Informazione
Oggetto: lettera alle Segnalazioni
Data: 29 aprile 2013 15.09.30 GMT+02.00
Nel consueto (nel senso che si ripete di anno in anno) intervento di Stelio Spadaro (quest’anno assieme a Lorenzo Nuovo) relativamente all’importanza dell’insurrezione del CLN triestino il 30/4/45, leggiamo anche che “i CLN triestini (sic) erano ignorati od ostacolati dal CLN Alta Italia che dava per scontato che la Resistenza dovesse essere affidata all’esercito di Liberazione sloveno e croato” e che “del quarto CLN giuliano non facevano parte gli uomini del Partito Comunista” perché “il PCI era nella sostanza schierato dall’altra parte” (anche se il testo può dare adito al dubbio che il PCI sostenesse i nazifascisti, per “altra parte” i due autori intendono gli Alleati jugoslavi).
Vanno quindi chiarite alcune cose. La prima è che il CLNAI, in quanto organo di governo dell’Italia antifascista riconosciuto dagli Alleati, aveva (giustamente) invitato il CLN triestino a collaborare con il Fronte di liberazione facente riferimento alla Jugoslavia di Tito, governo riconosciuto dalle nazioni alleate. Ed il CLN di Trieste, se voleva avere un riconoscimento internazionale dalla compagine antinazifascista, doveva giocoforza collaborare con l’Esercito di liberazione jugoslavo e (a Trieste) con il Fronte di Liberazione – Osvobodilna Fronta sloveno.
Però questa direttiva politica non era stata raccolta dal CLN giuliano (come si può facilmente vedere negli scritti di Giovanni Paladin, don Marzari, Giuliano Gaeta ed altri), che nell’estate del 1944 fece di tutto per creare delle fratture con l’OF, il che provocò anche l’allontanamento dal CLN del Partito comunista.
E quando, un paio di mesi dopo, il delegato comunista Giuseppe (Pino) Gustincich, cercò un contatto con il CLN giuliano, ecco come lo accolse don Edoardo Marzari, presidente e tesoriere del CLN giuliano, rappresentante della Democrazia cristiana.
“… in settembre (1944, ndr) mi si presentò a Trieste un certo Pino Gustincich, dicendo di essere stato designato a rappresentare i comunisti però non solo italiani ma anche sloveni. Gli risposi che il CLN era italiano e che non era ammissibile una rappresentanza slava in seno ad esso, esistendo già per gli slavi un loro proprio organo. Egli replicò che le direttive erano state cambiate e che solo a quella condizione il PC poteva far parte del CLN. Risposi che allora il posto del PC sarebbe stato vacante e così di fatto avvenne in seguito e ogni cosa si svolse fino alla liberazione e oltre senza la partecipazione del PCI” (“I cattolici triestini nella Resistenza”, Del Bianco, Udine 1960, p. 30).
Quindi, stando alle affermazioni di don Marzari, non è stato il Partito comunista triestino a non voler entrare nel CLN giuliano, ma il CLN giuliano a rifiutare, dopo avere disatteso le direttive del CLNAI, l’adesione del Partito comunista.
Un tanto per correttezza nei confronti dei combattenti per la Liberazione di Trieste.
Claudia Cernigoi
Trieste
===
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia - ONLUS
https://www.cnj.it/
http://www.facebook.com/cnj.onlus/
=== * ===
Invita i tuoi amici e Tiscali ti premia! Il consiglio di un amico vale più di uno spot in TV. Per ogni nuovo abbonato 30 € di premio per te e per lui! Un amico al mese e parli e navighi sempre gratis: http://freelosophy.tiscali.it/
Trieste, sabato 27 aprile 2013
ore 18.30, Casa del popolo di Sottolongera (via Masaccio 34, autobus 35)
Presentazione del libro:
LA BANDA COLLOTTI
di C. Cernigoi (Udine: KappaVu, 2013)
Nota dell’autrice:
Ho cominciato a scrivere questo libro più di dieci anni fa, pensando all'inizio di farne un breve dossier, come quelli che pubblico per la Nuova Alabarda. Avevo iniziato riordinando un po' di documenti storici e di testimonianze e poi, andando avanti, mi sono accorta che mentre scrivevo la storia del corpo di repressione avevo iniziato a ricostruire anche una parte della storia della Resistenza di queste terre, e così ho proseguito raccogliendo altri documenti, ma soprattutto testimonianze di persone che avevano vissuto quei momenti e me ne hanno resa partecipe. Così ne è uscito un libro piuttosto corposo, ricerca che per me ha significato non solo conoscere fatti storici ma anche entrare in contatto con tante persone che avevano lottato e sofferto per la libertà, ed alla fine ne sono uscita più ricca interiormente. Ringrazio ancora tutti coloro che mi hanno aiutata e che sono ricordati all'inizio del libro, e mando un pensiero particolare agli ex prigionieri che hanno accettato di visitare la sede di via Cologna, dove erano stati detenuti e torturati, per ricostruire con noi, che "viviamo tranquilli nelle nostre tiepide case" quei tempi terribili che non abbiamo vissuto, noi che grazie al sacrificio di persone come loro oggi possiamo vivere liberamente.
Banditi, ki so zastopali institucijo
Claudia Cernigoi o svoji knjigi La »Banda Collotti« o posebnem inšpektoratu javne varnosti
sobota, 20. aprila 2013
V četrtek so v novinarskem krožku predstavili knjigo Claudie Cernigoi La Banda Collotti« o posebnem inšpektoratu javne varnosti (založba Kappavu iz Vidma). Pogovorili smo se z avtorico, ki je svoje delo predstavila skupaj z Alessandro Kersevan in Ljubomirjem Sušićem.
Kaj prinaša nova knjiga o posebnem inšpektoratu policije?
To je študija o represivnem organu, ga je leta 1942 ustanovilo italijansko notranje ministrstvo, da bi zajezilo partizansko gibanje v Julijski krajini. O zloglasnem inšpektoratu je bilo v Trstu veliko govora, žal pa se je o njem malo pisalo. Hotela sem zapolniti vrzel, saj me tema zelo zanima.
Je to prva knjiga na to temo?
Da. Objavljenih je bilo nekaj člankov in publikacij, to je pa prva specifična študija o inšpektoratu.
Katere vire ste uporabili?
Prvi vir je bil Deželni inštitut za zgodovino osvobodilnega gibanja v FJK. Potem sem šla na Odsek za zgodovino Narodne in študijske knjižnice v Petronijevi ulici ...
Dokler je bil še odprt.
