Informazione


Kosovo: Everybody knew what Thaci did 

1) The Culture of Impunity, NATO Style (Diana Johnstone)
2) NEWS:
- Marty: Everybody knew what Thaci did 
- Kosovo a mafia state – EuroMP
- Moscow insists on Kosovo trafficking probe
- Serbia wants UN inquiry into Kosovo leader's alleged organ trafficking 
- KFOR's Final Firefighting Exercise for Kosovo Security Force 
- US congratulates Kosovo on independence day
- Kosovo rebels told UN of organ harvests 
3) Pacolli for President - with Thaci's support


***
Source of most documents 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
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
***

=== 1 ===


The Culture of Impunity, NATO Style


Diana Johnstone 
  

(Counterpunch, February 14, 2011)


Coverup of the Kosovo Mafia: The Culture of Impunity, NATO Style

On January 25, the Council of Europe overwhelmingly endorsed the Report it had commissioned from Swiss Senator Dick Marty on longstanding but officially ignored indications that Kosovo Albanian separatist fighters extracted and sold vital organs from prisoners around the end of the 1999 NATO bombing war that detached Kosovo from Serbia. Specifically implicated was the Drenica section of the “Kosovo Liberation Army” (KLA) led by post-bombing Kosovo’s first and current President, Hashim Thaci. The Council of Europe, whose main function is to defend human rights, called for a proper judicial investigation, notably by the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX)
(For a thorough analysis of the Marty Report, see “Criminal Kosovo: America’s Gift to Europe”, by Diana Johnstone, CounterPunch newsletter, Vol. 18, no.1, January 1-15, 2011.)
The problem created by the Marty Report is the same as the one that gave rise to it. There is no clear judicial authority willing and able to undertake a criminal investigation of the organ trafficking charges. The charges first surfaced in the 2006 memoir of former Chief ICTY Prosecutor Carla del Ponte, who complained that she was not allowed to pursue investigation of evidence in Albania. It was because of this judicial void that the Council of Europe mandated Senator Marty to make his report, hoping to stimulate some sort of legal procedure. But the problem remains. Most of the alleged crimes took place on the territory of Albania, where the KLA operated bases and prisons, but the Albanian authorities have so far refused to cooperate with investigators. EULEX was sent to Kosovo to try to fill the judicial void left by secession. However, like all the international protectorate structures set up to construct “independent” Kosovo, EULEX is afraid of arousing the wrath of Kosovo Albanians and has great difficulty gaining their cooperation in criminal investigation.
Media coverage of the organ trafficking charges implicating Hashim Thaci has been far too muted to build pressure from public opinion on reluctant Western governments to take the issue to court. Human Rights Watch has called for an independent European prosecutor to pursue the case, but there has been no audible response from the governments concerned. Mr. Marty’s expressed fear that his report will remain a “dead letter” seems quite plausible.
Even as the Marty Report appears fated to join the Goldstone Report on Gaza in the limbo of good intentions, the counterattack was launched. Oddly, the London Review of Books chose to publish a five-page review of the Marty Report by someone with a strong vested interest in discrediting it: none other than Geoffrey Nice, who as assistant prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, led the prosecution of Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic.  Nice’s only real achievement in the five-year-long trial was to outlive both the presiding judge and the defendant. The monstrous dimensions of the prosecution, aimed at blaming Milosevic for virtually all the woes of the complex civil wars that tore apart Yugoslavia in the 1990s, succeeded in sending Milosevic to his grave before he could present his defense, thus sparing the three judges the task of finding excuses to convict him, as they were hired to do.
The LRB review gave Sir Geoffrey (he was knighted in 2007 for his services) the opportunity to rehash the ICTY prosecution version of NATO’s Kosovo war (the “objective was to forestall a humanitarian catastrophe”) complete with the standard exaggerated figures (“at least 10,000 Kosovo Albanians killed”) and crucial omissions (Hashim Thaci “was chosen to go to Rambouillet in preferance to the Kosovan president, Ibrahim Rugova” – without saying by whom he was chosen, namely the U.S. State Department).
Nice’s main diversionary tactic was to center his attack on an unidentified “witness K144”. He titled his review “Who is K144?” and went on to answer the question by claiming that K144 was both the basis for the Marty Report accusations and non-existent creation of Serbian media propaganda.  A hasty reader might overlook the parenthetical element in the following sentence: “Stories in the Serbian press suggest that many of these allegations came from a witness known as K144, although del Ponte never refers to this source in her book (and nor does Marty, directly).” In reality, there is no “witness K144” mentioned in the Marty Report. Nice’s citations from the Serbian press do not correspond to the Marty Report.
