Informazione
Da: partigiani7maggio @ tiscali.it
Oggetto: Una iniziativa a Siena e due importanti recensioni
Data: 22 marzo 2012 15.28.29 GMT+01.00
I PARTIGIANI JUGOSLAVI NELLA RESISTENZA ITALIANA
Storie e memorie di una vicenda ignorata
Storie e memorie di una vicenda ignorata
Roma, Odradek, 2011
pp.348 - euro 23,00
Per informazioni sul libro si vedano:
Il sito internet: http://www.partigianijugoslavi.it
La scheda del libro sul sito di Odradek: http://www.odradek.it/Schedelibri/partigianijugoslavi.html
La pagina su Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=103675256383363
La pagina su Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=103675256383363
Ordina il libro: http://www.odradek.it/html/ordinazione.html
---
Tra i nuovi inserimenti sul nostro sito segnaliamo:
Alessandra Kersevan: Intervento-recensione per la presentazione di Milano, 14 ottobre 2011
F. De Leonardis: Recensione per la rivista "Marx21" (n.1/2012 - gennaio-febbraio 2012 - PDF)
---
Siena, martedi 27 marzo 2012
ore 16:30 presso la Facoltà di Scienze Politiche dell'Università, Aula 2, Via P.A. Mattioli 10
incontro-dibattito:
I PARTIGIANI JUGOSLAVI NELLA RESISTENZA ITALIANA
ore 16:30 presso la Facoltà di Scienze Politiche dell'Università, Aula 2, Via P.A. Mattioli 10
incontro-dibattito:
I PARTIGIANI JUGOSLAVI NELLA RESISTENZA ITALIANA
Interventi dei professori Lorenzo Nasi, Paul Corner, Simone Neri Serneri,
di Andrea Martocchia (coautore del volume I partigiani jugoslavi nella Resistenza italiana) e del partigiano Biondo (Alfredo Merlo)
Nell'occasione saranno inaugurate le mostre fotografiche "E IO ERO SANDOKAN" e "TESTA PER DENTE"
organizzano Circolo ANPI di Ateneo "Carlo Rosselli", LinkSiena
di Andrea Martocchia (coautore del volume I partigiani jugoslavi nella Resistenza italiana) e del partigiano Biondo (Alfredo Merlo)
Nell'occasione saranno inaugurate le mostre fotografiche "E IO ERO SANDOKAN" e "TESTA PER DENTE"
scarica la locandina: https://www.cnj.it/INIZIATIVE/volantini/siena270312.jpg
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
(Proprio alla vigilia del XIII Anniversario della aggressione del 1999, i rappresentanti della NATO intensificano le pressioni per la annessione completa delle repubbliche jugoslave nella alleanza imperialista ed il loro coinvolgimento in nuove operazioni di devastazione coloniale in paesi vicini e lontani. Le classi dirigenti locali, tutte indistintamente, si piegano al volere dei padroni.)
NATO in the Balkans... more and more
1) flashback 2011: Ambassador Konuzin: "Serbia in NATO would represent threat to Russia"
2) NATO COM NHQSA MEETS WITH CHAIRMAN OF BIH COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
3) Senator Lugar's NATO Enlargement Bill
4) NATO in the Balkans: Appetite comes with eating
5) Montenegro on track to NATO membership: NATO commander / Visit to NATO by the Prime Minister of Montenegro
6) Visit to NATO by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia
7) Visit to NATO by Minister of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia
Source of the following documents in english language is the Stop NATO e-mail list
Archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages
Website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com
Archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages
Website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com
=== 1 ===
http://www.b92.net/eng/insight/tvshows.php?yyyy=2011&mm=03&nav_id=73523
Danas - March 30, 2011
"Serbia in NATO would represent threat to Russia"
Jelena Tasić
Russian Ambassador to Serbia Aleksandr Vasilyevich Konuzin told the Belgrade-based daily Danas in an interview that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s visit last week had "completely met the principal expectations".
It went in an atmosphere of close friendship and talks about trade and economic cooperation were very concrete and pragmatic, said the diplomat.
According to the Russian ambassador, Putin did not talk about relations between official Belgrade and NATO with Serbian President Boris Tadić and Prime Minister Mirko Cvetković. The issue, as he said, was launched by heads of parliamentary groups in the Serbian parliament who showed Putin that they were not united in their stance regarding the possibility of Serbia joining the western military alliance.
“In that situation, Prime Minister Putin clearly presented the Russian position – Serbs should solve the issue by themselves, but Russia thinks that it is necessary to present its opinion about NATO's expansion, which is jeopardizing its security.”
Stating a concrete example, he said that nobody asked small countries in the NATO for their opinion, but that that instead decisions were made which these countries then had to fulfill.
“Any possible decision about missile deployment in Serbia’s territory would be a threat to Russia’s security and Russia would be forced to take military actions in order to remove that military threat. Those measures would not be aimed against Serbia but against the missiles,” the Russian ambassador explained.
