circa l’8,7%: quota non tra­scu­ra­bile, nell’ordine di cen­ti­naia di milioni di euro annui. Vi sono diverse altre voci nasco­ste nelle pie­ghe dei bilanci. Ad esem­pio l’Italia ha par­te­ci­pato alla spesa per il nuovo quar­tier gene­rale di Lago Patria sia con la quota parte del costo di costru­zione, sia con il «fondo per le aree sot­tou­ti­liz­zate» e con uno ero­gato dalla Pro­vin­cia, per un ammon­tare di circa 25 milioni di euro (men­tre man­cano i soldi per rico­struire L’Aquila). Top secret resta l’attuale con­tri­buto ita­liano al man­te­ni­mento delle basi Usa in Ita­lia, quan­ti­fi­cato l’ultima volta nel 2002 nell’ordine del 41% per l’ammontare di 366 milioni di dol­lari annui. Sicu­ra­mente oggi tale cifra è di gran lunga superiore.

Si con­ti­nua così a get­tare in un pozzo senza fondo enormi quan­tità di denaro pub­blico, che sareb­bero essen­ziali per inter­venti a favore di occu­pa­zione, ser­vizi sociali, dis­se­sto idro­geo­lo­gico e zone ter­re­mo­tate. E i tagli di 6,6 miliardi, pre­vi­sti per il 2014, potreb­bero essere evi­tati tagliando quanto si spende nel mili­tare in tre mesi.


Non solo a Mogadiscio, ma anche a Nassiriya gli italiani torturavano


Sulle torture inflitte dalle truppe di occupazione italiane in Somalia si veda ad esempio:

Somali torturati dagli italiani, le foto choc di un ex para' (Repubblica 6 giugno 1997)

La rabbia di Mogadiscio 'Italiani brutali e violenti' (Repubblica 13 giugno 1997)

Somalia, dalle torture allo stupro. Foto choc su una ragazza violentata (L'Unità 13 giugno 1997)

Nuovi orrori da Mogadiscio. Un testimone somalo: " Un bersagliere ha ucciso e stuprato un ragazzino " (CdS 22 giugno 1997)

Presentata la relazione della commissione Gallo… Violenze in Somalia, accuse ai comandi (Repubblica 27 maggio 1998)

Torture in Somalia, condannato Ercole (Repubblica 13 aprile 2000)

Ricordando la Somalia con rabbia (NoiDonne 1 Giugno 2005 )

---

http://lanuovasardegna.gelocal.it/regione/2014/04/09/news/racconto-choc-di-due-militari-della-sassari-a-nassiriya-gli-italiani-torturavano-1.9013378

Racconto choc di due militari della Sassari: «A Nassiriya gli italiani torturavano»


Le rivelazioni alle “Iene” di un ex militare e di un effettivo: «La Brigata? No, mai. Lì agivano servizi segreti e uomini dei corpi speciali»

di Pier Giorgio Pinna

SASSARI. Choc, allarme e interrogativi. A più di 10 anni dalla strage di Nassiriya, rimbalzano in Sardegna testimonianze su avvenimenti inquietanti che potrebbe costringere a rivedere scenari sulla presenza italiana in Iraq. Le rivelazioni sono state raccolte dalle Iene Show. Riguardano una centrale per brutali interrogatori: accompagnati - ipotizzano gli intervistati - da sistematiche torture e umiliazioni su detenuti iracheni, con ogni probabilità membri della resistenza all’occupazione delle truppe straniere. La centrale sarebbe stata allestita in una zona periferica top secret di Nassiriya, a poca distanza dalla base fatta saltare in aria e dalla stessa sede dove si trovava il Comando della “Sassari” in quell’area.
I fatti noti. A parlare di atrocità finora attribuite solo a Cia e squadre speciali Usa ad Abu Ghraib (il carcere di Baghdad dove soldati statunitensi seviziarono prigionieri iracheni nel 2004) sono almeno due militari sardi. In tv alcuni figurano come ex appartenenti o effettivi della Brigata. E per questa sala degli orrori descritta come un “cubo di un centinaio di metri quadrati” loro stessi chiamano in causa non la “Sassari” ma uomini - dicono - del Sismi o di reparti scelti come il San Marco, il Col Moschin e incursori del Comsubin.
Puntate. Il programma televisivo ha mandato in onda le immagini e i servizi su questo caso rovente il 2 aprile scorso e in una precedente puntata di qualche tempo fa. Per stasera (9 aprile), sempre su Italia 1, è attesa un’altra serie di dichiarazioni da parte di un soldato che sostiene di essere della Brigata (vedere nella pagina a lato). L’uomo non compare nel video né dice come si chiama. Ma conferma l’esistenza di camere per le torture in Iraq.
Retroscena. Fin qui la sostanza degli avvenimenti svelati dalla trasmissione satirica e di denuncia delle reti Mediaset. Un servizio curato, oggi come in passato, dal presentatore-giornalista Luigi Pelazza. In queste rivelazioni l’aspetto più cupo (e destabilizzante rispetto ai compiti delle forze armate) è collegato alle affermazioni fatte davanti alle telecamere delle Iene mercoledì scorso dall’ex appartenente alla Brigata Leonardo Bitti, 40 anni sassarese con origini familiari tra Mara e Bonorva, l’unico che ha deciso di non trincerarsi dietro l’anonimato ma al contrario di raccontare con nome e cognome i fatti dei quali spiega d’essere stato testimone.
Immagini impressionanti. «Comunque né in quella centrale operativa né altrove ho mai visto in modo diretto italiani maltrattare prigionieri – ha spiegato anche alla “Nuova” l’ex militare – Ero arrivato in missione nel Paese di Saddam Hussein pochi giorni dopo la strage. All’inizio, come addetto ad alcune operazioni logistiche in quella parte di Nassiriya, ho notato dall’esterno che la zona era presidiata da nostri militari che non avevano le mostrine e a ogni modo non facevano certamente parte della Brigata Sassari. Alcuni avevano manganelli attaccati alle cinture. Poi, in altre giornate, per due mesi di seguito, sono potuto entrare in quell’edificio quando era vuoto. All’interno, diviso in tre ambienti, un odore disgustoso, tracce di sangue, urina, feci. All’esterno, vicino a tre tende, di volta in volta cinque o sei detenuti legati con fascette elettriche e incappucciati, alcuni nudi. Diversi avevano sulla schiena segni di manganellate».
Inchieste. In precedenza nello stesso video mostrato da Pelazza, insieme con sequenze di guerra, è stata rimandata in onda parte di un’intervista di quattro anni fa. Un giovane asseriva di essere un esperto d’interrogatori violenti. E sosteneva di lavorare per conto delle forze armate italiane durante missioni all’estero. Voce distorta, volto coperto, sembianze irriconoscibili, l’uomo ha parlato di come estorce le informazioni. E con quali metodi: «Schiaffi, pugni, elettrodi applicati sui genitali, stoffa imbevuta d’acqua e premuta sulla faccia per simulare l’annegamento». «Un bel lavoro, ben retribuito», ha dichiarato con impassibile cinismo l’“esecutore”, come lui stesso ha detto si chiamano in gergo quelli che conducono le torture sulle persone da interrogare. «Non posso rispondere», si è invece limitato a replicare alla domanda con la quale gli si chiedeva se avesse mai mutilato o ucciso qualcuno.
Accertamenti. «Dopo la messa in onda dei nostri servizi di qualche anno fa su questi fatti, la Procura di Roma ha aperto un’inchiesta – dice oggi Luigi Pelazza – Sono stato sentito 3-4 volte come persona informata, poi come indagato perché non li avevo convinti sulla ricostruzione delle modalità con le quali avevo stabilito certi contatti. Ma da allora non ne ho più saputo nulla». Leonardo Bitti spiega a sua volta di non essere stato ascoltato, per ora, dalla magistratura. «Sono comunque disponibile a raccontare quel che ho visto come ho fatto in trasmissione», sostiene. 

9 aprile 2014



(srpskohrvatski / english)


THE FINAL DOCUMENT 
of the International Conference: Global Peace vs. Global Interventionism and Imperialism” 
held in Belgrade, 23 March 2014


0) RELEVANT LINKS: audio-video-texts from the Conference and related activities
1) FINAL DOCUMENT
2) VLADIMIR KRŠLJANIN (SRP): 15. godišnjica NATOagresije na SR Jugoslaviju
3) Neil Clark's Report: Belgrade calls for a world of equals


=== 0 ===

RELEVANT LINKS 
on the Conference and related activities:

---

Злочин без казне!
Некадашњи начелник штаба Треће армије генерал Љубиша Стојимировић о Нирнбершком процесу, лицемерју Хашког трибунала и злочинима над српским народом и ЈНА у наметнутим ратовима
http://www.beoforum.rs/sve-aktivnosti-beogradskog-foruma-za-svet-ravnopravnih/81-nato-agresija-15-godina-kasnije/575-zlocin-bez-kazne-in-memorial.html

---

CONFERENCE AUDIO:

15:30 hours of audio recording in MP3 format / Аудио снимак интернационалне конференције "Глобалним миром против глобалног интервенционизма и империјализма" / 
Audio record of The International Conference “Global Peace vs. Global Interventionism and Imperialism” held in Belgrade, 22-23 March, 2014
Преузмите цео аудио снимак оба дана конференције  "Глобалним миром против глобалног интервенционизма и империјализма" одржане 22. марта  23. марта 2014. у Центру „Сава“ у Београду
Сви који нисте стигли да присуствујете конференцији, имате могућност да преслушате све без цензуре. 15:30 сати аудио материјала у MP3 формату (линк):
http://www.wuala.com/profidizajn/beoforum/konferencija-sc-audio-22-23-mart-2014.zip/

CONFERENCE VIDEOS:

Global Peace vs. Global Interventionism and Imperialism: Video Playlist
profidizajn - 56 videos

The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, the Serbian Host Society, the Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia and Veterans Association of Serbia (SUBNOR), in coordination with the World Peace Council, on 22 and 23 March 2014 held the International Conference "Global Peace vs. Global Interventionism and Imperialism". The Conference was held on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of NATO's armed aggression against Serbia and Montenegro (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). The motto of the Conference was "Not to Forget".
 