Da, k sreči mi je uspelo proučiti nekaj gradiva, predvsem iz Bubničevega arhiva. Potem so še državna arhiva v Trstu in Rimu, državni arhiv v Ljubljani (o prijavah na račun vojnih zločincev iz posebnega inšpektorata), arhiv tržaškega VZPI-ANPI (fascikel z dokumenti, ki so jih zasegli po Collottijevi aretaciji v Carboneri), razne knjige, nekaj podatkov pa mi je posredoval Vincenzo Cerceo, ki je prebral dnevnike Diega de Henriqueza v tržaških mestnih muzejih. Pomembno mesto pa zasedajo številni intervjuji, ki sem jih opravila z osebami, ki so doživele tedanje grozote. Pričevanja sem povezala z zapisniki posameznih zaslišanj.
Ali ste intervjuvali veliko ljudi?
Da, iz Furlanije-Julijske krajine in Veneta, kjer so prijeli Gaetana Collottija. Govorila sem tudi z osebo, ki je bila takrat na območju njegove aretacije. Prav posebno pa je pričevanje ženske, ki so jo odvedli na sedež inšpektorata v Ul. Bellosguardo, ko je bila stara osem let. Nje niso mučili, stik s Collottijem pa se ji je vtisnil v spomin. Spraševal jo je o njenih starših. V knjigi posvečam posebno pozornost človeški plati.
Kaj vas je najbolj presunilo med raziskovanjem?
V prvi vrsti to, da je bila struktura inšpektorata zelo organizirana. Giuseppe Gueli, ki je vodil inšpektorat, je imel v mislih sodoben model protigverilske represije. Osupljiva sta število ljudi, ki jih je obravnaval inšpektorat in odstotek smrtnih žrtev - zaradi mučenja ali pa odhoda v taborišče. Večina tamkajšnjih policistov pa je po vojni ostalo v službi in nekateri so se v drugih mestih povzpeli celo do kvestorskega položaja.
S Collottijem so v Venetu zajeli tudi Slovenca Rada Seliškarja. Kdo je bil?
Seliškar je bil ljubljanski prostovoljec, ki je zapustil partizane in se pridružil posebnemu inšpektoratu, vendar zgodba ni jasna. Njegova zaročenka je zatrjevala, da je v resnici pod krinko še vedno sodeloval s partizani, drugi viri pa postavljajo v dvom to razlago, češ da je bil kolaboracionist. Dopisi so na Odseku za zgodovino NŠK. V Venetu so Collottija in Seliškarja na koncu baje ustrelili.
V naslovu je Collottijeva tolpa v narekovajih. Ali ste s tem želeli poudariti, da je šlo v resnici za državni organ?
Vsi jo poznajo kot Banda Collotti, čeprav je bila to institucija. Predstavniki te institucije pa so se dejansko obnašali kot banditi. Na to je med prvimi opozarjal Borštan Jordan Zahar, ki sem ga intervjuvala.
Več v tiskani izdaji Primorskega dnevnika
Neither Justice Nor Reconciliation
Paris.
The United States boycotted the affair.
Why? It was organized by a Serb.
Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch took on the task of warning people away in an article in the Huffington Post. The debate “will serve up a revisionist denial of the worst killings in Europe since the end of World War II”, he announced, adding that “it is unlikely much thoughtful discussion will occur.”
The Serb organizing the conference was Vuk Jeremic, who used to be Serbia’s foreign minister before becoming current president of the UN General Assembly, a position which allows such special thematic debates to be organized. With the moral weight of Human Rights Watch behind him, Dicker wrote that “the government Jeremic served is dominated by the nationalist Serbian Radical Party (SRP), whose founder, Vojislav Seselj, is on trial at the International Criminal Tribunal on Former Yugoslavia” (ICTY). Dicker accused Jeremic of deciding to “organize a ‘debate’ to serve as cover for an auto-da-fe of the tribunal.”
Take that, you Serbs! We know what you’re up to! Except that, incidentally, there has never been a Serbian government dominated by the Serbian Radical Party. That party ceased to exist during the ongoing decade-long incarceration without trial of its leader Seselj – which is perhaps precisely why Seselj is being kept indefinitely in The Hague. The government Jeremic served was in fact the submissively pro-Western Democratic Party government of President Boris Tadic, which spent its years in office doing everything it could to please its tormenters in the European Union, the United States and the Tribunal. But never mind the facts: those Serbs are all alike, extreme nationalists, of course.
Having disposed of the Serbian sponsors, Dicker concluded: “Countries with a more constructive agenda need to find a way to debate these and other lessons as we near the 20th anniversary of the Yugoslavia tribunal.”
Of course, Human Rights Watch could have brought its “constructive” views to the April 10 conference. All that was needed was for its executive director Kenneth Roth to accept the invitation from Jeremic, who also invited other champions of the ICTY.
Erin Pelton, spokeswoman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, said the United States would not participate in the “unbalanced, inflammatory” meeting. Indeed, why should the Superpower that has systematically ensured its own immunity from the International Criminal Court discuss international criminal law with indictable riffraff?
So the debate was left to those beyond the pale of “the International Community” – such secondary countries as Argentina, South Africa, Russia, China, Cuba, India, Algeria, Turkey, Brazil, etc., etc.
Jeremic posed the paramount issue of the conference in his introductory remarks: “how international criminal justice can help reconcile former adversaries in post-conflict, transitional societies.” He ventured to suggest that: “Reconciliation will come about when all the parties to a conflict are ready to speak the truth to each other. Honoring all the victims is at the heart of this endeavor… Reconciliation is in its essence about the future, about making sure we do not allow yesterday’s tragedies to circumscribe our ability to reach out to each other, and work together for a better, more inclusive tomorrow.”
Not much of an “auto-da-fe”.
This was soon followed by the dreaded moment of scandal when the current President of Serbia, Tomislav Nikolic, delivered his speech. “U.S. boycotts U.N. forum over agenda set by Serb”, headlined the International Herald Tribune, noting that: “Critics took offense that
General Assembly president, Vuk Jeremic, whose antipathy toward the Yugoslavia tribunal is well known, had invited as keynote speaker the like-minded president of Serbia, Tomislav Nikolic, but not the victims of Balkans atrocities …” What Nikolic himself actually said was not reported.
So, addressing only the majority of the world that lies beyond the pale, Nikolic said that Serbia yearned for reconciliation with its neighbors with whom it used to live in the same country. But he was “deeply convinced that the Hague Tribunal has only done harm to this process and that it has probably caused an unnecessary delay that will be carried over to the next generation.”
The one-sided focus of the Tribunal on crimes by Serbs stands in the way of reconciliation, he said. The extreme imbalance between convictions of Serbs and other parties to the tragic conflicts indicates an effort to establish the conclusion that the Serbian side alone was carrying out murder and genocide while the others were passively going about their daily business.
“It is not true that in this war that destroyed us all only one side was getting killed and the other side was doing the killings”, he said, blaming the ICTY for a “lack of objectivity and impartiality”.