The Nice article was immediately echoed and amplified by an article in The Wall Street Journal, which enjoys a larger and more American audience. Under the title “Smearing Hashim Thaci: Are the organ-harvesting allegations part of a media campaign against Kosovo?” (conclusion: yes) British journalist and Member of Parliament Denis MacShane gave a rave review of Nice’s review. “Most troublesome, according to Mr. Nice, is that Mr. Marty’s narrative implicitly depends on an anonymous witness, ‘K144’, who Belgrade says has provided evidence of these atrocities, but who most likely does not exist.”
Denis MacShane is a prize attack dog from the kennel of Tony Blair’s poodle imperialism. He is a member of the Henry Jackson Society, a gathering of warmongers whose model is the “Senator from Boeing”, Henry “Scoop” Jackson, who in the 1970s, with the aid of the Richard Perle, championed aggressive anti-Soviet policies under a supposedly liberal banner. MacShane’s claim to be “on the left” seems to rest almost exclusively on his championing of “the only democracy in the Middle East”, which allows him to make up for the shortage of communist threats with Islamic terrorism. His “European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism” issued a 2009 report which undertook to define which kinds of criticism of Israel constitute anti-Semitism. These included describing the state of Israel as a racist endeavor and comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. He is on the board of “Just Journalism” whose aim is to oversee UK media reports on Israel.
Mr. MacShane was Labour Minister for the Balkans and then for Europe, but was suspended from the Labour Party last October 14 pending investigation of expense account padding. He reportedly became the first British MP to be reported to the police by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards concerning his claims on taxpayer-funded office expenses. MacShane’s claims over seven years totaled about £125,000, including nearly £20,000 a year for an office located in his garage, eight laptop computers in three years and over a dozen bills for “research and translation” by an elusive “European Policy Institute” which turned out to mean, basically, his brother Edmund Matyjaszek (for his professional life, MacShane dropped his father’s Polish name for his mother’s Irish name surname). He has also been involved in numerous minor scandals involving distortion of facts. None of this seems to have harmed his self-confidence or his career, which includes regular essays for Newsweek. From his writings one can gather that the only Muslims he really trusts are the ones in former Yugoslavia.
Aside from the K144 diversion, the Nice-MacShane attack on the Marty Report zeroes in on two factors that to readers unfamiliar with the case may look like serious weakness. The report, they stress, gives no names of victims and no names of witnesses. The explanation for this is simple.  There are indeed lists of potential victims: missing Serbs and ethnic Albanians who are presumed dead after being taken prisoner by the KLA.  Without material evidence, it is nearly impossible to ascertain the precise fate of missing persons over ten years ago in a country, Albania, where local authorities have refused to cooperate and have had ample time to dispose of evidence.
As for the names of witnesses, Mr. Marty refuses to disclose them except to serious judicial authorities with a witness protection program.  This caution is absolutely necessary given the record of witness intimidation and even murder, notably in the case of Thaci’s rival in the KLA hierarchy, clan leader Ramush Haradinaj. Sir Geoffrey refers to this politely as “accusations of witness tampering”.
Geoffrey Nice concludes his review in the LRB by conceding that the allegations against Thaci need to be dealt with, simply because they make a bad impression. Mr. Nice compares Thaci to the West’s man in Montenegro, Milo Djukanovic, accused by Italian authorities of large-scale cigarette smuggling. “Montenegro, like Kosovo, can readily be trashed as a criminal state; and also like Kosovo, it seeks membership of the EU. Djukanovic has just announced that he will stand down and cease to hold political office. This, some say, is intended to ease Montenegro’s entry into organizations that are prepared to negotiate with the likes of Djukanovic or Thaci when their states are emerging from conflict but want afterwards to deal with someone less compromised. Thaci might well have to follow the same path as Djukanovic if the current rumors continue to circulate.”
Taking into account the habitual understatement employed by Geoffrey Nice concerning the wrongdoings of “our side”, this can be read as acknowledgement that both NATO protégés are crooks to some degree or other, who were useful in wresting their lands away from the Serbs, but now had best step back to make way for more presentable puppets. Being prosecuted for those wrongdoings, whatever they may be, is, however, out of the question.
Human rights campaigners in the self-righteous Western democracies are intransigent when it comes to ending what they call “the culture of impunity” so long as it involves, say, Africa. But their own impunity and that of their clients seems more secure than ever.

Diana Johnstoneis the author of Fools Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions. She can be reached at diana.josto@...