21.3.2014. - (Global Peace vs. Global Interventionism and Imperialism)
ОБЕЛЕЖАВАЊЕ 15-ТЕ ГОДИШЊИЦЕ ОД НАТО АГРЕСИЈЕ - 24 МАРТ 2014
ZORAN KOSTIĆ (BANJA LUKA)
PROF. JEAN BRICMONT (BELGIUM)
SERGEY LEVCHENKO (RUSSIA) 
NIĆIFOR ANIČIĆ (SERBIA) part3 
NATALIJA BONDAR (UKRAINE) 
(Global Peace vs. Global Interventionism and Imperialism)
JOHN PETER MAHER (USA) part2
DR ELENA ARLYAPOVA (RUSSIA) 
ILIAS BALTAS (GREECE, WFTU) 
DR. HENRY LOWENDORF (USA, WPC) 
EDWARD HORGAN (IRELAND, WPC, PANA) 
JUNE KELLY (IRELAND) 
Birgitte Queck (GERMANY) part2 
Birgitte Queck (GERMANY) 
Alfred Marder (USA) 
ZEYNEP BESPINAR (TURKEY, WPC) 
SERGEJ BABURIN (RUSSIA) 
PROF. PETER BACHMAIER (AUSTRIA) 
PROF. OSKAR KOVAČ (SERBIA) 
AGNETA NORBERG (SWEDEN) 
KLAUS HARTMANN (GERMANY) 
GEORGIJ KRIČKOV (UKRAINE) 
ADM. ELMAR SCHMAEHLING (GERMANY) 
JOHN PETER MAHER (USA) 
DIANA JOHNSTONE (FRANCE) 
STAVROS TASSOS (EEDYE, GREECE, WPC) 
SOCORRO GOMES (WPC) 
DR MOMČILO VUKSANOVIĆ (MONTENEGRO) 
PROF. DR MIODRAG ZEČEVIĆ (SUBNOR) 
PROF. JELENA GUSKOVA (RUSSIA) 
ILDA FIGUEIREDO (PORTUGAL, WPC) 
ADMIRAL BOŠKO ANTIĆ (SERBIA) 
VLADIKA IRINEJ BULOVIĆ (SERBIA) 
(Global Peace vs. Global Interventionism and Imperialism)
(Global Peace vs. Global Interventionism and Imperialism)
(Global Peace vs. Global Interventionism and Imperialism)
(Global Peace vs. Global Interventionism and Imperialism)
BORIS MALAGURSKI (SERBIA) 
ALEKSANDAR ĐENIĆ (SERBIA, SKOJ) 
ŽIVADIN JOVANOVIĆ (SERBIA) 
VLADISLAV JOVANOVIĆ (SERBIA) 
VLADIMIR KRŠLJANIN (SNF, SERBIA) 
PROF. VLADIMIR KOZIN (RUSSIA) 
VLADIMIR KAPURALIN (CROATIA) 
STEFAN KARGANOVIĆ (SERBIA)
NIĆIFOR ANIČIĆ (SERBIA) - Part2 
NIĆIFOR ANIČIĆ (SERBIA) - Part 1 
MOMIR BULATOVIĆ (MONTENEGRO ) 
MILICA AREŽINA (SERBIA) 
NEIL CLARK (ENGLAND) - THE FINAL DOCUMENT 
PROF. ANDREAS GRIEWANK (GERMANY) 
NEIL CLARK (ENGLAND) 
GENERAL LEONID IVAŠOV (RUSSIA) 
NEVEN ĐENADIJA (SERBIAN REPUBLIC) 

ВИДЕО ИЗЛАГАЊА - (КОНФЕРЕНЦИЈА: ГЛОБАЛНИМ МИРОМ ПРОТИВ ГЛОБАЛНОГ ИНТЕРВЕНЦИНОИЗМА И ИМПЕРИЈАЛИЗМА)

VIDEO: ФОТО ИЗЛОЖБА - ДА СЕ НЕ ЗАБОРАВИ! / THE PHOTO EXHIBITION

SELECTED SPEECHES:

VIDEO: ŽIVADIN JOVANOVIĆ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ON56FNi9mQ
Referat: ЖИВАДИН ЈОВАНОВИЋ (ГЛОБАЛНИМ МИРОМ ПРОТИВ ГЛОБАЛНОГ ИНТЕРВЕНЦИНОИЗМА И ИМПЕРИЈАЛИЗМА)
http://www.beoforum.rs/sve-aktivnosti-beogradskog-foruma-za-svet-ravnopravnih/81-nato-agresija-15-godina-kasnije/566-zivadin-jovanovic-22-3-2014.html

VIDEO: VLADISLAV JOVANOVIĆ
Говор Иринеја Буловића, Епископа бачког на отварању конференције

VIDEO: NEIL CLARK
VIDEO: MOMIR BULATOVIĆ
VIDEO: NIĆIFOR ANIČIĆ
VIDEO: LEONID IVASHOV
VIDEO: MILICA AREŽINA
VIDEO: VLADIMIR KOZIN
VIDEO: ANDREAS
VIDEO: STEFAN KARGANOVIĆ
VIDEO: BORIS MALAGURSKI
VIDEO: NEVEN ĐENADIJA
PEACE MOVEMENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC
PORTUGUESE COMMUNIST YOUTH
DELEGATE FROM BULGARIA (?)
KNE (COMMUNIST YOUTH OF GREECE)

ALEKSANDAR ĐENIĆ (SKOJ)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-XUueB3F-E
Isto procitaj: SKOJ/NKPJ: VEČNA SLAVA ŽRTVAMA NATO-a – DA SE NE ZABORAVI


=== 1 ===

VIDEO: Neil Clark reads the Final Document (Global Peace vs. Global Interventionism and Imperialism)

Na s-h-om: ЗАВРШНИ ДОКУМЕНТ Међународне Конференције одржане у Београду 22. и 23. марта 2014. године



FINAL DOCUMENT

The Final Document of the International Conference “Global Peace vs. Global Interventionism and Imperialism” Held in Belgrade on 22nd and 23rd March 2014.


The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, the Serbian Host Society, the Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia and Veterans Association of Serbia (SUBNOR), in coordination with the World Peace Council, on 22 and 23 March 2014 held the International Conference “Global Peace vs. Global Interventionism and Imperialism”. The Conference was held on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of NATO’s armed aggression against Serbia and Montenegro (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). The motto of the Conference was “Not to Forget”.


More than 500 scientists, experts and public persons from the areas of the international relations and security, from 50 countries of Europe and the world took part in the work of the Conference.


Participants of the Conference paid tribute to victims of the 78-day bombardment and laid wreaths on memorials. They honored all the victims of the illegal NATO aggression against Serbia and Montenegro and expressed their deep respect for former Yugoslav Popular Army, Federal Government, President Slobodan Milosevic and all heroic resistant fighters. We also must remember the victims of the NATO aggression subsequent to 1999, ongoing persecution of those political and military leaders who defended the country and who were sent to illegal Hague Tribunal including president Milosevic and others, who died there. Considering this Tribunal as illegal as a tool of NATO propaganda and political blackmailing, the participants demand its dissolution.

The debate unfolded in a constructive and tolerant dialogue regarding most important aspects and problems concerning the international peace and security. The presentations mainly focused on how to preserve global peace and find the ways to stop global interventionism, destabilization of certain countries and provoking the crises all over the world, which undermine the international legal and political world order and pushes the world to the edge of a major confrontation.