Nikolic recalled Serbia’s extraordinary cooperation with the Tribunal over the years, extraditing 46 defendants, including two former presidents, government ministers, three army chiefs of staff and several police and army generals, including the director of intelligence service which, Nikolic stressed, has never been done by any other country. Serbia has “almost given up sovereignty,” relieving more than 750 witnesses from the obligation to safeguard state secrets and opening its archives to prosecutors.
In return, crimes against Serbs have been almost entirely ignored by the prosecution, and the few prosecutions of the most notorious crimes of ethnic cleansing of Serbs have ended in acquittal on appeal.
The verdicts reached by the Tribunal are making the Serbian people feel frustrated and depressed while creating feelings of exaltation and triumph among Croats and Bosnian Muslims, he said. In the absence of a balanced truth, “any reconciliation will be imposed and insincere.” A convincing court “cannot be fair to some and unfair to others.” No real reconciliation is possible when one nation is made to feel that it is the victim of a great injustice, while giving the other side a feeling of great triumph.
Of the refusal of ICTY representatives to attend the conference Nikolic said that “if they did not respect the most ancient legal rule, ‘Audiatur et altera pars’ (hear the other side too), how can we expect even a minimum of law and justice of them?”
Following statements by representatives of participating countries, the conference heard discussion by two expert panels, made up of a total of two Serbs and eight speakers from the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.
Savo Strbac, a Bosnian Serb who has collected data on war deaths, used statistics to show that the Tribunal had unfairly prosecuted a disproportionate number of Serbs. William Schabas, an American defender of the ICTY, replied that the 1945 Nuremberg Tribunal was, after all, even more one-sided against the Germans. He thus confirmed exactly what the Serbs object to, namely that the Tribunal was set up at the start of the Yugoslav wars of disintegration to put political pressure on the Serbian side, after Germany and the United States, for contrasting reasons, had decided to back the Croatian and Bosnian Muslim separatists against the Serbs. The ICTY was used as a constant threat to the Serbs, the party most opposed to dismantling Yugoslavia. The prosecution of members of the secessionist national groups have been token at best.
The second Serb panelist, Cedomir Antic, noted that over 70% of Serbs have a negative view of the Tribunal, but other national groups are not satisfied either. He protested that the underlying identification of Serbia with Nazi Germany was unfounded and unjust. By developing a condemnation of Serbia’s entire historic culture, the ICTY has even fostered hatred of their own country among some Serbs. Serbs are accused of hating others, but self-hatred is welcomed.
It is striking that not long after World War II, which left over 60 million dead, the Federal Republic of Germany was cozily rehabilitated into the West, economically and militarily, whereas years after the end of an incomparably smaller localized war, Serbia remains a criminalized pariah.
The reason for this ongoing stigmatization of Serbia lies in the need to justify the 1999 Kosovo war.
At one point, a Cuban delegate asked Canadian panelist General Lewis MacKenzie,
who commanded UN peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo during the Bosnian phase of the wars: what was the real reason that NATO bombed Serbia for 78 days in 1999? General MacKenzie replied candidly that it was because NATO was celebrating its fiftieth anniversary, the Soviet bloc had collapsed, and “NATO was looking for work”.
The 1999 bombing of Kosovo was blatantly illegal – an act of aggression, without U.N. Security Council mandate, carried out with impunity against a country that posed no threat whatsoever to any NATO member.
As Cedomir Antic observed, the nature of the Tribunal is proven by the fact that it refused to indict anyone in NATO for its illegal crime of aggression against Serbia, or for its crimes in bombing schools, hospitals and other civilian targets.
International lawyer Matthew Parish raised the problem of international criminal law “stealing ground from historians”. The “fog of war” makes it hard to know what is going on, and justice pretends to give final answers, he observed.
ICTY indictments and convictions are designed to give answers that are clearly oriented in a way to support the NATO pretext that the bombing of Serbia was a “humanitarian” war to save potential victims (Kosovo Albanians) from a hypothetical threat of “genocide”. That version casts the Serbs as villains, with all other parties as innocent victims.
U.S. leaders wanted to give NATO a new mission, and claiming to “save the Kosovars” from genocide was an ideal pretext. The main task of The Hague Tribunal for crimes in former Yugoslavia is to shore up that pretext. NATO powers proposed it, fund it, choose or vet its personnel. Quite naturally, it follows and confirms the NATO interpretation of events. The interpretation must be preserved above all because Kosovo as the “good, humanitarian war” still continues to serve as model for whatever other war the US or NATO may choose to undertake on a similar pretext.
It remained for British scholar John Laughland to conclude the debates with a scathing intellectual critique of the very principle of international criminal tribunals.
Laughland argued that the whole system is a fundamental mistake which overlooks the fact that the legal right to administer justice is the definitive characteristic of statehood which cannot rightly be usurped by such floating entities:
“This unimpeachable right to administer punishment is enjoyed by the state under very clear conditions, namely that this right is exercised in return for general protection of law-abiding citizens. The right derives, in other words, from the social contract. That social contract is systemically broken by international tribunals which offer no protection in return for the punishment they administer because they are not part of a state and have no police force. Not embedded in the structures of statehood, international criminal courts are a perfect example of power without responsibility.”
Laughland expressed his conviction that “the United Nations system is itself endangered by these developments and by the rise of that interventionism which international criminal justice embodies.”
To promote reconciliation, it would be necessary, Laughland maintained, to return to “the lost art of peace” which, until the early twentieth century, was exemplified in the amnesty clauses included in all peace treaties. Amnesty was not an individual forgetting, but an official act of sovereign states to put hostilities behind them and make a fresh start on friendly terms.
Ignoring all such issues, the mainstream media, in its indigent reporting, focused on the absent victims. Bosnian Muslim activist Munira Subasic was lengthily interviewed by the Associated Press, calling on emotion to trump reason with references to Srebrenica, genocide, rape, evil.
“As a victim of genocide, Subasic said, ‘I will never forgive. I will never forget’,” AP reported.
It was a final proof of the failure of the International Criminal Tribunal on former Yugoslavia to advance reconciliation.
DIANA JOHNSTONE is the author of Fools Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions. She can be reached at diana.josto@...
B92 - April 17, 2013
Anniversary of death of 3-year-old victim of NATO bombing
BELGRADE: Today marks 14 years since the death on April 17, 1999, of three-year-old Milica Rakić, killed during a NATO air raid.
The child was fatally injured in the bathroom of her home, when a shrapnel from a cluster bomb hit her in the head.
The apartment building where her family lives is located some six kilometers from the military airport in the Belgrade suburb of Batajnica.