=== 2 ===

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=02&dd=12&nav_id=72677

B92 - February 12, 2011

Marty: Everybody knew what Thaci did 

LJUBLJANA: The killing of witnesses, the fact that everybody knew what Hashim Thaci was doing and the destruction of evidence is a scandal, Dick Marty told the Slovenian daily Delo. 

“Everybody kept quiet. That’s the real scandal, not my report in which I only wrote what many have known for a long time,” the Council of Europe (CoE) rapporteur was quoted as saying.

He added that Thaci’s name had often been mentioned in police reports, diplomatic cables, criminal studies and foreign intelligence agencies’ reports. 

“That means that the West knew all along very well what was happening in Kosovo, but no one took any action,” the CoE rapporteur told the Slovenian daily. 

Commenting on first UNMIK Chief Bernard Kouchner’s reaction to a reporter’s question about the human organ trafficking, Marty said: “A man who laughs at such a horrific topic says a lot about himself”. 

Marty also spoke about his visit to The Hague, adding that he had been utterly surprised by the fact that evidence from the Yellow House had been labeled as irrelevant and then destroyed. He explained that the Hague Tribunal had said it was a normal procedure but according to him, this is not the way evidence is handled anywhere in the world. 

Speaking about EULEX, the CoE rapporteur said that there were several highly professional people there but that conditions they worked in were horrible and unacceptable. 

“There is no secrecy. All translators are local, there are many local staff. That is why even the most confidential information has been systematically leaking,” he said, adding that if he were a lawyer of a witness in Kosovo he would never advise them to testify before EULEX, “primarily because they cannot protect the witnesses”. 
....
“The only solution is a special investigative unit outside Kosovo, with special authority and with a very serious witness protection program. Europe is never going to accept that. Because it knows that my witnesses would really talk and reveal that a large part of the European politicians knew all along what was going on in Kosovo. Do you really think that Brussels wants to hear something like this?” the CoE rapporteur concluded.  

---

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/02/14/44351856.html

Voice of Russia - February 14, 2011

Kosovo a mafia state – EuroMP

Euro-Parliament member and head of the United Nations counternarcotics agency Pino Arlacchi describes Kosovo as a mafia state built around transnational organized crime and the import of Afghan-produced heroin.
Speaking in Moscow Monday, he criticized the international officials in Kosovo and the nations that extended recognition to it for turning a blind eye to the problem.

---

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/02/17/44782073.html

Voice of Russia - February 17, 2011 

Moscow insists on Kosovo trafficking probe

Russia has called for a thorough investigation into suspected human organ trafficking in Kosovo. 
Speaking on Thursday, the Kremlin’s Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin said international mechanisms needed to be called upon to carry out the probe. 
His call followed Wednesday’s presentation of a report by prominent Swiss human rights activist Dick Marty at the UN Security Council, in which he proved that Kosovo militants had extracted organs from Serb prisoners and sold them to “black market” dealers.   

---

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14846344,00.html

Deutsche Welle - February 17, 2011

Serbia wants UN inquiry into Kosovo leader's alleged organ trafficking 

Author: Holly Fox (AFP, Reuters)

Serbia says the United Nations should look into allegations that Kosovo's prime minister was part of an organ trafficking network during the Kosovo War in the late 1990s. 
Speaking at the United Nations on Wednesday, Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic called on the international body to look into allegations that the Kosovo's Prime Minister Hashim Thaci was behind the trafficking in organs from ethnic Serbs in 1999 and 2000. A report by Dick Marty of the Council of Europe human rights watchdog made the original accusation that senior commanders of the former ethnic Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army, including Thaci, were the masterminds of and organ trafficking network.
Jeremic described Marty's report as "deeply disturbing" and said that the European Union mission EULEX currently looking into the issue was not enough because the allegations involved locations outside of Europe such as Asia and Africa.
"The solution lies in establishing an ad hoc investigating mechanism created by - and accountable to - the Security Council," he said.
US envoy Rosemary DiCarlo said the EULEX investigation was sufficient. "We do not believe that an ad hoc UN mechanism is necessary or appropriate," she said. Britain and Germany also denied the need for UN involvement, while Jeremic received support from long-time ally Russia.

Three years of independence

Thursday marks the third anniversary of Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia. Despite Belgrade's fierce opposition, it has been recognized by 75 countries, including the US and all but five EU members. Russia continues to oppose its independence.
Thaci was elected in December in Kosovo's first elections since declaring independence and has rejected the accusations against him.
A NATO bombing campaign drove Serb forces out of Kosovo in 1999....The UN passed administration duties on to EULEX in December 2008....