The participants analyzed the causes and consequences of NATO aggression in 1999, not only for Serbia and the Balkans but also its global consequences for peace and security in Europe and the world. Further to this, participants of the Conference have agreed as follows:
- NATO aggression against Serbia and Montenegro (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) of March 1999 was a war imposed against an independent, sovereign European state, in gross violation of the fundamental principles of the international law, most notably, the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act. This was the aggression committed without consent the UN Security Council. Hence it is a crime against peace and humanity, and the turning point towards the global interventionism, the practice of gross violation of the international legal order, and the negation of role of the UN. Subsequently it has been used as the model of interventionism in a number of other cases such as in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali and others. 
- The leading Western powers, the USA, the UK, France, Germany, followed by the rest of NATO Members, 19 in all, devised a whole new arsenal of euphemisms in a bid to attribute any possible shred of legitimacy to this crime against peace and humanity. So-called “humanitarian intervention” was a cover for indiscriminate killings of civilians in Serbia including children, disabled and senior citizens, for the destruction of the economy, infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, passenger trains and houses. Use of missiles with depleted uranium has contaminated natural environment thus triggering grave and far-reaching consequences for the health of current and future generations. 
- Since this is a crime against peace and humanity and a gross violation of the basic provisions of the international law, NATO Member States bear full legal responsibility for the aggression, including liability for the inflicted damage on the order of more than USD 100 billion, as well as responsibility for the use of weapons with depleted uranium and other illicit ordnances of mass destruction. Serbia has the right to initiate the proceedings before the competent international forums against NATO Alliance and all of its member states participating in the aggression, for the purpose of exercising the right to war damage compensation to Serbia and Montenegro as well as to individuals who suffered from aggression.
- Armed aggression has continued by employing other, non-military means. This was reflected in the violent change of power in the October 5, 2000 coup, which was initiated, funded and supported by NATO Member States; in all kind of blackmails and threats aimed at making Serbia denounce its state sovereignty in Kosovo and Metohija as its historical, cultural and civilization heartland; in ignoring UN Security Council Resolution 1244 guaranteeing sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia. Eventually, this led to unlawful and unconstitutional unilateral separation of Kosovo and Metohija in 2008 which was followed by formal recognition by most NATO member countries. The 1999 US NATO aggression grossly violated the UN Charter, 1970 Declaration on principles of International law, Helsinki Final Act, Paris Charter for a New Europe, five Security Council resolutions in 1998-2008, including resolutions 1244 and 1785.
- Immediately after the end of the aggression, a large USA military base has been established in Kosovo and Metohija, “Camp Bondsteel”, the first and crucial ring in the chain of the new USA bases in Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic, and other Easter European countries. NATO aggression against Yugoslavia actually accelerated the arms race and militarization of Europe and implementation of US/NATO/EU strategy of “Eastern expansion”.
- Aggression against Serbia and Montenegro (FRY) launched in March 1999 has been serving as a blueprint for global USA/NATO/EU interventionism. In practice, this translates the USA, NATO and the West discretion to intervene militarily or otherwise, as they choose to suite their economic or strategic interests. Toppling legally elected governments and replacing them by hand-picked, pawn regimes, has become part and parcel of so called “democratization process”.
- NATO has always operated as an aggressive military alliance, serving expansion and of imperialistic and neo-colonial objectives of the leading Western powers. The entire experience so far indicates that NATO strategy of global interventionism leaves behind a chaos in international relations, gigantic human casualties, divisions, and long-lasting misery and anguish in all countries and regions which have become immediate victims of such policy.

- NATO is responsible for devastation of the international legal order, for the degradation of the UN, instigating a new arms race, militarization of Europe, destabilization and inducing crises in individual countries and regions all over the world. Therefore, NATO strategy goes against the goals of peace and security, contravenes the democratic and civilization values, and violates the fundamental human rights. Such an Alliance is not a place for peaceful countries who see their interests in compliance of the international law and the UN system. This is why participants of the Conference pleaded for the dissolution of NATO as a relic of the Cold War, for disengaging in policy of free interventionism, and for the respect of freedom, independence and equality of all countries and nations.
- Exporting democracy and dictating cultural and civilization patterns has become a common approach of all Western powers, primarily of the USA, in their aspiring to govern the world pursuant to their own standards and in line with their self-serving interests. The imposition of such cultural and civilization patterns is an act of violence against reality that almost invariably results in conflicts, internal disorders, and deeper fragmentations and divisions; over time, this is prone to undermine the peace in the world, and presents a perfect excuse for external military interference. This model has created the so-called “colored revolutions” in Georgia, Venezuela and Ukraine and high jacked “Arab Spring revolution”, which managed to devastate and turn the clock back for several decades, such as: Libya, Egypt and Syria.
- The strategy of interventionism involves several motives and purposes. These include the control over natural and developmental resources, reallocation of resources, and geopolitical reconfiguration of the world, against and at the expense of the predetermined key geopolitical adversary. This is how the USA/NATO/EU staged the crisis in Ukraine, whose end is still nowhere in sight. One can say that the Ukrainian crisis is the single most dangerous threat to the peace since the end of the Cold War. Instead of acknowledging Ukraine as a natural connection between Russia and Europe, the West chose to interfere, by artificially dislocating it from its natural cultural, civilization, and geopolitical environment and drawing it westwards. In doing so, the West paid no attention at all that the action could lead to internal conflict within Ukraine and that it would put at risk Russia’s vital interests. This dangerous geopolitical game played by America, NATO and the EU against Russia, as a proxy war at the expense of Ukraine under a “fine” but fake excuse of being waged for the benefit of the Ukrainians and their democratic social structure, has completely disregarded the effects of such policy against the interests of Ukraine, its people, the peace, and security in Europe and the world. Participants of the Conference advocated for a peaceful political solution free of interference and external pressures, that is, a solution that will guarantee its peoples will, and respect its role of a bridge between the East and the West. Such solution implies abandonment of the pernicious “Eastern expansion” which has already produced destabilization in Europe. Participants expressed satisfaction that the people of Crimea have used their right of self-determination which resulted in reunification with Russia.
- Participants of the Conference expressed their full support to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia, including the resolution of the issue of Kosovo and Metohija in line with UN Security Council Resolution 1244. They supported the following requests: free, safe and dignified return of 250,000 expelled Serbs and other non-Albanians to their homes in Kosovo and Metohija; restitution of the usurped private, church, state and socially-owned property; reconstruction of 150 destroyed churches and monasteries of the Serbian Orthodox Church, of hundreds of desecrated and obliterated Serbian graveyards and thousands of burnt Serbian homes; conducting effective investigation of trafficking in human organs; determining the fate of all abducted and missing Serbs from Kosovo and Metohija; and identifying and bringing to justice the perpetrators of all other crimes committed against the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija for which, so far, nobody has been found responsible, let alone convicted.
- Participants of the Conference welcomed worthy initiative of the UN General Assembly which proclaimed 2014 to be the international year of solidarity with the people of Palestine. Finding that this initiative deserves strong support of the peaceful forces in the world, the Conference sent requests for an immediate withdrawal of Israeli occupation forces from all Palestinian territories, for the establishment of independent state of Palestine, within the borders of July 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital, for the right for the return for the Palestine refugees, based on UN Resolution 194 and the release of all Palestinian prisoners from jail. Fulfillment of these requests is of vital interest for the Palestinian people and for the introduction of a just and durable peace in the Middle East.
- Participants have expressed solidarity with peoples of Latin America in their endeavors to safeguard freedom, independence and sovereignty from aggressive imperial USA strategy. They demanding closing of Guantanamo base and abolishing blockade against Cuba, as well as the release of the five Cuban political prisoners from American jails.
- By dismissing the policies and actions that endanger the peace and security, participants of the Conference denounced plans and actions aimed at destabilizing the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Coordinated violent actions in Caracas and other parts of Venezuela are parts of the strategy employed by the local oligarchs and external actors, intended to disable the functioning of the legitimately elected government and impose political changes of their choice but against the interests of the Venezuelan people, by sabotage, violent provocations and blackmails. In condemning those attempts, participants of the Conference expressed their solidarity with the Venezuelan people and the support for its courageous efforts to preserve the freedom, pride, and sovereignty of Venezuela, and to decide their own future. 
- Participants have expressed concern over systematic organized revision of European history of the 20th century, particularly revision of outcome of the First and the Second World War. This may serve imperialist objectives for redrawing international borders causing unforeseen consequences. We condemn the western promoted rehabilitation of fascism and attempts to equate communism with Nazism.
- Participants of the Conference dedicated significant attention to the global economic capitalist crisis which has led not only to an unprecedented social stratification and impoverishment of the global population, but also to an artificially imposed debt crises in a number of formerly economically very prosperous countries, such as Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Cyprus. The global crisis emerged predominantly in countries which had declared themselves to be the centers of global civilization and the most advanced social order, one that will see no need for serous social conflicts and clashes. The key indicators of this crisis include mass-scale unemployment, especially within the youth, high indebtedness of countries, decline in economic activities, etc. We support the genuine popular protests against the above.
- It is obvious that on Europe and the majority of the world were imposed the neo-liberal cultural, political and economical pattern, which does not function. In the search for the way out of this universal deadlock, the most powerful countries are trying to shift the burden of the crisis onto other countries and nations, ones they pejoratively call “the global periphery”, while in the meantime struggling to win the battle for the global prestige, and in the process stepping down onto the old civilizations and forcibly toppling the unsympathetic ruling regimes. All the above only add to the conflicting feature of the international arena, and makes it exceptionally prone to outbreaks of all types of conflicts, from internal and regional, to the global ones.
- Participants at the Conference noted with concern that there are still US forward-based infrastructures in Europe like missile defense, tactical nuclear weapons and conventional forces, that destabilize the regional and the global atmosphere.
- The global economic crisis cannot be resolved by the printing of ever new trillions of dollars and the makeshift mends of the existing system. This can be done by abandoning the neo-liberal concept and by developing a new, humane society of social justice, equality and the better life for all people and nations in the planet. The focus of the new system of social relations must be on people and their economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian needs, instead of the profits and self-serving interests of the so-called economical and political elites.
- A part this International Conference was the Youth Forum, which concluded that the global crisis, and globalization and interventionism primarily threaten the rights and perspectives of the young generations. In numerous countries, in Europe and the world, young people below 30 make up some 60% of the total number of unemployed. The youth requests urgent changes in the social relations and internationally, which will ensure active engagement of the young people into economic, political and societal trends, their assuming responsibility for their own future, at the national and international levels. The youth advocates the socially just society and universal human rights, such as the right to employment, free education, social security and health care. Young people advocate the democratization of international relations, the respect for the international law, and denounce the arms race, militarization and neocolonialism.
- Only a world free of dominance of imperialism and militarism will stand a chance to avoid a war cataclysm. The global economic crises and its consequences on popular strata underline the necessity to overcome the system which causes exploitation, wars and the misery. It is absolutely unacceptable and contrary to the international law to have the regional center of power, such as NATO and the European Union be established as a substitute to the United Nations Security Council.
- The only true international community is the United Nations, rather than any self-proclaimed members of any regional groups. We must struggle to ensure the universal character of the international law and to have it equally oblige big and small countries, developed and developing ones. We have to fight even more resolutely to preserve the civilization heritage such as the freedom, ethics and dignity, while determinedly rejecting all surrogates of the corporative capitalism and imperialism, planted by the military-industrial and finance capital.