The traces of the damage done by the bomb are still visible on the facade around the bathroom window. The family decided not to repair the wall, as a reminder of the horrific crime.
The toddler’s death became the symbol of the suffering of the Serbian people during the war that NATO waged against the country in the spring of 1999.
Крагујевац
ПОНИЖАВА ЖРТВЕ, ХВАЛИ УБИЦЕ!
Поводом низа оглашавања на интернетској мрежи Саше Миленића, народног посланика, функционера УРС и председника Скупштине Крагујевца, да је „НАТО ОСЛОБОДИО СРБИЈУ“, о чему су писали многи медији, реаговали су Окружни одбор СУБНОР Шумадије и Градски одбор СУБНОР Крагујевца.
Текст саопштења о понашању Саше Миленића доносимо у целости.
„У историји Србије и српског народа сарадници окупатора и домаћи издајници увек су бирали и бирају тренутке за своје деловање када Србија и њено руководство доносе судбоносне одлуке за очување суверенитета, територијалног интегритета, и у овом тренутку одбране Косова и Метохије.
На овај начин не бирајући средства покушавају да умање напоре председника Републике, Владе и Скупштине Р. Србије као и огромну подршку народа да очувају целовитост Србије али и да заштите неалбански живаљ на територији КиМ који је опет нажалост мета „ Милосрдног анђела “.
Призивајући снаге НАТО-а које су по њему ослободиле Србију он поново убија све патриоте и родољубе кроз нашу историју који су за слободу, част и достојанство отаџбине дали највећу цену, свој живот.
Изгледа да г. Миленић жели поново да убије малу Милицу Ракић из Батајнице, повреди душе и срца њених родитеља, Сашу Васиљевића, војника из Крагујевца који је бранећи Свету српску земљу КиМ погинуо од авијације НАТО-а, као и његове погинуле саборце из Крагујевца : Виријевић Зорана, Милошевић Милосава, Милутиновић Златка, Милутиновић Драгана, Пантовић Ђорђа, Петковић Божа, Урошевић Душана, Жикић Карађорђевић Љиљану, Заграђанин Славољуба, Илић Радишу, Крстић Горана, Миленковић Јовицу, Миловановић Горана, Цветковић Зорана, Коматовић Сашу, Јокић Милана, Станојловић Владана, и све остале часне патроте и родољубе из Републике Србије који су били жртве НАТО алијансе у борби против исте.
Господин Миленић заборавља да сви они који се стављају на страну „ Милосрдног анђела “ заправо желе да омаловаже и повреде историјско сећање и памћење на јунаке са Мишара, Цера, Колубаре, Солунског фронта, Кадињаче, Неретве, Сутјеске, Кошара, и још многих епопеја из наше слободољубиве историје.
Изгледа да сви они који раде против Србије и њених народа заборављају величину једног професора гимназије из Крагујевца, Милоја Павловића, металског радника Тозе Драговића, студента Наде Наумовић, који су пред окупатором и њиховим слугама уздигнуте главе отишли у смрт.
Деловање издајника и слуга окупатора и њихов непријатељски рад увек су били препознатљиви у нашем народу и осуђивани, односно стављани на стуб срама.
Сви они који су се отворено ставили, и стављају у службу непријатеља српског народа себи дају за право да су носиоци култа Немањића и Светог Саве, при чему заборављају да су то највеће светиње и заклетва српског народа и православља, заправо да је православље очувало српски идентитет у вишевековним борбама за слободу.
Американофила и оних који су призивали и призивају НАТО да бомбардује Србију и комада њену територију има још у Србији, али без обзира на њихов број и њихово непријатељско деловање препознати су и не могу осујетити напоре државног руководства Србије и подршку патриота и родољуба, грађана Србије, за очувањем слободе, части и достојантва Србије“ – стоји у саопштењу Окружног одбора СУБНОР-а Шумадије и Градског одбора СУБНОР-а Крагујевца.
«In a broader sense it should be noted that NATO aggression marked a strategic change in its nature: it abandoned the defensive and adopted an offensive (aggressive) policy, authorizing itself to intervene any time at any spot on the globe. The UN, especially the UN Security Council, had been disabled; international law and justice disregarded.»
The Nato-aggression against Yugoslavia from 1999 was a model of the new wars of conquest»
“Humanitarian interventions” as a pretext for deployment of US-troops
Interview with Živadin Jovanovic, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Repbulic of Yugoslavia, presently Chairman of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals
Current Concerns: Mr. Jovanovic, can you present yourself shortly for our readers and give us some information about yourself and your career?
Živadin Jovanovic: In 1961 I graduated from the Faculty of Law at the University of Belgrade; from 1961 to 1964 I was at the District Administration of New Belgrade [a municipality of Belgrade]; from 1964–2000 I was in the diplomatic service of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia SFRY (since 1992 Federal Republic of Yugoslavia FRY): from 1988–1993 as Ambassador in Luanda, Angola, from 1995-1998 as Assistant Minister of Foreign Affairs, and from 1988–2000 as Minister of Foreign Affairs. From1996-2002 I was Vice Chairman of the Socialist Party of Serbia for Foreign Affairs; 1996 I was Member of Parliament to the Parliament of Serbia and in 2000 to the Federal Parliament of Yugoslavia (2000). Books that I wrote are: “The Bridges” (2002), “Abolishing the State” (2003), “The Kosovo Mirror” (2006).
After leaving the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in November 2000 you joined the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals. Now you are the Chairman of this Association. What are your priorities?
The priorities of the Forum are: the promotion of peace, tolerance and cooperation based on equality among individuals, nations, and states. We stand for full respect of the international law, the basic principles of international relations and the role of the United Nations. Use or threats of use of force and military aggressions are not admissible means in solving international problems. We consider that there are no “humanitarian” wars, or interventions. All interventions beginning with the NATO aggression against Serbia (FRY) in 1999 up to now, regardless on their formal, public explanations, have been wars of conquest, some of them for geo-strategic, some for economic benefits. We promote human rights in their entirety, according to the UN-declaration – including social, economic, cultural, health, employment and other human rights.
We try to meet our objectives through various public debates, conferences, round tables, seminars, on national and international levels. The Forum cooperates with associations of similar aims, within Serbia, the region and worldwide.
We have seen some of very interesting books published by Belgrade Forum. How do you manage to maintain your publishing activity?
The Forum has published about 70 books on different national and international issues, from development policy in conditions of crisis, the status of Kosovo and Metohija and the Hague Tribunal to the NATO policy in the Balkans, on the foreign policy of Serbia, on International terrorism and on the role of intellectuals. Some of our books have been distributed in many countries in all continents. This is the case, for example, of the book titled “NATO Aggression – the Twilight of the West”. Unfortunately, for the lack of resources, only a few of our books have been published in foreign languages.