---

http://www.aco.nato.int/page424203219.aspx

North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Allied Command Operations
February 17, 2011

KFOR's Final Firefighting Exercise for Kosovo Security Force 

On Wednesday the 16th of February 2011, General Enrico Spagnoli, Commanding General for the formation of the Kosovo Security Force (KSF) attended the KSF final fire fighting exercise at KFOR HQ fire fighting station. 
General Enrico Spagnoli from KFOR welcomed Brigadier General Imri Ilazi and Colonel Skender Hoxha from KSF.
This fire fighting basic training course started on 31st of January 2011 with 13 candidates from the Civilian Protection Regiment of KSF. During the graduation ceremony the fire fighting certificates were presented to all the successful KSF candidates.

---

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i-Jgu3PRX8XIHQYDXZJU2p-vmJzQ?docId=CNG.68e525354daffd868eac000986513f10.191

Agence France-Press - February 17, 2011

US congratulates Kosovo on independence day

WASHINGTON: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton congratulated Kosovo Thursday on the third anniversary of its declaration of independence, saying the United States was committed to its future.
The United States "is committed to your future and we are honored to be your friends and your partners," Clinton said in the statement.
"You are charting a new future for your country and for the region."
She added that the anniversary "is a fitting occasion for Kosovo's elected leaders to reinforce their commitment to good governance and transparency -- both essential to fulfill Euro-Atlantic integration."
Clinton said that she had been "impressed with the promise of such a young country" during her visit to Kosovo in October, where she was met by cheering crowds waving US flags and carrying banners thanking Washington.
Clinton's husband, former US president Bill Clinton (1993-2001) ordered US forces to take part in the NATO bombing campaign that drove Serb troops out of Kosovo in 1999 and paved the way for the UN administration of the territory and finally the declaration of independence.
During the visit Hillary Clinton stopped at a bronze statue of her husband in downtown Pristina.
Kosovo unilaterally declared independence from Serbia in 2008....

---

http://ap.stripes.com/dynamic/stories/E/EU_KOSOVO_ORGAN_HARVESTS?SITE=DCSAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Associated Press - February 18, 2011