Participants of the Conference emphasized that the accomplishment of these objectives required active engagement in mobilizing all peace-loving stakeholders, in order to counter and reject any military and conquest ambitions against any given country regardless of its leaders. In parallel, it is necessary to mobilize all forces in developing democratic international relations, based on the principles of the United Nations Charter, the provisions of the international law, and the strict observance of the inviolability and independence of all states and their territorial integrity, and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs. Such a world would be measured by a human scale, and this grand utopia should be believed in, and persistently fighting for, and this is the key message from the Conference.


Participant in the Conference expressed sincere gratitude to the Serbian side for the excellent performance of the International Conference and for hospitality extended to all participants.



Belgrade, 23 March 2014


=== 2 ===

VIDEO: VLADIMIR KAPURALIN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il8JIrDsZ0I

Da: Vladimir Kapuralin (SRP)
Oggetto: 15. godišnjica NATOagresije na SR Jugoslaviju
Data: 26 marzo 2014 12:06:06 CET


Poštovani

u Beogradu je 22. i 23. ožujka u Sava centru održana međunarodna konferencija posvećena obilježavanju 15-e godišnjice agresije NATO snaga na tadašnju SR Jugoslaviju.
Organizatori skupa bili su Beogradski forum za svet ravnopravnih, Društvo srpskih domaćina, Klub generala i admirala Srbije i SUBNOR Srbije, uz suradnju Svijetskog mirovnog vijeća WPC.
Na konferenciji je prisustvovalo 600-tinjak ljudi iz 50 zemalja Evrope, Brazila, Venezuele, Amerike i Kanade. iz različitih područja ljudske djelatnosti: znanosti, diplomacije, mirovnih pokreta, politike, prava, kulture, edukacije, vojske i ostalog.
Skupu sam imao čast prisustvovat kao jedini izlagač sa jugoslavenskog prostora izvan Srbije i Crne gore, pa vam u tom svojstvu dostavljam integralni tekst završne deklaracije, koja je prihvaćena aklamacijom i tekst moje intervencije.

Sa poštovanjem

Vladimir Kapuralin


15. GODIŠNJICA NATO AGRESIJE NA SR JUGOSLAVIJU

Mjesto održavanja: Beograd

Vrijeme održavanja: 22-23 mart 2014.

Tema: Međunarodna konferencija povodom 15-e godišnjice NATO agresije na SRJ

Dragi prijatelji

Dozvolite mi, da se najprije zahvalim organizatorima ovog skupa, na hvalevrijednoj inicijativi i na ukazanoj časti, kojom mi je pružena mogućnost, da vas sve skupa ispred Socijalističke radničke partije Hrvatske i svoje ime pozdravim kao prijatelje, jer na osnovu pobuda oko kojih smo se okupili ova dva dana, uvjeren sam da mi to i jesmo. A tome valja pridodati još i respektabilan broj, znanih i neznanih institucija i pojedinaca, koji širom svijeta u granicama svojih mogućnosti, čine ono što i mi danas, a to su: podsjećanje, kritički pristup i argumentirana osuda brutalnih događaja, započetih pred petnaest godina.


Iako je NATO agresija na SR Jugoslaviju predstavljala presedan po nekoliko osnova ona je ipak proizvod jedne politike koja si želi uzurpirati pravo dominacije u svijetu i upravljanja iz jednog centra moći.

Agresija, koju je tzv. međunarodna zajednica, a ustvari grupa najbogatijih zemalja svijeta na čelu sa SAD-om i NATO, izvršila u proljeće 1999. godine na SRJ, bila je u svojoj biti sastavni dio borbe za prostor, koja je krenula nakon tektonskih društveno političkih procesa 90-ih godina prošlog stoljeća, kojih je cilj bio prodor krupnog kapitala na istok i osvajanje novih teritorija.

Tim prodorom je kapitalizam, koji se našao u dubokoj krizi 80-ih godina prošlog stoljeća ostvario svoja tri cilja i odgodio svoj silazak sa društvene scene i odlazak u povijest, za jedan nedefinirani vremenski period.

Ciljevi koje je kapitalizam postigao su:

-Ekonomski

-Politički

-Vojni

EKONOMSKI cilj sastojao se od:

Osvajanja novih tržišta.

Preuzimanja sirovinske, infrastrukture i financijske baze, novoosvojenih područja.

Dobivanja jeftine radne snage, bilo postojeće u zemljama u koje su transferirali kapital ili one imigrantske u vlastitim zemljama.

POLITIČKI cilj se sastojao od: eliminacije socijalizma u Evropi i samoupravljanja u Jugoslaviji.

VOJNI cilj se sastojao od: prodora na istok sa krajnjim ciljem približavanja i opkoljavanja Rusije i Kine. I taj proces još traje.

Agresija na SRJ 1999. godine, osim što je bila dio opće strategije osvajanja prostora, na način kako je izvedena po svojoj brutalnosti imala je i zadatak kažnjavanja neposlušnog protivnika.

Naime, dinamika prodora u istočnoj Evropi bila je za nosioce imperijalne težnje zadovoljavajuća, jer su u zemljama bivšeg socijalističkog bloka lako pronašli suradnike među političkim elitama, za rušenje dotadašnjeg društveno-političkog uređenja koji su time vlastiti narod i materijalne resurse predali globalnom krupnom kapitalu.

Problem je nastao na jugoslavenskom prostoru. Posebno nepoželjan imperijalističkim krugovima bio je njen model samoupravnog socijalizma, kao primjer prirodne pozicije rada u društvu i dostojanstva radnika, koji bi bili u stanju upravljat vlastitim sudbinama, uz pun državni suverenitet.

U procesu koji je dirigiran izvana, a realiziran iznutra, predani smo na milost i nemilost svjetskim moćnicima, pri čemu su vodeću ulogu odigrale secesionističke republike Slovenija i Hrvatska, a po domino efektu slijedile Bosna i Hercegovina i Makedonija, bez iole racionalne potrebe, koja bi imala pokriće u ekonomskoj ili nekoj drugoj logici. Jedinu prepreku osvajanju kompletnog prostora, predstavljala je tadašnji ostatak nekadašnje države, SRJ. Koja je iako sa tada već promijenjenim društveno-političkim uređenjem, percipirana kao zadnji bastion na putu imperijalističkim moćnicima i zbog toga ju je trebalo kazniti. Da se radi o kažnjavanju razvidno je već iz činjenice, da je međunarodna zajednica primjenjivala različite kriterije, za pojedine republike i narode bivše Jugoslavije, što je bilo dozvoljeno jednima, nije bilo dozvoljeno drugima, a to je zavisilo od stupnja koncilijantnosti lokalnih oligarhija naspram svjetskih moćnika.

Uslijedila je brutalna agresija NATO snaga, koje nisu nanijele SRJ velike vojne gubitke, usprkos činjenici, da je omjer snaga izražen u ljudstvu i vojnoj opremljenosti između agresora i napadnutih, bio do tada nezabilježen u vojnoj praksi. Iako su vojni gubici SRJ bili relativno mali, zato su oni civilni i materijalni bili vrlo visoki. Uništavana je infrastruktura i ekonomska supstanca zemlje, primjenom najbrutalnijih, sofisticiranih sredstava, koja nemaju nikakvo vojno opravdanje, nego su namijenjena materijalnim razaranjem civilnih i privrednih objekata, često sa katastrofalnim učincima. Vrhunac brutalnosti postignut je upotrebom municije sa osiromašenim uranom, koja trajno kontaminira prostor u kojem žive ljudi, a o apsurdu upotrebe tih sredstava svjedoči činjenica o velikom broju stradalih pripadnika agresorskih jedinica, koje su rukovale tom municijom.

Presedan par exelans učinjen je sada već prema državi Srbiji otimanjem dijela njenog teritorija, mimo svih međunarodnih pravnih normi i instaliranjem imperijalističkog protektorata na Kosovu i Metohiji sa najvećom NATO vojnom bazom u ovom dijelu svijeta. Tim činom stvorena je jedna umjetna kvazi državna tvorevina, bez vlastite privrede, od koje bi njeni građani živili, ali sa velikim i vrijednim mineralnim resursima, koju nije priznalo veliki broj zemalja u svijetu. A čija je osnovna namjena biti odskočna daska SAD i NATO na putu prema Kaspijskom bazenu. Ta je teza potvrđena 2008. kad su SAD i NATO stojeći jednom nogom na Kosovu i Metohiji pokušali drugom nogom zakoračiti na Kavkaz , što im na sreću nije uspjelo. Trenutna događanja u Ukraini potvrđuju namjere SAD-ea u širenju uticaja prema Rusiji, ne prežući pritom od suradnje sa eksplicite fašističkim subjektima.