Last month only we published three new books – one devoted to the great Serbian philosopher and academician Mihailo Markovic, who was one of the co-founders of the Belgrade Forum, the other titled “From Nuremberg to Hague” and a third “From Aggression to Secession”.* Promotions of our books in various towns in Serbia attract significant attention.
All our activities, including writing and publishing, are entirely based on voluntary work. We never had, nor do we have today, a single person paid for the work done within the Forum. Membership fees and donations, mainly from Serbian diaspora, are main sources of the Forum’s income.
You have mentioned promotion of peace to be one of your key objectives. But peoples of your region have been victims of wars in the last decade of the 20th century.
True. The peoples of former Yugoslavia have suffered immensely, first, from the civil wars in Bosnia and Croatia (1992-1995), then from the military aggression of NATO (1999), from sanctions and isolation and so on. Great many of them continue to suffer today. Consider, for example, the life of close to half a million of refugees and displaced persons living in Serbia only, who are not permitted to return to their homes in Croatia or in Kosovo and Metohija. Consequences are still painful and will continue long in the future. What to say of the consequences of cassette bombs and missiles with depleted uranium used by NATO in 1999 taking daily tolls in human lives today and in centuries to come. History will prove that the peoples of former Yugoslavia have been victims of the concept of the so called New World Order which in fact has been based on the policy of domination and exploitation.
Do you suggest that the foreign factors are responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia, and not local ones?
Local factors cannot be amnestied; they do bear their responsibility, of course, for not being prepared to compromise. But the prevailing analyses seem to be lacking due attention to the negative role of external factors. Now we have enough proofs that certain European powers already in 1976 and 1977 had plans on how to “rearrange” the territory of SFRY, in other words, how to divide, or fragment it in order to suit their own interests.After Tito’s death, nationalism and separatism in various Yugoslav republics, as well as separatism and terrorism in the Serbian Province of Kosovo and Metohija, had been encouraged, even assisted politically, financially, logistically and propaganda-wise. Later on certain mighty countries have been involved in the civil wars helping one against the other side. Those countries almost openly had been supporting a secession of Slovenia and Croatia, arming Croatia and Bosnia even during the UN arms embargo, encouraging and facilitating the incoming of mercenaries, including Mujahidin. On the other side Serbia and Montenegro had been under isolation, sanctions and stigmatization. They had been treated as the only ones responsible for the civil wars. That was not based on facts, nor helpful in extinguishing the fire.
Results?
In the place of one state, now there are six, economically unsustainable, puppet states, plus a seventh one in the offing, 18 governments1, six armies, six diplomatic services, etc. Foreign debt, which in 1990 amounted to about 13.5 billion for the whole of the SFRY rose in 2012 to about 200 billion of Euro for the six former Yugoslav republics! Some of them became financially enslaved. Who has benefited from this? Until 1990 there was not a single foreign military basis in the region. Today, there are a number of foreign, mainly USA, bases, Bondsteel in Kosovo and Metohija being the largest in Europe.2 To do what? To benefit whom? Bosnia almost 18 years after the Dayton Accords is not functional; ten years after the Ohrid Accords the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is not functional and continues to be faced with profound ethnic divisions and tensions. The status of Kosovo and Metohija even14 years after UN Security Council Resolution 1244 still remains unresolved. Tirana`s Sali Berisha and Prishtinas Hashim Thaci are publically advocating for the establishment of so called Greater Albania. Other burning problems like unemployment ranging from 30 to 70 per cent, poverty, hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced persons, international organized crime, including trafficking of human organs, drugs, arms and immigrants, make the picture of post Yugoslavia’s reality grim and uncertain.
So, who has really benefited from the fragmentation of Yugoslavia?
Mentioning NATO intervention what are your views now, 14 years after?
My views have not changed. This was an illegal, criminal and immoral attack on a sovereign European state. Illegal because it violated all basic principles of international law, including the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act and many international conventions. It was undertaken without permission of the UN Security Council. Criminal, because it was directed mainly against civilians, civilian infrastructure, using forbidden armament such as chemical, cassette bombs and missiles with depleted uranium. Immoral, because it was based on false pretentions and on untruths. The leaders of NATO are responsible first of all for killing of close to 4.000 and for wounding about 10.000 of persons, two thirds of whom were civilians. Direct material damages amounted to over 100 billions of US dollars. The NATO aggression solved nothing, but it has provoked many new problems. It was a war of conquest and not a “humanitarian intervention”.
Can you be more specific?
I have already mentioned some direct consequences. In a broader sense it should be noted that NATO aggression marked a strategic change in its nature: it abandoned the defensive and adopted an offensive (aggressive) policy, authorizing itself to intervene any time at any spot on the globe. The UN, especially the UN Security Council, had been disabled; international law and justice disregarded.3
This was a long prepared first war on Europe’s soil after the Second World War. It was a demonstration of US domination in Europe, an expansion toward East, a justification of spending on NATO even after the dissolution ofthe Warsaw Pact, a precedent for future interventions (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya).
It was the war imposed and directed by a non-European power with the consequence that it to stay on Europe`s soil for a long time.
The Aggression had marked a strategic change in Germany’s policy adopted after Second World War. By taking active part in NATO’s aggression against Serbia (FRY) Germany deviated from its own constitution and widely opened the door for combat roles away from its territory, and for militarization.
Today we have on European soil more military bases than at the peak of the Cold War. Mushrooming of military bases started after the NATO aggression on Serbia (FRY). How to explain the expansion of democracy all over the Continent and the proliferation of military bases at the same time? I have not heard any convincing explanation. Something seems to be wrong.
And what is your opinion on the future of Bosnia?
Bosnia and Herzegovina had existed as one of the six republics of SFRY based on constituent equality of three peoples each having a right of veto – Muslims, Serbs and Croats. In that regard, it was considered being “small Yugoslavia”. When in 1992 the constitutional principle of consensus was violated in the way that Muslims and Croats declared for secession ignoring the Serbs option to stay within Yugoslavia, civil war erupted. The Dayton peace Accords were a success only because they reaffirmed the principle of equality of the three constituent peoples, the equality of the two entities (Moslem-Croat Federation and Republica Srpska) and the principle of consensus.4 These basic principles were enshrined in the Constitution which is an integral part of the Accords.