Q: Is this statement of Prime Minister Putin a “warning” to the Serbian authorities?
A: Serbia has the right to join any organization. We will respect the decision you make on your own, but we are counting on Belgrade to respectfully approach our thoughts that NATO accession would pose a threat to Russia’s security. I personally think that it is necessary to explain to Serbia what would happen if there was a threat to Russia’s security from its territory. We have been cooperating for 800 years and such a question never appeared. On the contrary, we fought wars against joint enemies and it is not quite clear for what reason weapons pointed against Russia could be deployed in Serbia.”
Q: The NATO forces in Kosovo and Metohija are effectively already in a part of the Serbian territory. How does Moscow assess their presence after Kosovo’s self-proclaimed independence?
A: The Kosovo territory is a part of Serbia in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 1244. NATO's military base is there despite Belgrade’s wishes. This means contrary to international law, and unlawfully. Russia sees it that way.
....
Russian Ambassador to Serbia Aleksandr Vasilyevich Konuzin told the Belgrade-based daily Danas in an interview that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s visit last week had "completely met the principal expectations".
It went in an atmosphere of close friendship and talks about trade and economic cooperation were very concrete and pragmatic, said the diplomat.
According to the Russian ambassador, Putin did not talk about relations between official Belgrade and NATO with Serbian President Boris Tadić and Prime Minister Mirko Cvetković. The issue, as he said, was launched by heads of parliamentary groups in the Serbian parliament who showed Putin that they were not united in their stance regarding the possibility of Serbia joining the western military alliance.
“In that situation, Prime Minister Putin clearly presented the Russian position – Serbs should solve the issue by themselves, but Russia thinks that it is necessary to present its opinion about NATO's expansion, which is jeopardizing its security.”
Stating a concrete example, he said that nobody asked small countries in the NATO for their opinion, but that that instead decisions were made which these countries then had to fulfill.
“Any possible decision about missile deployment in Serbia’s territory would be a threat to Russia’s security and Russia would be forced to take military actions in order to remove that military threat. Those measures would not be aimed against Serbia but against the missiles,” the Russian ambassador explained.
Q: Is this statement of Prime Minister Putin a “warning” to the Serbian authorities?
A: Serbia has the right to join any organization. We will respect the decision you make on your own, but we are counting on Belgrade to respectfully approach our thoughts that NATO accession would pose a threat to Russia’s security. I personally think that it is necessary to explain to Serbia what would happen if there was a threat to Russia’s security from its territory. We have been cooperating for 800 years and such a question never appeared. On the contrary, we fought wars against joint enemies and it is not quite clear for what reason weapons pointed against Russia could be deployed in Serbia.”
Q: The NATO forces in Kosovo and Metohija are effectively already in a part of the Serbian territory. How does Moscow assess their presence after Kosovo’s self-proclaimed independence?
A: The Kosovo territory is a part of Serbia in accordance with the UN Security Council Resolution 1244. NATO's military base is there despite Belgrade’s wishes. This means contrary to international law, and unlawfully. Russia sees it that way.
....
=== 2 ===
http://www.aco.nato.int/com-nhqsa-meets-with-chairman-of-bih-council-of-ministers-.aspx
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - Allied Command Operations - March 8, 2012
COM NHQSA MEETS WITH CHAIRMAN OF BIH COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
Chairman of the Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) Council of Ministers Vjekoslav Bevanda had an initial meeting with NATO Headquarters Sarajevo (NHQSa) Commander Brigadier General Gary Huffman and discussed BiH's path to NATO.
Chairman Bevanda said that the BiH Council of Ministers was committed to BiH becoming a full-fledged NATO member as soon as possible...Bevanda said that priorities on this path are resolving the issue of prospective immovable defense property and ensuring funds in the BiH budget for further modernization of the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina in line with NATO standards.
General Huffman supported BiH's ambitions regarding NATO. He said that he appreciated the recent decision of the BiH Presidency to strengthen the role of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. General Huffman said it was an important message that BiH sent to NATO partners because BiH made a step forward and instead of being a security consumer it turned into a state that actively contributes to peace building and stability in the world.
The joint conclusion of Chairman Bevanda and Brigadier General Huffman is that the issue of the prospective immovable defense property should be resolved as soon as possible which would mean a step forward towards full-fledged NATO membership. The issue of destruction of surplus ammunition and weapons, and future cooperation between the BiH institutions and NATO Headquarters Sarajevo were also discussed at the meeting.
=== 3 ===
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=24538
Civil Georgia - March 10, 2012
Georgia in Senator Lugar's NATO Enlargement Bill
Tbilisi: U.S. Republican Senator Richard Lugar has introduced the NATO Enlargement Bill, calling on President Obama to provide “a clear roadmap” for the accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Montenegro to NATO at the Chicago summit in late May.
“I am hopeful that the Senate will pass this measure before the NATO Summit in Chicago this May,” said Lugar, who is the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee.