Od agresije je eto proteklo 15 godina, ali posljedice su još prisutne, prvenstveno one zdravstvene, kao posljedica trajno kontaminiranog tla, od upotrebe radioaktivne municije. Ali i sam proces porobljavanja još traje, on se finalizira, ovaj puta ne vojnim sredstvima, sa ciljem da se žrtva ponizi i uvuče u interesni krug svojih tlačitelja. Na raspolaganju je široki spektar metoda: od honoriranja oligarhije, obećanja za jednokratnu upotrebu, uvjeravanja, ucjena, podmetanja i slično.

U ponižavanju se često biraju licemjerni i cinični argumenti čija je logika racionalno nepojmljiva. Tako je Njemački ambasador u Srbiji, oktobra 2010 . godine u Beogradu na konferenciji „Srbija Zapadni Balkan i NATO-ka 2020.“ Kritizirao tadašnju vlast u Srbiji, što za događaje iz 1999. godine koriste termin „NATO bombardiranje“, jer bi to kod mladih naraštaja moglo izazvat negativne konotacije prema NATO-u. On smatra da bi u Srbiji djeci kad pitaju o tim događajima trebalo objasnit „da je bombardiranje bilo ispravno“. Ambasador taj stav potkrepljuje valjda samo njemu razumljivom usporedbom, da kada je on kao mladić gledao ruševine po Njemačkoj poslije rata „nije mrzio one koji su to počinili, jer je bilo onih

koji su mogli da mu kažu zašto je to učinjeno“.

Polemizirat sa ambasadorom Massom, po tom pitanju bilo bi bespredmetno, on ima svoj stav, on sprovodi dosljedno politiku svoje vlade i imperijalnog kruga kojemu ta vlada pripada. Tako da nema nikakve sumnje da je to ujedno i stav njegove vlade, koja je tada aktivno učestvovala u agresiji. Sasvim je razumljivo da bi takva diplomatska izjava u normalnim okolnostima izazvala burnu reakciju. Međutim prešavši preko te izjave domaćini su pokazali zavidnu stabilnost probavnog sistema, što samo potvrđuje da je agresor postigao svoj cilj.

Ono što međutim treba istaknuti je činjenica da agresija na SR Jugoslaviju i moguća odmazda kojom bi se mogle objasniti neke aktivnosti saveznika protiv civilnih ciljeva u Njemačkoj potkraj II sv. rata nemaju nikakvih zajedničkih vojnih, niti političkih poveznica.

Razaranje Njemačke, spada u dio vojnih operacija za vrijeme objavljenog rata, protiv protivnika koji je pokrenuo dva svjetska rata, u kojima je živote izgubilo 70-etak milijuna ljudi, kojom prilikom su počinjeni stravični zločini prema ljudskom biču, kakve povijest do tada nije zabilježila. I u tim razaranjima je sasvim izvjesno, naročito pred kraj rata, osim slamanja morala i motivacije za otpor njemačkog stanovništva bio prisutan i element odmazde.

Dočim između SR Jugoslavije i udruženih sila 19 država koje su izvršile agresiju nije bilo objave rata, niti su njene oružane snage u to vrijeme na bilo koji način ugrožavale teritorijalni integritet zemalja agresora. A sama agresija, pokrenuta je mimo svih dotadašnjih normi međunarodnog prava, povelje UN i završnog dokumenta iz Helsinkija o evropskoj sigurnosti i suradnji.

U svijetlu događaja koji su uslijedili nakon agresije 1999. godine: Afganistan, Irak, Libija, Sirija, Mali, sada Ukraina i Venezuela, neki pokušavaju odredit sličnosti, drugi pokušavaju istaknuti razlike. Pri tome ne vodeći računa o nekim prirodnim zakonitostima, da ni prsti na ruci nisu jednaki, ali su svi dio iste šake. Tako se i događanja u ovim zemljama i ostalim žarištima i neuralgičnim točkama, razlikuju u detaljima ali su svi dio istoga plana i imaju zajednički nazivnik, osvajanje teritorija i širenje imperijalne moći.

Ti primjeri govore suprotno od onoga u što nas propaganda želi uvjeriti, da NATO savez nije vojska mira u koji bi se prema vlastitoj savjesti trebali svrstati svi koji žele mir, već vojska koja štiti spoj načela i institucija kao što je kapitalističko vlasništvo i tzv. Slobodno tržište, koje osigurava apsolutnu moć odabranih uskih vlasničkih slojeva, nad najširim eksploatiranim radnim masama unutar razvijenih kapitalističkih društava, te povlaštenih moćnih država nad ogromnom većinom manje razvijenih država trećeg svijeta. NATO dakle nije izolirana nepolitička vojna struktura, već sam kapitalistički društveni sistem, odnosno njegov vojni izraz. NATO stoga nije vojska naroda u što nas uvjeravaju, već vojska bogate manjine koja vlada razvijenim društvima i svijetom i koja se mora braniti od siromašne većine. Zato i nije nestao nakon ukidanja Varšavskog ugovora, kao što su naivni očekivali, jer nestankom tog saveza nije nestao i glavni neprijatelj bogatih, a to je siromaštvo i neravnomjerni razvoj svijeta, kao neposredna posljedica svjetskog kapitalističkog poretka.

Pošto štiti manjinu od većine NATO ima nedvojbeno imperijalistički karakter. Imperijalistički karakter NATO saveza osobito proizlazi iz činjenice, da SAD imaju dominantnu ulogu u organizaciji svjetskog kapitalističkog poretka, koju su zadobile nakon II sv. rata, istisnuvši svoje evropske konkurente. SAD podaruju članstvo u NATO savezu i određuju njegovu moć i strategiju. To najbolje pokazuje najnovija strategija nacionalne sigurnosti SAD-a, u kojoj su javno iznesene namjere najmoćnije države da svoju prevlast ostvaruje putem prijetnje i korištenjem vojne sile, dakle oblicima moći u kojima nema konkurencije. Osnovni cilj te strategije je spriječiti sve oblike i izraze prijetnje moći, položaju i ugledu SAD u globalnom upravljanju svijetom, radi održavanja nadzora nad svjetskim izvorima, danas energije, a sutra pitke vode i sprečavanja socijalno-političkih gibanja koje mogu ugroziti svjetski poredak vladavine kapitala i vodeću ulogu SAD u njemu. Tom strategijom SAD uzimaju pravo, da po vlastitom nahođenju vode «preventivni rat». Takvim pristupom odredbe o samoobrani država, zajamčene poveljom UN, kao i cijelo međunarodno pravo, postaju besmislene, a SAD imperator, svjetski policajac i najveća prijetnja za svjetski mir.

Mir kojeg NATO želi osigurati je neka vrsta ograničenog mira za dio Evrope i Sjeverne Amerike, kako bi se očuvala stabilnost kapitalističkog poretka, ali na ostali svijet taj se mir ne odnosi. SAD i ostale zapadne sile mogu pribjegavati nasilju protiv nepodobnih, neposlušnih i slabijih širom većine svijeta.

NATO nije niti može biti zaštitnik većine polurazvijenih i razvijenih država i naroda, jer on brani poredak, a ne zemlju. On brani neravnopravnost i nikada ne bi branio socijalizam. NATO može samo štititi vlast onih manjina u tim državama koje u svom interesu i interesu svjetskog kapitala, a na štetu najširih narodnih i nacionalnih interesa održavaju i produbljuju nejednakost.

Sve to naravno vrijedi i za zemlje nastale na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije. NATO može biti zaštita samo onih snaga koje su uz asistenciju svjetskog poretka opljačkale sva materijalna i društvena dobra, koja su radni ljudi stvorili do secesije 90-ih i time stekle ekonomsku i političku moć i tu moć sistematski dalje reproduciraju i jačaju.

Ni po svojoj prošlosti, ni po svojim interesima, u budućnosti zemlje nastale na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije ne pripadaju krugu imperijalističkih sila, mada su neke od njih u prošlosti bile od tadašnjih imperijalnih sila iskorištene: pretvaranjem svojih teritorija u zaštitni kordon ili ratujući na tuđim frontovima, u korist tuđih imperijalnih interesa. Stoga niti mogu očekivati da će ih razviti multinacionalne korporacije i strane banke, pa ne treba ni tražiti zaštitu od tih krugova, a još manje ratovati za njihove interese. Naprotiv, kao male i polurazvijene zemlje, ako žele svoj opstanak i razvoj moraju se svrstati na stranu one većine koje svoj prioritet vide u pravednijim ekonomskim i političkim odnosima i autentičnom razvoju izvan imperijalnog saveza moćnih koga brani NATO. U NATO savezu svi mi gubimo i posljednji atom svoje suverenosti, ali i dostojanstvo naroda koji se nekada u svojstvu arhitekata nesvrstanih, borio za bolji i humaniji svijet protiv svakog imperijalizma.

Recentni događaji, koje eufemistički nazivaju ekonomskom ili monetarnom krizom, iako se radi o krizi sistema. Upućuju na to, da je kapitalizam odigrao svoju povjesnu misiju i nije više u stanju odgovoriti na potrebe čovječanstva, te je nužno potrebno da siđe sa društvene scene, jer je budućnost svijeta determinirana alternativom, socijalizam ili barbarstvo.