The main source of the current crisis is the ambition of the Moslem leaders in Sarajevo to abolish the principle of consensus and to make a unitary state under their domination. In addition, they would like also to change the division of the territory guaranteed by Dayton Accords according to which the Muslim-Croat Federation controls 51 and Republica Srpska 49 percent of the whole territory. To make the problem more difficult, Muslims for their claims which obviously are contrary to Dayton stipulations, continue to enjoy support from some power centres, primarily from Washington and Berlin. Why they want to further weaken the Republica Srpska and strengthen the Moslems, I would rather not comment. These centres even pressurize Serbia’s leaders to discipline the leaders in Banja Luka so that they accept a revision of Dayton and the Constitution contrary to their interests which are internationally guaranteed. Serbia as guarantor of the Dayton Accords, firstly, has no power to impose anything on the leadership of Republica Srpska and, secondly, it is not in Serbia’s interest to weaken the Republica Srpska thus provoking internal tensions and a renewed spiral of ethnic tensions and even clashes in their own neighbourhood.
I believe that Bosnia and Herzegovina should be left alone to politically find solutions that suite the interests of the three equal constituent peoples and the two equal entities. The Dayton Accords are not perfect. But there could hardly be a better compromise then the Dayton Accords. Brussels claims that a centralization of power in Sarajevo would apparently upgrade efficiency of the state administration. Authors of this view seem to be disregarding that it is the principle of consensus and decentralization which led to re-establishing of peace, the maintaining of integrity and providing the sense of freedom and democracy. Finally, in my opinion, the Office of the High Representative after 17 years of being at the same time Law-making, Prosecution and Judiciary has become an anachronism and should be disbanded. Bosnia and Herzegovina is the only member of the UN (even a member of the Security Council), the OSCE and other organizations, where a High Representative enacts laws, removes presidents, prime ministers and ministers!
Serbia, being a small, peace loving country, having neither an imperial history nor imperial ambitions today, in our opinion, should remain a neutral country, something like Switzerland. Concerning human rights, we stand for the concept of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which demands respect of all human rights including the one to cooperate.
My colleagues of CC once said that Serbia is a thorn in the conscience of the Western world. What is your opinion on this?
What I can say is that the leaders and politicians of certain European countries have been far from neutral, constructive or moral during the Yugoslav and Kosovo crisis. Some of them actively advocated and participated in the NATO aggression which left serious long term problems for the whole of Europe. Together with leaders of the USA, they at least knew about financing, training and arming Albanian terrorists and separatists in Kosovo and Metohija from their states. UN Security Council documents confirm this.5 I may not be quite objective, but I am certainly sincere. In my opinion, there is little to be proud of Europe’s role toward Serbia and Serbs in the last 20 years. I have been surprised by the measure of distortions, double standards and immoral statements practiced by certain politicians who represent European values and civilization. And it would not be worth talking about it today, if the lessons had been drawn from the past. Unfortunately, new politicians of those countries continue with the same policies and the same dishonest methods toward Serbia.
Governments of leading western countries initiated an outrageous anti-Serbian propaganda campaign based on prejudices, dishonest fabrications and even on ordinary lies. I still remember, for example, the invention of the German defense minister Rudolf Scharping6 of the alleged “Horse shoe plan”. The so called “massacre of civilians” in Racak which served as a justification for the start of the military aggression also proved to be false. The report of the findings of the international forensic experts team headed by the Finish doctor Helen Ranta, which acted under EU auspices, has never been published. Apparently, it was lost somewhere in Brussels!7
What are the lessons of the NATO aggression for you and the world?
The NATO aggression against Serbia (FRY) in 1999 was a model of the new wars of conquest covered by the phrase “humanitarian intervention”. Everybody by now should know that this was not “humanitarian intervention” and that there are no “humanitarian wars”. That was a war of conquest to take away from Serbia its province of Kosovo and Metohija and to install there USA troops for strategic reasons. This was a precedent which was followed according to my opinion to export the capitalistic social system based on single Washington’s doctrine, which is equally unacceptable today as it was unacceptable to export of the socialist system based on Moscow’s doctrine in the sixties of the last century. Freedom of choice should be the sovereign right of every country. It is not right to divide peoples as if some have a right granted to them by Good to decide on what is good even for every other nation in the world. History has thought, at least us in Europe, that such ideology would be a source of great danger.
Where is the solution for the Kosovo issue?
The Problems of Kosovo and Metohija are centuries long, deep rooted ones. The Province is the birth place of the Serbian state, its culture, religion and national identity. About 1.300 medieval monasteries and churches, including some UNESCO proclaimed as world heritage, are still found there. Over 150 have been destroyed by vandals and extremists. To say that the basic problems there have been in the field of human rights of Albanians would be a simplification. To solve the essential problems which I believe are in territorial expansionism of Albanians supported by western countries, primarily by the USA, Germany and Great Britain, all political actors need wisdom, long term view and patience, qualities that seem to be astonishingly in deficit.
I still believe in a compromise solution based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of June 10th, 1999. That resolution, like a number of other UN Security Council decisions preceding it, has repeatedly guaranteed the sovereignty and territorial integrity of FRY (succeed by Serbia) and substantial autonomy for Kosovo and Metohija within FRY (Serbia). In the meantime great many serious mistakes have been committed, first and foremost, by the so called international community, including EU, then by Serbian authorities. Those mistakes generally can be summed up as serious deviation from the UN Security Council Resolution 1244. In March 2008, the Albanian leadership in Prishtina, declared the illegal, unilateral secession of the Province from Serbia, proclaiming the so called Republic of Kosovo. While the Province even today remains under UN Security Council mandate, the UN has not reacted. The USA, Germany, Turkey, Great Britain almost immediately recognized this secession. By now, 22 out of 27 EU members8 followed the suite. Serbia has not, and I believe, shall not recognize secession of 17 percent of its territory. Most of the UN members, including two, out of five, permanent members of the Security Council, Russia and China, have not.
Last year the dialog has started under the EU auspices between representatives of Belgrade and Prishtina on solving some concrete issues concerning everyday life of citizens. This may be good presumed it does not prejudice the key issue – the status of the Province as envisaged by UN Security Council Resolution 1244. I personally would like to see that the dialog produces the time table for free and safe return to their homes of about 250 000 Serbs and other non-Albanians who live in miserable conditions in various towns of Serbia and Montenegro. Unfortunately, so far, this issue has not come to the agenda, partially because of the lack of interest of Prishtina, partially because of the double standard policy of the West.
There is no viable solution imposed by force or by blackmailing Serbia’s government. The so called deal sponsored by certain western countries – territory (Kosovo) for membership (of Serbia) in EU and more foreign investments – may seem logic considering Serbia’s economy in shambles, but I do not believe it would work. It would not be fair, not balanced. It would not be acceptable by Serbs knowing their history, culture and pride.
What is the relationship between Serbia and the EU?