The bill, which he says aims at encouraging further enlargement of NATO, declares “for the first time in U.S. legislation”, that Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Montenegro, which currently aspire to join the Alliance, are to be considered NATO “aspirants.”
Georgia has been referred to as “aspirant” country in a final statement of NATO foreign ministerial meeting in Brussels on December 7, 2011, which triggered Russia’s protest with its Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov saying that he had “openly warned” his counterparts from the Alliance that such statements might serve as an encouragement for President Saakashvili to undertake “an adventure similar to the one of August, 2008.”
Senator Lugar’s bill, if approved, will require reports to the Congress on U.S. efforts towards further NATO enlargement and on the readiness of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia and Montenegro to join the Alliance, as well as a report on “U.S. policies to uphold Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
If approved the bill will make Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro eligible to receive U.S. assistance for NATO accession under the 1994 NATO Participation Act and will reauthorize assistance under the same act for Georgia and Macedonia.
Civil Georgia - March 10, 2012
Georgia in Senator Lugar's NATO Enlargement Bill
Tbilisi: U.S. Republican Senator Richard Lugar has introduced the NATO Enlargement Bill, calling on President Obama to provide “a clear roadmap” for the accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Montenegro to NATO at the Chicago summit in late May.
“I am hopeful that the Senate will pass this measure before the NATO Summit in Chicago this May,” said Lugar, who is the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations committee.
The bill, which he says aims at encouraging further enlargement of NATO, declares “for the first time in U.S. legislation”, that Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, and Montenegro, which currently aspire to join the Alliance, are to be considered NATO “aspirants.”
Georgia has been referred to as “aspirant” country in a final statement of NATO foreign ministerial meeting in Brussels on December 7, 2011, which triggered Russia’s protest with its Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov saying that he had “openly warned” his counterparts from the Alliance that such statements might serve as an encouragement for President Saakashvili to undertake “an adventure similar to the one of August, 2008.”
Senator Lugar’s bill, if approved, will require reports to the Congress on U.S. efforts towards further NATO enlargement and on the readiness of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia and Montenegro to join the Alliance, as well as a report on “U.S. policies to uphold Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
If approved the bill will make Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro eligible to receive U.S. assistance for NATO accession under the 1994 NATO Participation Act and will reauthorize assistance under the same act for Georgia and Macedonia.
=== 4 ===
http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_03_12/68221391/
Voice of Russia - March 12, 2012
NATO in the Balkans: Appetite comes with eating
Voice of Russia - March 12, 2012
NATO in the Balkans: Appetite comes with eating
A bill on NATO enlargement that is aimed at speeding up the accession of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro, and also Georgia to NATO was submitted to the U.S. Congress on Friday, March 9th. Its author is a well-known Republican Senator from the State of Indiana Richard Lugar. The above-mentioned bill says that the USA “continues to support the open door policy for NATO candidate countries”.
The document that was prepared by Senator Lugar urges U.S. President Barack Obama to present a “clear-cut roadmap on NATO” – meaning the membership of countries that were mentioned for the NATO summit in May of this year. This document reflects America’s interests.
Asked how much the Balkan states are interested in it, an influential Russian Balkan studies expert, Georgi Engelgardt, says:
"The authorities of Macedonia and Montenegro are seriously interested in the integration of their countries into NATO. And as regards Bosnia and Herzegovina, this is really a very difficult question because opinions on that score differ. The EU High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina has always defended the Euro-Atlantic integration. Both the Bosnian Muslims and the Bosnian Croats have also favoured this idea while the Serbs and their political autonomous entity - the Serb Republic - are strongly opposed to Bosnia’s joining NATO. So it is not clear for the time being how Bosnia as a single whole will pass a decision on and take steps toward its integration into NATO."
According to information available, a separate chapter of the previously mentioned bill is dedicated to U.S. nuclear forces in Europe. Among other things, it says that at the upcoming talks “it will be necessary to convince the Russian Federation of the necessity to strengthen transparency in issues dealing with non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe and to withdraw all these weapons from the borders of the territories of NATO member-states.”
Russian Balkan studies expert Georgi Engelgardt has certain doubts on that matter.
"Of course, of great importance for the USA here would be the support by all countries of the NATO enlargement policy on the development of anti-missile defence. It would also be good for all governments to come to the defence of this project in international and European forums. And in case of need they should offer their territories for basing missile defence elements there. As it appears, the governments of Macedonia and Montenegro will be ready to do that...However, as regards Bosnia and Herzegovina, if the Muslims and the Croats favour this too, the Serbs, despite the fact that the Bosnian Serbs were also subjected to NATO bombing 18 years ago, will disapprove granting the above-mentioned territories for military facilities. As a result, many questions will arise."
However, the biggest question is this: is it accidental that the bill on NATO enlargement has been submitted for consideration shortly before the next anniversary of NATO’s aggression against former Yugoslavia? There’s reason to believe that it will remain unanswered. Well, when it comes to big money, uncomfortable questions are ignored.