Prisutnima zahvaljujem na pažnji, rodbini i prijateljima žrtava moja sućut, a žrtvama slava.

Vladimir Kapuralin




=== 3 ===




To mark the 15th anniversary of the start of the illegal NATO war of aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, over 500 scientists, experts and peace campaigners, myself included, gathered in the capital of Serbia.

There, the international conference 'Global Peace vs Global Interventionism and Imperialism', organized by the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals took place March 21-24. The event began Friday evening with the opening of a photographic exhibition in the Sava Center, which displayed the appalling humanitarian, economic and environmental consequences of the 78-day NATO bombardment.

Under the pretext of a “humanitarian” intervention to stop a non-existent “genocide” NATO bombs killed and injured thousands. Among the most heinous crimes was an attack on a convoy of Kosovo Albanians which at first the western military alliance tried to blame on Yugoslav forces, and which killed 73 people, and the bombing of a passenger train which killed 15 people. The photographs were harrowing reminder of what “humanitarian” interventions mean in practice.

Right from the beginning, in front of a packed audience, speakers at the forum were keen to stress that the war against Yugoslavia was not an isolated conflict but only the first in a succession of aggressive imperialistic wars led by the US in its quest for economic and military domination of the entire globe following the demise of the Soviet Union.

Any strategically important country in the world which does not have the “right” government, i.e. one which wishes to preserve national independence and sovereignty, is targeted for destabilization and “regime change” by the US and its allies as highlighted by the recent coup in Ukraine and the attempts to topple the government in Venezuela.

The war against Yugoslavia, in the words of Klaus Hartmann from the Free Thinkers Association in Germany, was a “door-opener,” which paved the way for new illegal wars and interventions following the demise of the Soviet Union.

Fifteen years ago, the Rubicon was crossed; it was then that the western powers tore up the post-WWII international settlement, and invented the bogus theory of “humanitarian intervention” which had no basis in international law to provide ju

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)


(english / deutsch)

Merkels Sudetenland

1) Das Land der Freiheit / The Land of Freedom (Merkel visits he German League of Expellees in spite of revisionism)
2) Paneuropäische Netze (Die Doktorats-Affäre des CSU-Generalsekretärs und die Netzwerke der deutschen Außenpolitik)


MORE LINKS: 

Was damals Recht war… (GFP Newsletter vom 30.09.2013)

BERLIN (Eigener Bericht) - Noch 75 Jahre nach der Unterzeichnung des Münchner Diktats stuft die Bundesrepublik das Unrechts-Abkommen zur Zerschlagung der Tschechoslowakei als legale Übereinkunft ein. Wie aus einer aktuellen Stellungnahme der Wissenschaftlichen Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages hervorgeht, ist das Münchner Diktat aus Sicht sämtlicher bisheriger Bundesregierungen erst 1974 ungültig geworden. Hintergrund dieser vermeintlichen juristischen Spitzfindigkeit sind umfassende materielle Ansprüche: Wäre die Vereinbarung, die in der
Nacht vom 29. auf den 30. September 1938 getroffen wurde, zunächst gültig gewesen, dann wären die "Sudetendeutschen" 1945 womöglich illegal enteignet worden; ihnen stünden wohl Entschädigungen zu. Diese Rechtsposition, die nicht nur der Haltung Tschechiens, sondern auch derjenigen der Alliierten des Zweiten Weltkriegs diametral widerspricht, ist in der Bundesrepublik seit 1949 systematisch offengehalten worden - bis heute. Während in diesen Tagen des Beginns der NS-Expansion nach Osteuropa gedacht wird, steht in Deutschland die
vorbehaltlose Anerkennung von NS-Unrecht immer noch hinter der Wahrung der Interessen deutscher "Vertriebener" zurück…

mehr: http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/58698

---

Heikle Aufträge (GFP Newsletter vom 24.10.2013)

MÜNCHEN/REGENSBURG (Eigener Bericht) - Die Okkupation der "Sudetengebiete" durch das Deutsche Reich, die sich in diesen Tagen zum 75. Mal jährt, ist von späteren Gründervätern der BRD-"Ostforschung" wissenschaftlich unterstützt worden. Dies belegen exemplarisch die Vorgeschichte des 1952 gegründeten Münchener Osteuropa-Instituts sowie die Biografie seines Gründungsdirektors Hans Koch. Koch leitete das damals noch in Breslau ansässige Institut, als es 1938 unter anderem Karten erstellte, welche die Wehrmacht für ihren Einmarsch in die Tschechoslowakei nutzen konnte. Die deutsche Ostexpansion, die mit der Okkupation der "Sudetengebiete" begann, wurde auch in ihren nächsten Eskalationsstufen von Koch und seinem
Osteuropa-Institut unterstützt: Das Institut bereitete den Überfall auf Polen mit vor - etwa indem es Listen mit den Namen polnischer Politiker und Wissenschaftler erstellte, von denen zahlreiche nach dem deutschen Überfall Opfer von NS-Massenmorden wurden. In der BRD beteiligten sich Koch und das wiedergegründete Osteuropa-Institut am Aufbau der bundesdeutschen "Ostforschung" und berieten das Bundeskanzleramt…

mehr: http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/58719

---

Die neue Kriegsschulddebatte (II) (GFP Newsletter vom 17.02.2014)

BERLIN (Eigener Bericht) - Ultrarechte Kreise in Deutschland sehen in der Debatte um die Schuld am Kriegsbeginn 1914 neue Chancen, auch die deutsche Alleinschuld am Zweiten Weltkrieg in Frage zu stellen. Während der Historiker Christopher Clark "einer breiten Öffentlichkeit deutlich" mache, "dass der Erste Weltkrieg nicht von Deutschland allein verschuldet" worden sei, mache ein deutscher Historiker sich jetzt für "eine ähnliche Position bezüglich des Zweiten Weltkriegs" stark, heißt es in einer Wochenzeitung aus dem Milieu der "Vertriebenen"-Verbände. Der Historiker Stefan Scheil belege in seiner neuesten Publikation den "Expansionsdrang des jungen Staates Polen", der bei der Beurteilung des Kriegsbeginns 1939 in Rechnung zu stellen
sei. Rechtsaußen-Publikationen nutzen die Revisionsstimmung, die durch die Debatte um die Kriegsschuld 1914 ausgelöst worden ist, um das NS-Reich in weiteren Fragen von der Alleinschuld freizusprechen. So seien dem Einmarsch der Wehrmacht nach Österreich und in die Tschechoslowakei 1938 jeweils österreichische respektive tschechoslowakische "Provokationen" vorausgegangen, auf die Nazi-Deutschland lediglich reagiert habe, heißt es in der ultrarechten Wochenzeitung "Junge Freiheit". Vergangene Woche hat sich auch die Zeitschrift "Der Spiegel" für die Debatte um die deutsche Alleinschuld am Zweiten Weltkrieg geöffnet. Das Blatt porträtiert einen prominenten revisionistischen Historiker mit Sympathie und zitiert ihn mit der Behauptung, man müsse "den Anteil der Polen und der Engländer" am Kriegsbeginn 1939 "stärker gewichten"…

mehr: http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/58800


=== 1 ===

Das Land der Freiheit (Merkel trotz Geschichtsrevisionismus beim Bund der Vertriebenen) (GFP Newsletter vom 07.04.2014)

BERLIN (Eigener Bericht) - Der Bund der Vertriebenen (BdV) kündigt für diesen Mittwoch die Teilnahme der deutschen Kanzlerin an seinem Jahresempfang an. Die wiederholte Präsenz Angela Merkels auf seinen Veranstaltungen zeuge "von ihrer engen Verbundenheit mit den Vertriebenen", erklärt BdV-Präsidentin Erika Steinbach. Steinbach und ihre Organisation sind in den vergangenen Jahren immer wieder wegen geschichtsrevisionistischer Äußerungen kritisiert worden. Steinbach selbst hat etwa behauptet, die vom NS-Terror befreiten Länder Ost- und
Südosteuropas seien "über viele Jahre auch nach dem Krieg noch eine gigantische Sklavenhalter-Region" gewesen. Funktionären des BdV und einiger seiner Teilorganisationen wird vorgeworfen, die deutsche Alleinschuld am Zweiten Weltkrieg in Frage zu stellen. Ein namhafter Publizist hat letztes Jahr in einer Rede vor "Vertriebenen"-Funktionären erklärt, es sei "unanständig", dass "die Deutschen sich immer noch erpressen lassen mit dem Hinweis auf die unvergleichlichen Verbrechen Hitlers": Die Deutschen seien "in vieler Hinsicht das friedlichste Volk Europas" gewesen. Die "Vertriebenen"-Verbände, in denen derlei Äußerungen beklatscht werden, stützen deutsche Einflussbemühungen in Ost- und Südosteuropa. Sie werden deshalb von der Kanzlerin mit ihrer Anwesenheit beehrt… 