The EU is traditionally the most important economic partner of Serbia. Historic, social and cultural links remain strong. Hundreds of thousands of Serbian citizens and their descendants work and live in EU member countries. Serbia is a candidate for membership in EU. This is reflected in applying the method of “carrot and stick”, in an endless list of conditions towards Serbia which have not been applied, nor are they applied now to any other candidate country. The EU expects Serbia to “normalize relations with Kosovo”. When Belgrade reacts that it will never recognize Kosovo, Brussels’ commissars react that this is “not yet on the agenda”, that the EU demands “only” the IBM (integrated border management) system on the borders with Kosovo, dissolution of Serbia’s institutions in Kosovo, notably in Northern Kosovo, signing of an agreement on good neighbourly relations, exchange of ambassadors, then that Serbia does not obstruct Kosovo’s membership in the UN, and alike! Imagine that dimension of hypocrisy. They do not demand a diplomatic note, or any written statement on recognition, but they certainly demand relations equaling those between sovereign states!
I support close cooperation between Serbia and the EU in all fields of mutual interest without any obstacles: free flow of goods, capital, people, information. Having regard that the EU at present does not treat Serbia as sovereign partner, Serbia should adopt a policy of good neighbourly relations with the EU and freeze the present policy defining membership in the EU as the only alternative. It cannot be in the best interest of Serbia to give away more for less. Openness, cooperation without any administrative obstacles and a good neighbourly relation between Serbia and the EU would be quite a reasonable approach for the foreseeable future.
How can we in Germany, Switzerland and other European countries help that your people are better in every way?
The best way to help not Serbia only, but the understanding in Europe and a return to the real values of our civilization, is to always defend the truth, to avert distortion, semi-truths and immorality of all kinds. Serbia and the Serbian nation have always through history been part and parcel of Europe, its culture, progress and civilization; this is the same today and, I believe, it will stay so in the future. Nations have deep roots and faces that do not change overnight. In my opinion it would be useful if any prejudicing and one sided views characteristic of the public approaches to Serbia and Serbs in the recent past would be replaced by more balanced and non biased views.
We understand that the Belgrade Forum will be hosting an important international conference next March in Belgrade?
The Forum and some other independent, non partisan associations in Serbia are planning an international conference under the title “Aggressions, militarization and world crises”, to be held in Belgrade, March 22 and 23rd, 2014. This conference and other accompanying events will mark the 15th anniversary of the beginning of the 1999 NATO-aggression against Serbia (FRY) and pay honour to the victims of the aggression. We plan to invite prominent scholars and intellectuals from European and other countries to address the burning issues of military interventionism, expansion of military budgets, the militarization of political decision making and the world crisis which, in our opinion is not only a financial and economic, but also a crisis of the international world order. •
1 Bosnia and Herzegovina having one central government, two governments of the entities and plus 10 cantons governments in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
2 “The war against Yugoslavia was waged in order to correct the mistake of general Eisenhower made during the Second World War. For strategic reasons it was necessary to station American soldiers there afterwards”. Willy Wimmer, letter to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, dated May 2nd, 2000, Aktualna pitanja spoljne politike (Current Foreign policy issues), Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, Belgrade, 2007, p. 76-77.
3 “Force should be above the law. Wherever the law stands on the way, it should be removed”, Willy Wimmer: Letter to Chancellor Gerhard Schroder on USA NATO policy, dated May 2nd, 2000. Current issues of Foreign Policy, p. 77, The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, Belgrade, 2007.
4 At the same time, the Dayton Accords established two entities – Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Muslims and Croats) and Republic of Srpska – placing all essential constitutional rights and responsibilities in their hands.
5 THE UN Security Council “decides that all the states…shall prevent armament and training for terrorist activities in this area” (Kosovo and Metohija, note of the author), UN Security Council Resolution No. 1160, of March 31st, 1998. Also, the UN Security Council “demands that all states use all the means in accordance with their internal laws and relevant international laws in order to prevent use of funds collected in their territories , in the way which is contrary to the resolution 1160 (1998)”, UN Security Council Resolution 1199, dated September 23rd, 1998.
6 German defence minister Rudolf Shaping presented at the press conference held April 7, 1999, an alleged plan of Yugoslav forces to ethnically cleanse Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija, the existence of which was not supported by the German intelligence service and which later proved to be false.
7 Something similar happened with the Report of Yasushi Akashi who was a UN Special Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina of May 1992.). Report noted, among others, two important facts: first, that the most of the Yugoslav Army (JNA) was withdrawn and second, that withdrawal of Croatian Army from Bosnia has not occurred. Akashi`s report however was not distributed to the members of UN SC until after the most severe sanctions against FR of Yugoslavia were imposed on May 30th, 1992. , UN SC resolution 757. (See SG Report S24049, May 30th, 1992, para 6 and para 9).
8 Spain, Romania, Slovak Republic, Greece and Cyprus have not recognized.
* “From Nuremberg to Le Hague” ISBN 978-86-83965-7-3 [in serbian language]
“From Aggression to Secession” ISBN 978-86-83965-9-7 [in serbian language]
The Nato-Aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999
by Milica Radojkovic-Hänsel
Fourteen years ago, after the negotiation conferences in Rambouillet and Paris between 6th and 23rd February 1999, the global media informed the general public that “the Serbian delegation did not accept the offered agreement and rather qualified it as null and void”, while indicating that allegedly the so-called Contact Group for Yugoslavia stood behind the agreement. This body consisted of four NATO country-members plus Russia, but Russia rejected to endorse the military section (Annex B) of the offered agreement – a fact hidden in the media information.
What had actually taken place in Rambouillet and Paris and what did the “Annex B” exactly say? The then US State Secretary,Madeleine Albright claimed that “the military portion of the agreement was practically the essence of the agreement offered in Rambouillet” which was unacceptable for the delegation from FR Yugoslavia.
Zivadin Jovanovic, the then Yugoslav Minister of Foreign Affairs, said in his interview to Politika, the Belgrade daily, of 6th February 2013, that “in Rambouillet no attempt was made to reach accord, nor were there any negotiations or an agreement”. Yugoslav delegation was invited to Rambouillett to participate in the negotiations with the Albanians’ delegation from Kosovo.
It seems true that indeed no negotiations have taken place. This conclusion derives on basis of several statements made by some western officials, including, among others, the then Chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe(OSCE), the Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The biased writing of western press and the partial claims by the western politicians about “the failure in the negotiations through non-acceptance of the political document about broad autonomy for Kosovo” on the part of Yugoslav side was meant to support the preparation of public opinion for the military aggression of the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that had already been planned for October 1998, but was postponed for obvious reasons until 24th March 1999. The truth is that the Yugoslavian delegation has requested several times, as indicated in its written communications to the negotiation mediators, direct negotiations between the Yugoslav and Kosovo delegations, which is a fact proven by the official documents. Christopher Hill, the American representative in the negotiations, claimed in his response to such requests, that the Kosovo delegation “did not want direct negotiations”. “It became clear to all of us then that direct dialogue was not suitable for the Americans and that this was the real reason why the direct contact was not taking place”, Jovanovic points out. “It would be quite hard to believe, in case that the Americans had really wanted direct negotiations, that the Kosovo delegation would not accept their request”, he added.