=== 5 ===
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-03/15/c_122835574.htm
Xinhua News Agency - March 14, 2012
Montenegro on track to NATO membership: NATO commander
BELGRADE: Montenegro is on track for NATO membership, the military alliance's supreme allied commander for Europe Admiral James Stavridis said on Wednesday.
Stavridis made the comment during a visit to Montenegro's capital Podgorica, reported the Montenegrin news agency MINA.
"Continue to implement reforms and meet commitments and I believe that this will be recognized and rewarded with membership in NATO," Stavridis said after his meeting with Montenegrin President Filip Vujanovic.
Stavridis commended Montenegro's contribution to the ISAF peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, and highlighted cooperation between NATO and Montenegro...
Montenegrin Parliamentary Speaker Ranko Krivokapic also told Stavridis that Montenegro could contribute significantly to NATO's security priorities.
Xinhua News Agency - March 14, 2012
Montenegro on track to NATO membership: NATO commander
BELGRADE: Montenegro is on track for NATO membership, the military alliance's supreme allied commander for Europe Admiral James Stavridis said on Wednesday.
Stavridis made the comment during a visit to Montenegro's capital Podgorica, reported the Montenegrin news agency MINA.
"Continue to implement reforms and meet commitments and I believe that this will be recognized and rewarded with membership in NATO," Stavridis said after his meeting with Montenegrin President Filip Vujanovic.
Stavridis commended Montenegro's contribution to the ISAF peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, and highlighted cooperation between NATO and Montenegro...
Montenegrin Parliamentary Speaker Ranko Krivokapic also told Stavridis that Montenegro could contribute significantly to NATO's security priorities.
---
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_85240.htm?mode=pressrelease
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - March 20, 2012
Visit to NATO by the Prime Minister of Montenegro
The Prime Minister of Montenegro, Mr. Igor Lukšić will visit NATO Headquarters on Wednesday 21 March 2012. He will meet with the NATO Secretary General, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen and will attend the North Atlantic Council.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - March 20, 2012
Visit to NATO by the Prime Minister of Montenegro
The Prime Minister of Montenegro, Mr. Igor Lukšić will visit NATO Headquarters on Wednesday 21 March 2012. He will meet with the NATO Secretary General, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen and will attend the North Atlantic Council.
=== 6 ===
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_85267.htm?mode=pressrelease
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - March 21, 2012
Visit to NATO by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia, Mrs. Vesna Pusić will visit NATO Headquarters on Thursday 22 March 2012. She will meet with NATO Secretary General, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
=== 7 ===
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - March 21, 2012
Visit to NATO by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Croatia, Mrs. Vesna Pusić will visit NATO Headquarters on Thursday 22 March 2012. She will meet with NATO Secretary General, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
=== 7 ===
http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/news_85266.htm?mode=pressrelease
North Atlantic Treaty Organization - March 21, 2012
Visit to NATO by Minister of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia
The Minister of Defence of the Republic of Slovenia, Mr. Aleš Hojs will visit NATO Headquarters on Thursday 22 March 2012. He will meet with NATO Secretary General, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
http://tuttomoltobello.wordpress.com/2012/03/22/la-nazionale-che-non-ce-piu/
LA NAZIONALE CHE NON C’È PIÙ
22 marzo 2012
C’era un tempo dove si poteva sentir parlare di “Brasile d’Europa”, una squadra piena zeppa di fantasia dove non era complicato trovare numeri dieci che fan sognare le platee. Una nazionale che ad Italia ‘90 presentò al mondo del calcio ragazzi destinati a formare un collettivo che quell’appellativo di “Brasile d’Europa” pareva avercelo cucito addosso. Due anni dopo una terribile guerra civile distrusse in mille pezzi una nazione e con essa la Jugoslavia del calcio, dividendo per sempre un gruppo pronto a far sognare negli stadi di tutto il mondo.
Nel 1960 si gioca la prima edizione dei campionati europei. La Jugoslavia arriva in finale contro l’URSS (altra nazione che conoscerà divisioni epocali) perdendo 2-1, e nel 1962 ai mondiali in Cile si ferma in semifinale. Di quel primo gruppo erano soprattutto attaccanti e registi a farla da padrone: Dragan Džajić, Milan Galić attaccante che vinse l’Oro alle Olimpiadi di Roma nel 1960 chiudendo da capocannoniere, e il regista Ivica Osim, che poi divenne l’ultimo allenatore della Jugoslavia unita. Nel 1976 la Jugoslavia giocò in casa gli europei chiudendo al quarto posto. Dopo quell’edizione la nuova generazione non portò grandi talenti in campo, e la nazionale conobbe un periodo nerissimo non riuscendo addirittura a qualificarsi per i mondiali nel 1978 e ai successivi europei. Gli anni Ottanta furono un periodo di rifondazione calcistica dove però cominciarono a crescere campioni indiscussi. A livello di club la nuova generazione si impose con la Stella Rossa di Belgrado, che a metà decennio era uno squadrone quasi interamente composto da giocatori jugoslavi, che sbocciarono nella nazionale dei mondiali di Italia ’90. In quell’edizione la Jugoslavia presentò in campo un gruppo di giovani terribili: Robert Prosinecki, Dejan Savicevic, Alen Boksic, Davor Suker, Dragan Stojković (che con l’Olympique Marsiglia vinse la Coppa Campioni contro il Milan). Venne eliminata solo ai calci di rigori dall’Argentina di Maradona campione del mondo, che poi perse in finale. Le basi per una squadra formidabile erano state poste, e campioni ne sarebbero arrivati altri. Ma nell’estate del 1991 leader politici cominciarono a tuonare dichiarazioni di indipendenza che portarono ad una guerra civile dai drammi immensi, dove dopo cinquant’anni di distanza si risentì parlare di pulizia etnica e crimini contro l’umanità.