mehr: http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/fulltext/58840

---


The Land of Freedom
 
2014/04/07
BERLIN
 
(Own report) - The German League of Expellees (BdV) has announced that the German Chancellor will attend their annual reception on Wednesday. Angela Merkel's repeated attendance at the League's events is testimony "of her close ties to the expellees," declared BdV President, Erika Steinbach. Over the past few years, Steinbach and her organization have repeatedly been the focus of controversy for their historical revisionist declarations. Steinbach, herself, had alleged that the Eastern and Southeastern European countries liberated from Nazi terror "had for many years - even after the war -been a gigantic region of slave holders." BdV functionaries and some of its component organizations have been accused of negating exclusive German responsibility for the Second World War. In his talk in front of "Expellee" functionaries last year, a prominent publicist said, it is "indecent" for "Germans to still let themselves be blackmailed with the mention of Hitler's incomparable crimes." The Germans had, "in many respects, been the most peaceful people in Europe." The "Expellees" associations, in which this sort of allegation is applauded, are supporting German efforts to enhance influence in Eastern and Southeastern Europe. This is why they are being honored with the Chancellor's presence.
Suffering and Empathy
On Wednesday, the German Chancellor will attend the annual reception of the German League of Expellees (BdV) to be held in the Catholic Academy in Berlin. This was announced by BdV President, Erika Steinbach (CDU). Angela Merkel has repeatedly been a guest at the BdV's annual receptions. This is "a strong statement" on the part of the Chancellor, says Steinbach. "It testifies to her deep ties to the expellees and to this chapter of German history."[1] The historian, Guido Knopp, will be presented with the BdV's "Badge of Honor" in Merkel's presence. "Since the mid-1990s," the German ZDF TV channel's long-standing top-historian had reached an audience of millions, writes the BdV in its announcement of Knopp's planned award. In his documentaries, "the generation of experience broke its silence" and spoke no longer only about "what they had done" but also about "injustices and sorrow they had had to endure." His "film series on flight and expulsion" has allowed "more than six million viewers (...) to feel for the plight of the Expellees." "With his films" Knopp has awakened "more empathy than ever before for the fate of expellees."[2]
Claims and Lobby Activities
Merkel's participation at the BdV's annual reception can be explained by the high significance Berlin still attaches to the "Expellee" associations. The BdV, along with its individual component organizations, the "homeland associations," not only keeps alive the memory of the German past in numerous regions of East and Southeast Europe, it also regularly recalls to memory that the official German legal standpoint sees the Potsdam Agreements' ordered resettlement of Germans as "an injustice."[3] It assists in perpetuating the claims - sometimes disguised as cultural policy - raised against the regions of origin of the resettled Germans. Individual BdV activists or even component organizations and "homeland associations" have repeatedly participated in projects to enhance influence in East and Southeast Europe. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[4]) The German Chancellor, therefore, returns the favor with her presence at BdV activities, which, in turn, enhances the prestige of these BdV activities.
"A gigantic region of slaveholders"
The milieu, repeatedly honored by Angela Merkel's presence, has the distinction of being increasingly open about its historical revisionism. This also applies to BdV President, Erika Steinbach, herself. A few years ago, Steinbach, who, Wednesday, will personally give the welcoming address for Chancellor Merkel, had accused the East and Southeast European countries invaded by Germany of having made slaves of ethnic Germans. Whereas in Nuremberg, the Western Allies sentenced industrialists, such as Alfried Krupp, for "employing foreign civilian forced laborers and war prisoners," they "explicitly agreed" to allow Stalin to "deport Germans into forced labor and inhumane exploitation." Steinbach concluded: "for many years, even after the war, Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe had still been a gigantic region of slaveholders."[5] Two years later, Steinbach caused another scandal with a statement about the developments leading to World War II, which has been criticized for relativizing German responsibility for the war. The BdV president had explained that she could "regrettably not change the fact that Poland had mobilized its troops already in March 1939."[6] This statement arose from an internal debate within the BdV organization over the issue of Poland allegedly sharing responsibility for starting the Second World War.
"England Set Up the World War"
The "East Prussia Homeland Association" is an outstanding example. In 2003, its journal, the "Preussische Allgemeine Zeitung" praised the recently published book by Maj. General Ret. Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof, who affirmed that alongside Germany, Poland, France and Great Britain were also responsible for starting World War II. His paper, which also contains allegations such as, "shortly after the German invasion of the rest of Czechoslovakia, England began to set up the next world war,"[7] had been praised by the neo-Nazi NPD party as a "fundamental work." According to the "Preussische Allgemeine Zeitung" this book could "also be recommended to the next generation and their teachers." A year later, the journal launched an 18 part series of articles, where Schultze-Rhonhof described his view of developments leading to the Second World War. At the end of 2012, the "East Prussia Homeland Association" bestowed its "Culture Award for Scholarship" to this denier of German responsibility. In his laudation, former spokesperson and one of the "Homeland Association's" leading strategists, Wilhelm von Gottberg, predicted, "there will come a day - whenever that may be - when Germany will no longer be an outcast in the international community." (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[8])
"Impoverished and shrunken"
The publicist Arnulf Baring had reset the limits of the framework determining what may be said in the BdV's highly official events. Last year, Baring was a guest at the BdV's main "Homeland Day" commemoration in Berlin and several associated activities in late August and early September. At the event in Berlin, he gave a diagnosis of the German society as having a collective "psychological (...) impairment," residing in a lack of perception of a grievous loss inflicted upon the "German soul," through the relinquishment of former eastern regions of the German empire, which is still not understood as an "impoverishment" and a "process of shrinkage." This must change. Baring expressed optimism that this change could be made and predicted that in the future, among other things, it can be expected that the first stanza "Germany, Germany above everything" will again be sung.[9]
"Got into a Mess and Blackmailed"
A recording of Baring's full-length "Homeland Day" talk in another commemorative event held a bit later, can be found on the internet. He had been the guest of the CDU parliamentary group and BdV functionaries in North Rhine-Westphalia. Baring had declared that throughout German history, there were "only three catastrophes": "the demise of the House of Hohenstaufen," the 30-Year War, and "the third catastrophe, perhaps even the greatest, was Hitler." "Had Hitler stopped after France had been defeated," then "the Germans" maybe "would not have had to have the feeling of injustice." However it is well known that Hitler had "not been disposed to such calculated partial measures." Still, the Germans should not "permanently be ashamed because of the man who really put us into a mess." It is absolutely "indecent" that "the Germans should let themselves be permanently blackmailed with allusion to Hitler's incomparable crimes" - especially "when some of the countries pouncing on us, do not have a record that is much better."[10]
"The most Peace-Loving People in Europe"
Baring did not forget to explicitly explain to the representatives of the CDU and the BdV -at whose annual reception Chancellor Merkel will participate, Wednesday - that "if you compare us with other European peoples, we would come out looking much better." Germany, "for centuries, had been the land of freedom," where "the idea of freedom had been much more vivid" than in France or Great Britain. "We could readily admit that we are not only the greatest, but in many aspects also the most important European people," Baring added. Already in the past, the Germans were "not only the most important" but "in many respects, also the most peaceful people in Europe."[11]

[1] Bundeskanzlerin Dr. Angela Merkel zu Gast beim BdV-Jahresempfang. Pressemitteilung des BdV 02.04.2014. See Die Kanzlerin beim BdV.
[2] Ehrenplakette an Professor Dr. Guido Knopp. Pressemitteilung des BdV 25.03.2014.
[3] See An Educational Venue60 Jahre Aggressionen und Protest against Potsdam.
[4] See Politische Zukunftsaufgaben and 60 Jahre Aggressionen.
[5] See Sklavenhalter.
[6] Steinbach verlässt CDU-Spitze. www.n-tv.de 10.09.2010.
[7] Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof: 1939. Der Krieg, der viele Väter hatte. München 2003.
[8] See Die ostpreußische Kriegsschulddebatte.
[9] See "The Most Important People of Europe".
[10], [11] Barings Rede ist bei youtube dokumentiert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpR7siHBjCE