Global media and the then western officials have also intentionally misinterpreted the alleged rejection by Yugoslavia to allow “installation of peace-keeping forces in Kosovo (and Metohija)”. However, the truth is that the Yugoslav delegation did accept the political portions of the Rambouillet draft agreement, but not its “Annex B” with the Points 2, 5 and 7 that proposed and required a military occupation of the entire territory of FR Yugoslavia (i.e. Serbia with 2 autonomous provinces, and Montenegro). Therefore, the global public opinion was an object of manipulated information which told that Serbs were “rejecting arrival of peace-keeping forces in Kosovo (and Metohija)”.
But, what are “peace-keeping forces” really in international practice and law? In international practice they imply the forces under United Nations (UN) Administration (also called “Blue Helmets”), consisting of troops provided by the UN member countries and not by NATO troops.
To understand what exactly caused FR Yugoslavia to reject the military portion of the document offered in Rambouillet, one has to read its provisions: (I) The NATO troops are allowed to freely and without charges to use any and all land, water and air spaces and equipments; (II) Their soldiers will enjoy diplomatic immunity and will not be held responsible for any damage made on the territory of FR Yugoslavia under civil and/or criminal laws; (III) their soldiers may carry weapons on them even when wearing civil attire; (IV) Their soldiers may at any time take for use the entire electro-magnetic space of FRY, that is, the TV and radio frequencies, police and ambulance frequencies, civil protection and other frequencies, without announcement or any fee or charges whatsoever; V) Their soldiers may at any time arrest any citizen on the FRY territory, without any warrant or decision of a court or any FRY authority.
Global media, particularly those in the NATO countries, and the then American and European officials, have withheld the truth about the content of the military document by charging the leaders of Serbia and Yugoslav President for “the lack of cooperation in the efforts to find a peaceful solution”. Just like in Rambouillet, “the Paris Conference also was not an event witnessing any serious ‘attempt’ for accord, negotiations or agreement”. American envoy, Christopher Hill, only required from the Yugoslav delegation to sign the text he had prepared and served on the table on basis of the ‘take it or leave it’ principle”, says Former Minister Zivadin Jovanovic.
In addition to numerous condemnations concerning the draft agreement text offered, that were expressed by renowned global law experts, a special attention is drawn to the evaluation of the document provided in an interview to the Daily Telegraph (London) by the former US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger on 27th June 1999. He said, “The Rambouillet draft agreement text, requiring stationing of NATO troops throughout Yugoslavia, was a provocation. It served as a pretext for the launching of a bombing campaign. The Rambouillet document was such that no Serb could accept it. That horrible document should have not been submitted”. These words indicate, among other things, that the 1999 aggression against FR Yugoslavia was in fact presented in the western media as an epilogue reflected through the launching of the new interventionist strategy of NATO led by USA. This strategy was officially inaugurated at NATO meeting in Washington on 25th April 1999, that is, at the time of actual aggression against FRY.
In the aggression against FRY the NATO was changed from a defensive alliance into an aggressive one with the self-proclaimed right to intervene as a military force throughout the world. Furthermore, the judgement of the Yugoslav leaders implementing the country’s official policy was correct in saying that one of the goals of this particular aggression was establishment of a precedent for military actions across the world without any decision of the UN and by violation of the UN Charter. This judgement was verified at the conference of NATO member states and membership candidates held in Bratislava in April 2000. The conference was organized just a few months after the aggression against FR Yugoslavia by the State Department and the American Enterprise Institute of the Republican Party, and was attended by some very high officials (government representatives and ministers of foreign affairs and defense) of NATO member states and membership candidates. The main topics at the conference were the Balkans and expansion of NATO. In his written summary of the conference conclusions sent to the Chancellor of Germany, Gerhard Schroeder, on 2nd May 2000, Willy Wimmer, the then member of German Parliament (Bundestag) and Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OESC, claimed that by the NATO attack on FRY, according to the admittance by USA, a precedent was established in order to be used whenever necessary. “It is understood that it is all about an excess that can be referred to at any time”, Wimmer explained one of the crucial conclusions. It was actually a retroactive confirmation that the real goal of the Rambouillet talks was not to allow any direct negotiations between the involved parties (Serbs and Albanians) or any political solution, but rather to ensure a pretext for the aggression, as Henry Kissinger indicated quite well (“It was just a pretext to launch the bombing campaign”).
Next, Willy Wimmer points out in his written communication that “the war against FR Yugoslavia was waged to rectify the wrong decision made by General Dwight Eisenhower in World War Two”. Consequently, for strategic reasons American troops need to be stationed over there, so as to compensate for what was not done in 1945 (Point 4 of his letter). By building the Bondstill Military Base in Kosovo – the largest one in Europe, Americans have practically materialized their position at the Bratislava conference about “their need to station American soldiers in that space, for strategic reasons”. Wimmer’s letter also asserts (under Point 1), “The organizers of this conference have requested that international recognition of the independent state of Kosovo should be accomplished as fast as possible by the countries making the circle of allied states”, whereas “Serbia (the successor of Yugoslavia) must be permanently excluded from the European development course” (according to Wimmer, probably for the purpose of unhampered military presence of USA in the Balkans). Willy Wimmer also claims, “The assertion that NATO had violated all international rules, and particularly all relevant provisions of international law, during the attack against FR Yugoslavia, has not been contradicted” (Point 11). The text also says that “the American side is aware and prepared, in the global context and to achieve its own goals, to undermine the order of international law”, meaning that international law is considered an obstacle for the planned expansion of NATO. And Wimmer then ends his letter with the following words, “Force has to stand above law”. •
Mr Gerhard Schroeder, MP
Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany,
Federal Chancellery,
Schlossplatz 1, 10178 Berlin
Berlin, 05-02-2000
Dear Chancellor,
Last weekend, I was in the Slovakian capital of Bratislava, where I had the opportunity to participate in a conference jointly organized by the US State Department and the American Enterprise Institute (the institute of the Republican Party foreign policy) with focus on the themes of the Balkan and NATO enlargement.
The event was attended by high-ranking personalities already reflected in the presence of several prime ministers and foreign and defense ministers from the region. Of the many important issues that could be dealt with under that topic, some deserve particularly to be reported.
1. The organizers requested that the Allies achieve recognition of the independence of the state of Kosovo, according to international law.1
2. The organizers declared that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was beyond any jurisdiction, in particular beyond the Final Act of Helsinki.2
3. The European legal system is an obstacle to the implementation of NATO plans. The American legal system was more suitable for this, even when being used in Europe.
4. &nbs
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