Dopo la divisione avvenuta nel 1992, la Serbia [*] fu considerata dalla FIFA erede naturale della Nazionale della Jugoslavia, ed infatti mantenne quel nome fino al 2003. Tutt’ora bomber della nazionale è Savo Milosevic, che giocò anche a Parma per un breve periodo. Nella nazionale serba hanno giocato Savicevic, Sinisa Mihajlovic, Pedrag Mijatovic e Darko Kovacevic. Oggi gioca il talento della Fiorentina Adem Ljajic e il capitano sempreverde Dejan Stankovic. Dopo la divisione la nazionale che ha fatto meglio è stata la Croazia, quarta ad Euro ’96 e poi terza ai mondiali di Francia ’98. Bomber è stato per parecchi anni Davor Suker, diventando anche capocannoniere ai mondiali francesi. Giocatori del gruppo storico sono stati Robert Prosinescky, Goran Vlaovic, Alen Boksic e Mario Stanic. A dettare i tempi poi c’era il talento di Zvonimir Boban. La Slovenia può schierare a centrocampo la fantasia di Ilicic, in Italia a Palermo, e in porta la sicurezza di Handanovic dell’Udinese. C’è poi la Macedonia di Goran Pandev e la Bosnia-Erzegovina, che schiera in attacco la punta del City di Mancini Edin Dzeko e a centrocampo i due “romani” Pjanic e Lulic. Il Montenegro di Vucinic e Jovetic è invece la nazionale più giovane, nata nel 2006.
Oggi a mettere questi nomi tutti insieme fa impressione. Ideologie etniche invece hanno ridotto a brandelli una nazione, un territorio e una squadra di calcio. Quella che, ancora oggi e forse più che nel passato, sarebbe stata il “Brasile d’Europa”.
Nel 1960 si gioca la prima edizione dei campionati europei. La Jugoslavia arriva in finale contro l’URSS (altra nazione che conoscerà divisioni epocali) perdendo 2-1, e nel 1962 ai mondiali in Cile si ferma in semifinale. Di quel primo gruppo erano soprattutto attaccanti e registi a farla da padrone: Dragan Džajić, Milan Galić attaccante che vinse l’Oro alle Olimpiadi di Roma nel 1960 chiudendo da capocannoniere, e il regista Ivica Osim, che poi divenne l’ultimo allenatore della Jugoslavia unita. Nel 1976 la Jugoslavia giocò in casa gli europei chiudendo al quarto posto. Dopo quell’edizione la nuova generazione non portò grandi talenti in campo, e la nazionale conobbe un periodo nerissimo non riuscendo addirittura a qualificarsi per i mondiali nel 1978 e ai successivi europei. Gli anni Ottanta furono un periodo di rifondazione calcistica dove però cominciarono a crescere campioni indiscussi. A livello di club la nuova generazione si impose con la Stella Rossa di Belgrado, che a metà decennio era uno squadrone quasi interamente composto da giocatori jugoslavi, che sbocciarono nella nazionale dei mondiali di Italia ’90. In quell’edizione la Jugoslavia presentò in campo un gruppo di giovani terribili: Robert Prosinecki, Dejan Savicevic, Alen Boksic, Davor Suker, Dragan Stojković (che con l’Olympique Marsiglia vinse la Coppa Campioni contro il Milan). Venne eliminata solo ai calci di rigori dall’Argentina di Maradona campione del mondo, che poi perse in finale. Le basi per una squadra formidabile erano state poste, e campioni ne sarebbero arrivati altri. Ma nell’estate del 1991 leader politici cominciarono a tuonare dichiarazioni di indipendenza che portarono ad una guerra civile dai drammi immensi, dove dopo cinquant’anni di distanza si risentì parlare di pulizia etnica e crimini contro l’umanità.