=== 2 ===


Paneuropäische Netze
 
20.01.2014
BERLIN/PRAG
 
(Eigener Bericht) - Die Doktorats-Affäre um CSU-Generalsekretär Andreas Scheuer wirft ein Schlaglicht auf alte Netzwerke der deutschen Außenpolitik. Scheuers Doktorats-Vater Rudolf Kučera von der Prager Karls-Universität, bei dem der deutsche Politiker unter umstrittenen Bedingungen seinen akademischen Grad erlangen konnte, arbeitet seit den 1980er Jahren mit der deutschen Sektion der "Paneuropa-Union" zusammen. Diese ist in der CSU fest verankert und eng mit dem Milieu der "Vertriebenen"-Verbände verflochten. Kučera ist für seine pro-sudetendeutsche Haltung bekannt, die schon seit den 1980ern seine (damals noch illegale) Paneuropa-Sektion "Böhmen und Mähren" prägt. Otto Habsburg, unter dessen Regie in dieser Zeit die Paneuropa-Union nach Ost- und Südosteuropa erweitert wurde, habe "bei unseren östlichen Nachbarn das Bewußtsein geweckt ..., daß es noch zu lösende offene Fragen gegenüber den Deutschen gibt", erläuterte Anfang der 1990er Jahre der einstige Generalsekretär des Bundes der Vertriebenen (BdV), Hartmut Koschyk (CSU). Die Paneuropa-Netzwerke bestehen bis heute, und das nicht nur in der Tschechischen Republik. Vertreter ihrer Führungsebene beschreiben die EU als eine Art Fortführung der verblichenen Idee von einem supranationalen Reich.
Das kleine Doktorat
Zum wiederholten Male haben in der vergangenen Woche Ungereimtheiten um den akademischen Titel eines einflussreichen deutschen Politikers eine Affäre ausgelöst. Gegenstand ist diesmal der Doktorgrad, den der CSU-Bundestagsabgeordnete (seit 2002), ehemalige Parlamentarische Staatssekretär im Bundesverkehrsministerium (2009 bis 2013) und derzeitige CSU-Generalsekretär Andreas Scheuer bis zum vergangenen Freitag führte. Das "kleine Doktorat", das Scheuer an der Prager Karls-Universität im Jahr 2004 erwarb, wird prinzipiell nur in den Bundesländern Berlin und Bayern als Berechtigung zum Führen des Doktortitels anerkannt. Zudem sind gegen Scheuer Plagiatsvorwürfe erhoben worden. Schließlich konnte der Politiker sämtliche notwendigen Schritte vom Verfassen seiner wissenschaftlichen Arbeit bis hin zu den Prüfungen in deutscher Sprache absolvieren; das ist laut Berichten in Prag sonst unüblich.[1] Trotz aller Ungereimtheiten sind bislang die langjährigen engen Beziehungen, die Scheuers Doktoratsvater Rudolf Kučera nach Deutschland und insbesondere zu einflussreichen CSU-Politikern unterhält, kaum beachtet worden. Ihre Bedeutung reicht weit über die aktuelle Affäre hinaus.
Böhmen und Mähren
Scheuers Doktorats-Vater Rudolf Kučera hatte in den 1980er Jahren in Prag eine Sektion der internationalen "Paneuropa-Union" gegründet. Die Paneuropa-Union, damals noch vom letzten Kronprinzen des österreichisch-ungarischen Kaiserreichs, Otto Habsburg, geführt, setzt sich für ein katholisch-konservativ geprägtes, nach Ethno-Kriterien ("Volksgruppen") strukturiertes vereinigtes Europa ein. Ihr galt die Tschechoslowakei als künstlicher "Vielvölkerstaat", weshalb sich ihre dortigen Sektionen als "Paneuropa-Union Tschechien" und "Paneuropa-Union Slowakei" bildeten - die tschechische Sektion in Erinnerung an das Habsburgerreich als "Paneuropa-Union Böhmen und Mähren". So nennt sie sich unter Kučeras Führung bis heute.[2]
Untergrund-Paneuropäer
Kučeras Paneuropa-Union Böhmen und Mähren profitierte in den 1980er Jahren davon, dass sie von der deutschen Paneuropa-Sektion um den - auf CSU-Ticket gewählten - Europaabgeordneten Otto Habsburg systematisch unterstützt wurde. Dies geschah illegal. So berichtet der heutige CSU-Europaabgeordnete Bernd Posselt, er habe seit Anfang der 1980er als Paneuropa-"Beauftragter für Mittel- und Osteuropa" die damals nicht zugelassenen dortigen Sektionen "koordiniert".[3] Paneuropa-Aktivisten hätten Bücher und nützliche Apparate, die der tschechoslowakische Untergrund benötigte, beispielsweise Druckmaschinen, nach Prag geschmuggelt. Daran seien nicht nur Exil-Tschechoslowaken, sondern häufig auch Sudetendeutsche beteiligt gewesen. Entsprechend entwickelten sich bereits damals Beziehungen zwischen der Paneuropa-Union Böhmen und Mähren und den Sudetendeutschen, von denen Letztere in hohem Maße profitierten. Schon im April 1989 berichtete eine interne Publikation der Paneuropa-Union: "Die tschechischen Untergrund-Paneuropäer bekennen sich zum Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker, verurteilen den 'überspannten Nationalismus' der Ersten Tschechoslowakei nach 1919 sowie vor allem die Vertreibung der Sudetendeutschen nach 1945".
Stark pro-sudetendeutsch
Aus dem von der Paneuropa-Union unterstützten tschechoslowakischen Untergrund ist ein kleines, aber durchaus stabiles pro-sudetendeutsches Milieu in der heutigen Tschechischen Republik hervorgegangen. So spielte schon beim ersten offiziellen Kongress der Paneuropa-Union Böhmen und Mähren Anfang 1990 in Prag die "sudetendeutsche Frage" eine wichtige Rolle. "Am Rande des Kongresses" seien "gemeinsame Initiativen zur Erhaltung deutscher Kulturdenkmäler in Nordböhmen" vereinbart worden, hieß es bei der Paneuropa-Union; in den folgenden Jahren sollten "sudetendeutsche und tschechische Jugendliche Sommer für Sommer gemeinsam zerstörte Kirchen und Friedhöfe wiederherstellen". Ein internes Mitteilungsblatt der Paneuropa-Union berichtete im Herbst 1991 vom Jahreskongress der Paneuropa-Union Böhmen und Mähren, es sei "einstimmig eine stark pro-sudetendeutsche Resolution verabschiedet" worden. All dies geschah unter Kučeras Führung.
Offene Fragen
Kučera, der immer wieder öffentlich gegen die Beneš-Gesetze Position bezogen hat - einmal auch im deutschen Rechtsaußen-Blatt "Junge Freiheit" [4] -, unterstützt die "Stiftung Zentrum gegen Vertreibungen" des deutschen Bundes der Vertriebenen (BdV). Seit 1990 ist er immer wieder auch bei der Sudetendeutschen Landsmannschaft aufgetreten, in der heute der CSU-Europaabgeordnete Bernd Posselt, Präsident der Paneuropa-Union Deutschland seit 1998, eine führende Rolle spielt.[5] Am 29. Mai 1993 etwa stellte Kučera sich für eine Podiumsdiskussion beim "Sudetendeutschen Tag" zur Verfügung; es standen "Volksgruppenrechte" als "Baustein für Europa" zur Debatte. Ebenfalls auf dem Podium saß Hartmut Koschyk (CSU), ein damaliges Vorstandsmitglied der Paneuropa-Union Deutschland. Koschyk, der 1987 bis 1991 als BdV-Generalsekretär fungiert hatte, urteilte in jener Zeit, die Paneuropa-Führungsgestalt Otto Habsburg habe "bei unseren östlichen Nachbarstaaten das Bewußtsein geweckt ..., daß es noch zu lösende offene Fragen gegenüber den Deutschen gibt".[6] Diese Äußerung bezog sich nicht nur auf die pro-sudetendeutschen Positionen der Paneuropa-Union Böhmen und Mähren, sondern auch auf die Wirkung von Habsburgs Auftritten und organisatorischen Anstrengungen, die er seit Ende der 1980er Jahre etwa bei den deutschsprachigen Minderheiten Ungarns und Polens unternommen hatte. Dazu passt, dass bis heute keine Paneuropa-Union Polen, stattdessen aber eine Paneuropa-Union Silesia ("Schlesien") existiert. Sie wird von einem Aktivisten des "Deutschen Freundschaftskreises" in Racibórz ("Ratibor") geleitet.
Die Reichsidee
Als gedanklichen Bezugspunkt und als Rahmen zur Ordnung der territorialen Elemente Europas - von "Böhmen und Mähren" bis "Schlesien" - nennen Vertreter der "Paneuropa"-Führungsebene immer wieder die verblichenen supranationalen Reiche des Kontinents. Otto Habsburg erklärte Ende der 1970er Jahre etwa, die "derzeitige europäische Integrationspolitik" sei "die Fortsetzung der großen Linien und Grundsätze des Reiches", die den Zusammenbruch von "1806 überlebten, weil sie dauernde Gültigkeit haben".[7] Bald darauf begann er mit der Ausdehnung der Paneuropa-Union nach Ost- und Südosteuropa und nahm, vermittelt über Posselt, unter anderem Kontakt zu Rudolf Kučera auf, dem späteren Doktorats-Vater des heutigen CSU-Generalsekretärs. Erst letzte Woche hat sein Sohn Karl, heute offizielles Oberhaupt des Hauses Habsburg und Präsident der Paneuropa-Union Österreich, Ottos Auffassung bekräftigt. Die EU sei "die Fortsetzung der alten Idee von einem supranationalen Reich mit anderen Mitteln", erklärte er in einem Interview, das als Teil einer Kooperation führender Zeitungen aus den sechs größten europäischen Staaten entstand.[8] "Das ist es, was Otto von Habsburg in Europa sah und was er wollte", erklärt Karl Habsburg: "Die Umstände" hätten sich zwar verändert, die supranationale "Idee" des Reichs jedoch sei gleich geblieben.

[1] Albert Schäffer: Die große Geschichte vom kleinen Doktor. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 17.01.2014.
[2] Internationale Paneuropa-Union: Mitgliedsorganisationen. www.paneuropa.org.
[3] Bernd Posselt, MdEP. www.csu-europagruppe.de. S. auch Ansichten eines Mitteleuropäers.
[4] EU-Beitritt trotz Benes-Dekreten? jungefreiheit.de 10.05.2002.
[5] Posselt war von 2000 bis 2008 Bundesvorsitzender und ist seit 2008 Sprecher der Sudetendeutschen Landsmannschaft.
[6] Zitiert nach: Walter von Goldendach, Hans-Rüdiger Minow: "Deutschtum erwache!" Aus dem Innenleben des staatlichen Pangermanismus. Unter wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeit von Volker Külow, Berlin 1994.
[7] Otto von Habsburg: Karl IV. Ein europäischer Friedensfürst. München/Wien 1978. S. auch Überstaatliche Ordnung.
[8] Archduke Franz Ferdinand descendant: don't blame us for first world war. www.theguardian.com 15.01.2014.