Dopo la divisione avvenuta nel 1992, la Serbia [*] fu considerata dalla FIFA erede naturale della Nazionale della Jugoslavia, ed infatti mantenne quel nome fino al 2003. Tutt’ora bomber della nazionale è Savo Milosevic, che giocò anche a Parma per un breve periodo. Nella nazionale serba hanno giocato Savicevic, Sinisa Mihajlovic, Pedrag Mijatovic e Darko Kovacevic. Oggi gioca il talento della Fiorentina Adem Ljajic e il capitano sempreverde Dejan Stankovic. Dopo la divisione la nazionale che ha fatto meglio è stata la Croazia, quarta ad Euro ’96 e poi terza ai mondiali di Francia ’98. Bomber è stato per parecchi anni Davor Suker, diventando anche capocannoniere ai mondiali francesi. Giocatori del gruppo storico sono stati Robert Prosinescky, Goran Vlaovic, Alen Boksic e Mario Stanic. A dettare i tempi poi c’era il talento di Zvonimir Boban. La Slovenia può schierare a centrocampo la fantasia di Ilicic, in Italia a Palermo, e in porta la sicurezza di Handanovic dell’Udinese. C’è poi la Macedonia di Goran Pandev e la Bosnia-Erzegovina, che schiera in attacco la punta del City di Mancini Edin Dzeko e a centrocampo i due “romani” Pjanic e Lulic. Il Montenegro di Vucinic e Jovetic è invece la nazionale più giovane, nata nel 2006.
Oggi a mettere questi nomi tutti insieme fa impressione. Ideologie etniche invece hanno ridotto a brandelli una nazione, un territorio e una squadra di calcio. Quella che, ancora oggi e forse più che nel passato, sarebbe stata il “Brasile d’Europa”.
(Alberto Lucchini)
[*] In realtà il riferimento è alla federazione tra Serbia e Montenegro (ndCNJ).
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
(Kurt Gritsch, saggista autore di ricerche sulla manipolazione del consenso in occasione della aggressione alla Jugoslavia, spiega perché da anni ha smesso di credere a quello che scrivono i "grandi quotidiani" - in realtà puri amplificatori di propaganda guerrafondaia.)
http://derstandard.at/1331207267450/Kurt-Gritsch-Gut-inszeniert-die-Mainstream-Meinung
KURT GRITSCH
Gut inszeniert, die Mainstream-Meinung
LESER-KOMMENTAR | 14. März 2012 09:15
Sind bürgerliche Qualitätszeitungen Kriegshetzer? Medienkritik aus Sicht eines Konfliktforschers
Lesen Sie gerne Zeitung? Und wenn ja, gehören auch Sie zu jenen, die bürgerlichen Qualitätsblättern wie "FAZ", "NZZ", "Süddeutscher Zeitung" oder "Die Zeit" die Stange halten? Ich bekenne: Ich gehöre nicht dazu. Nicht mehr, seit ich über viele Jahre feststellen musste, dass die publizistische Vorbereitung von Krieg dort Methode hat. Starker Tobak, meinen Sie?
Sachlage scheint "objektiv" und eindeutig
Als Student las ich 1998 von gewaltsamen Übergriffen von Polizeieinheiten auf Zivilisten im Kosovo. Die Sachlage schien eindeutig, so gut wie niemand wäre ohne Sympathie für die verfolgten Albaner gewesen. Zugleich fanden wir alle, dass man Serbien mit seinem "neuen Hitler" Slobodan Milosevic, der nicht auf diplomatische Verhandlungen reagierte und "seine eigenen Bürger" ermordete, zur Räson bringen musste, notfalls auch mit Gewalt. Der Krieg sollte mit Krieg gestoppt werden. Dass dadurch die Zahl der Toten am Ende mehr als verzehnfacht würden, konnten wir uns nicht vorstellen.
Im Frühjahr 1999 schickte die NATO Kampfflugzeuge, die ausschließlich serbische Militäreinrichtungen bombardierten (von den planvoll getroffenen Schulen und Krankenhäusern erfuhr ich erst viel später), was die Albaner vor einem "neuen Auschwitz" (Joschka Fischer) retten sollte. Doch als die Massenbombardements auf Serben überraschenderweise doch keine Menschenrechte schützten, sondern zur Massenvertreibung der Albaner führten, kam plötzlich Skepsis auf. Irgendetwas konnte da nicht stimmen, auch wenn alle maßgeblichen deutschsprachigen Massenmedien weiterhin behaupteten, dass die Luftschläge (das Wort "Krieg" wurde tunlichst vermieden) erfolgreich seien.
Wurden Fakten einfach unterschlagen?
Die Mainstream-Meinung sprach nur von zwei Alternativen: eingreifen oder zusehen, wobei letzteres mit dem Vorwurf ergänzt wurde, dass man so niemals Krieg gegen Hitler hätte führen können. Ein dritter Weg schien nicht zu existieren (die schon 1998 vorhandenen Lösungsvorschläge der Friedensforscher schafften es nämlich erst gegen Kriegsende in die großen Medien), Fakten wurden einfach unterschlagen, wie z. B. die Strategie der albanischen Terroreinheit UCK, einen Bürgerkrieg anzufachen, die eigenen Leute zu opfern und dadurch die NATO zum Eingreifen zu bewegen (von wegen Holocaust!).
Nichts zu hören war auch von politischen, ökonomischen und geostrategischen Interessen der Interventionsstaaten. Das Ziel der NATO war nämlich in Wirklichkeit die Wandlung des Bündnisses vom Verteidigungspakt zur globalen Eingreiftruppe gewesen. Und der Krieg hatte nicht geführt werden müssen, weil die Diplomatie gescheitert war, sondern weil die USA und ihre Verbündeten die Verhandlungen hatten scheitern lassen, um einen Vorwand für den längst entschiedenen Krieg zu bekommen. In den etablierten deutschsprachigen Massenmedien war dies 1998/99 (mit Ausnahme des sozialistischen Spektrums) allerdings nirgendwo zu lesen.
Meinung versus Fakten
So viel zum Unterschied zwischen Meinung und Fakten. Bittere Erkenntnis dabei: Was ich, was wir 1998 für unsere Meinung gehalten hatten, war kaum mehr gewesen als ein Wiederkäuen der gängigen Positionen bürgerlicher Medien. Wenn "FAZ", "Süddeutsche" und "NZZ" unisono vor "ethnischen Säuberungen" und einem "Genozid" an den Albanern warnten, musste Serbien doch gestoppt werden. Was lag also näher, als die Forderung nach einer militärischen Intervention zu unterstützen, weil die UNO zu schwach war?
Die Fakten sahen anders aus: Während UN-Generalsekretär Kofi Annan eine "politische Lösung" forderte und Serbien und die UCK gleichermaßen für die Eskalation verantwortlich machte, sinnierte z. B. "Die Zeit" nur noch darüber, ob Deutschland bei einem NATO-Einsatz (das Wort "Krieg" wurde tunlichst vermieden) mitmachen sollte oder nicht. Damit rief das wohl angesehenste deutsche Wochenblatt zum Verfassungsbruch auf und half tatkräftig mit, den ersten deutschen Krieg seit 1945 vorzubereiten. Im Mai 1999 rechtfertigte es dann nochmals diese Entscheidung in einem langen Fischer-Interview unter dem völlig ironiefrei gewählten Titel "Wie Deutschland in den Krieg geriet".
Blick zu aktuellen Brennpunkten
Wozu dieser ellenlange Blick in die Vergangenheit? Erstens, weil wir Historiker am liebsten sowieso immer bei Adam und Eva anfangen würden. Und zweitens, weil sich die Geschichte zwar nie wiederholt, aber häufig ähnelt. Eine dieser Ähnlichkeiten ließ sich an den "Arabischen Revolutionen" feststellen: Sobald in einem Staat bürgerkriegsähnliche Unruhen entbrannten, waren die bürgerlichen Medien zur Stelle, um als Lösung für das publizistisch mit entfachte Krisenfeuer was anzubieten? Sie erraten es schon: einen NATO-Einsatz (das Wort "Krieg" wurde tunlichst vermieden).
Als die BRD sich im UN-Sicherheitsrat der Stimme enthielt und jene Resolution 1973, die zur Grundlage der Bombardierung und Zerstörung Libyens wurde, nicht mittrug, kritisierte "Die Zeit", Deutschland könne sich Isolationismus nicht leisten. Will heißen: Bitteschön in erster Reihe marschieren und bombardieren. Der Kriegseinsatz gegen Gaddafi sei "richtig und gerecht", er verliere erst dann seine Legitimität, "wenn der Feldzug zum Fehlschlag wird". Will heißen: Erfolgreiche Kriege sind automatisch legitim. Will weiters heißen: Wenn sich die NATO als das mit Abstand stärkste Militärbündnis der Welt einen schwachen Staat als Gegner auswählt, dann ist das immer legitim, weil sie nämlich erfolgreich ist.
Sprache schafft Wirklichkeit
Und dann, wenig später, Syrien: Wieder lässt ein böser Diktator unbewaffnete Zivilisten erschießen. Um nicht missverstanden zu werden: Es steht außer Frage, dass das Assad-Regime schwerste Menschenrechtsverletzungen begeht. Die entscheidende Frage ist aber, wie man die Gewaltspirale stoppt. Und die Vergangenheit zeigt ganz klar: Bombardierungen im Rahmen sogenannter "humanitärer Interventionen" machen alles nur noch schlimmer. Weniger Gewalt ist allenfalls durch Verhandlungen und Kompromisse, selbst mit einem Diktator, zu erreichen.
Wann und wie geraten internationalen Ereignisse in den medialen Fokus?
Dass unter den laut UN im Februar 2012 geschätzten 5.000 Toten rund 2.000 Soldaten und Sicherheitskräfte sind, wird allerdings in den meisten bürgerlichen Printmedien kaum erwähnt. Kein Wort davon, dass "der Westen" einen Regimewechsel erzwingen will wie in Libyen, damit das strategisch wichtige Syrien sich von Russland weg und zu den USA und der EU hin orientiert. Oder wussten Sie, dass das Assad-Regime 2011 mit Reformen begonnen hat? Dass der seit 1963 geltende Ausnahmezustand aufgehoben, Gefangene freigelassen, korrupte Gouverneure abgesetzt und die alleinigen Herrschaftsansprüche der Regierungspartei aufgegeben wurden? Wo stand zu lesen, dass Teile der innersyrischen Opposition einen Machtkompromiss mit Assad einzugehen bereit sind, während die u. a. von den USA mit Geld unterstützte Exilopposition zu keinem Entgegenkommen bereit ist?
Reflexion über Recherquellen
Ist dieses Verschweigen von Fakten Zufall oder Methode? Vielleicht ist die Frage zu hart: Auch Journalisten können nicht alles wissen. Immerhin versorgen in den USA geschulte Kampagnenaktivisten die Massenmedien mit täglichen 'Nachrichten', Videos und Telefonaten unklarer Herkunft, immerhin gibt die verbotene Muslimbruderschaft mit der in Schweden erstellten Internetseite 'Syrische Revolution 2011' ihre Ziele (Sturz Assads und Flugverbotszone - das Wort "Krieg" wird, Sie haben richtig geraten, tunlichst vermieden) als jene des "syrischen Volkes" aus.
Auch Journalisten können politischen und medialen Manipulationen wie der Anti-Assad-Kampagne (u. a. im Internet von AVAAZ) von EU, USA und den arabischen Verbündeten (Katar, Saudi-Arabien, Jordanien) auf den Leim gehen. Doch halt: Sollten Journalisten nicht einen geschulten Umgang in Konfliktberichterstattung haben? Müssten ihnen nicht Manipulationsversuche bekannt sein, müssten sie nicht darüber Bescheid wissen, dass eine gewaltsame Einmischung in einen Bürgerkrieg nur zu noch mehr Gewalt und Toten führt? Und woher plötzlich dieser Glaube an das Gute "der militärischen Mission Menschenrechte", wo doch im selben Atemzug NATO-Verbündete wie das als überaus demokratisch bekannte Saudi Arabien oder Katar, das seine eigenen Demonstrationen mithilfe saudischer Soldaten niedergeschlagen hat, erwähnt werden? Und ein Letztes: Müsste Qualitätsjournalismus nicht zumindest ein paar Grundkenntnisse darüber haben, dass alle Staaten, auch die unsrigen, Interessen haben und dafür notfalls auch bereit sind, über Leichen zu gehen?
Voreilige Stigmatisierung?
Stattdessen werden Russland und China, die mit ihrem Veto im Sicherheitsrat gegen eine militärische Eskalation stimmten, als "Helfer des Mörders" Assad diffamiert ("Die Zeit"), der "gegen das eigene Volk" kämpft. Assad, so weiß es ein Kommentar in der Süddeutschen Mitte Februar 2012, "löscht das Feuer der Rebellion mit Blut". Nur konsequent fordert das bürgerliche Spektrum nun also auch für Syrien die militärische Intervention, pardon: Es spielt den objektiven Beobachter: "Die Forderung, die internationale Staatengemeinschaft müsse eingreifen, wird immer lauter" ("Süddeutsche"). Die Frage, die dabei die "NZZ" beunruhigt, ist nicht etwa jene nach den Folgen der Eskalation, sondern danach, wer schlussendlich bereit ist, die Drecksarbeit zu übernehmen und Truppen nach Syrien zu schicken.
Das ist Kriegstreiberei und gehört auch als solche bezeichnet. Es gibt nämlich noch einen anderen Weg, wie der Bundesausschuss Friedensratschlag der deutschen Friedensforscher Ende Jänner 2012 in seiner Pressemitteilung klar gemacht hat: "Wer es also wirklich ehrlich meint mit dem Wunsch nach mehr Demokratie und Partizipation der Menschen (...), muss sich jeglichem gewaltsamen Einmischungsversuch von Außen widersetzen."
Von bürgerlichen Qualitätszeitungen sollte erwartet werden dürfen, dass sie sich zum Thema Kriege und Konflikte an die diesbezüglichen Spezialisten wenden, an die Friedens- und Konfliktforscher. Denn, wie Jürgen Todenhöfer in der "FAZ" im Dezember 2011 klargestellt hat: "Jeder hat ein Recht auf eigene Meinung, aber keiner auf eigene Fakten."
(Leserkommentar, Kurt Gritsch, derStandard.at, 14.3.2012)
Autor
Kurt Gritsch, Historiker und Konfliktforscher. Forschungsschwerpunkte: Jugoslawien, vergleichende Konfliktforschung der Arabischen Revolutionen. Zuletzt erschienen: "Inszenierung eines gerechten Krieges? Intellektuelle, Medien und der Kosovo-Krieg", Georg Olms Verlag 1999.
=== * ===
E' nata indoona : chiama, videochiama e messaggia Gratis.
Scarica indoona per iPhone, Android e PC