Kosovo rebels told UN of organ harvests 

By NEBI QENA 

PRISTINA, Kosovo: Ethnic Albanian rebels in Kosovo gave detailed testimony in 2003 on an alleged program to kill Serb captives, sell their organs, and bury hundreds of victims to hide evidence of civilian killings, according to a U.N. document obtained by The Associated Press.
The 30-page compilation of statements by at least eight people to U.N. investigators could provide momentum to claims that the world body failed to pay proper attention to war crimes by ethnic Albanian Kosovars in their 1990s war for independence.
U.N. authorities briefly investigated organ harvesting claims in 2004 but never launched a full-fledged probe, prompting Serb accusations of double standards in pursuing war crimes.
The document outlines an alleged scheme to take captives of the Kosovo Liberation Army rebels to Albania in the aftermath of the war so their kidneys, livers and other organs could be removed at a home that had been set up as a medical clinic.
U.N. officials were told the home was equipped with specialized equipment and medical personnel to carry out operations.
In a letter dated Dec. 12, 2003, Paul Coffey, the top justice official in Kosovo at the time, wrote to Jonathan Sutch, the official in charge of Yugoslav tribunal investigations in Kosovo, that the alleged crimes were reported to the U.N. in Kosovo by "multiple sources of unknown reliability."
Coffey said the information was "based on interviews with at least eight sources, the credibility of whom is untested, all ethnic Albanians from Kosovo or Montenegro who served in the Kosovo Liberation Army."
Details of the interviews were given more than seven years ago to the U.N.'s Netherlands-based tribunal that was then responsible for prosecuting war crimes in the former Yugoslavia; no one has been brought to trial.
The interviews were made available to the AP by an international official who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the case.
They appear to back allegations made by Council of Europe investigator Dick Marty, who said in a recent report on the case that Western governments ignored the accusations for fear of destabilizing Kosovo.
Marty's report in December named Kosovo's Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, the former head of the KLA, as the boss behind a network dealing in kidneys and other human organs as well as organized crime. Thaci has denied wrongdoing and has supported an international inquiry.
According to the documents, the sources told U.N. officials in 2003 that senior KLA officers and officials from the Albanian government were involved in the alleged crimes, which purportedly went on as late as the summer of 2000, almost a year after Kosovo came under U.N. and NATO control.
One source is quoted as telling investigators that the first two surgeries to harvest organs were done "to breach the market," and that traffickers later were able to make up to $45,000 per body.
"The largest shipment was when they did 5 Serbs together....He said they took a fortune that time," the source said according to the document. "Other shipments were usually from two or three Serbs."
The source told investigators that workers at the Rinas airport outside the Albanian capital of Tirana and at the airport in Istanbul, Turkey, where the organs were allegedly taken for sale, were bribed "to close their eyes."
The flight between the two cities takes about 1 hour 45 minutes; sources told the U.N. the house where the organs were allegedly harvested was a two-hour drive from the airport.
If packed in ice after removal, organs are viable for several hours after extraction - hearts and lungs for four-six hours, livers for 18-24 hours, kidneys for 24-48 hours.
Two sources claimed they took part in delivering body parts to Tirana's international airport, but "none of the sources witnessed the medical operations," U.N. officials noted in the document.
The organ trafficking claims, first made public in a 2008 book by former U.N. war crimes prosecutor Carla del Ponte, are resurfacing as Kosovo marks three years since declaring its sovereignty, with strong backing from the U.S. and most countries in the European Union.
Since then, Kosovo has met strong resistance from Serbia, which claims the territory as its spiritual homeland and seeks to undermine statehood. The alleged trade in kidneys of killed captives has given Serbia ammunition in its fight to counter Kosovo and its Western backers.
Serbian Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic on Wednesday called on the U.N. Security Council to authorize an international investigation into the allegations and to deal with claims that some countries "would love to sweep this thing under the carpet."
The head of the U.N. mission in Kosovo, Lamberto Zannier, told the AP that the 2,000-strong EU mission - known as EULEX - now in charge of dealing with war crimes in Kosovo was given every war crimes file that the Yugoslavia tribunal and the U.N. possessed, including witness statements.
Both the U.N. and the EU have prosecuted war crimes committed in Kosovo by both Serbs and ethnic Albanians, but the interviews are the first recorded reference on alleged organ trading to emerge.
"I can confirm that we gave the material we had to EULEX....This was early in 2009" Zannier said by phone from New York, where he was reporting to the U.N. Security Council.
EULEX says it has launched a preliminary investigation into Marty's allegations, but would not immediately comment on the 2003 report. It was not immediately clear if it was following up on any of the information given by the eight sources to the U.N.
So far, both the U.N. and EULEX have maintained that their investigations into the alleged organ harvesting have failed to yield any evidence.
The statements taken by the U.N. give specific details of locations in Albania where the KLA allegedly kept detainees and buried victims, some of them also ethnic Albanians accused of collaborating with Serbs.
The sources, described as "low to midlevel ranking KLA members," said the Serbs were driven by trucks and vans to Albania where they were held in detention centers and some went through medical checks.
The trail was partly followed up in February 2004, when a team of U.N. and tribunal investigators visited a house in the village of Rripe where the sources said the organ harvesting took place.
The investigators, accompanied by a local Albanian prosecutor, recovered syringes; empty containers of Tranxene, a muscle relaxant; chloraphenical, an antibiotic; and a piece of gauze similar to material used for surgical scrubs.
Chemical agents sprayed on the floors and walls of the house revealed two sizable splatters of blood - one in the kitchen, another in a storage room. But forensics tests were never conducted on the stains, and U.N. officials at the time said they could not explain why not.
According to the sources in the U.N. document, most of the alleged Serb victims ranged in age from 25 to 50.
One source said he was instructed by KLA superiors not to beat the prisoners. He became suspicious when they were to deliver "a briefcase or a file with papers that would be given to the doctor when the captives were delivered" to the house in northern Albania.
"I thought about how this was the only house where I brought people, but never picked anyone up," one source testified. "It was around this time that I heard other guys talking about organs, kidneys, and trips from the house to the airport."
---

Associated Press Medical Writer Maria Cheng contributed from London.


=== 3 ===

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=02&dd=15&nav_id=72731

B92 - February 15, 2011

Thaci to make Pacolli president 

PRIŠTINA: Hashim Thaci's Democratic Party of Kosovo has decided to offer the post of president of Kosovo to Behgjet Pacolli. 
Pacolli is the leader of the New Kosovo Alliance.
This should allow a new government to be formed in Priština, in the wake of the December elections. 
According to this proposal, Thaci will be prime minister once again, while his party will also name the president of the assembly in Priština. 
The two Kosovo Albanian parties will in the coming days consider how to distribute portfolios, according to announcements. 
....
The assembly is expected to meet for its first session on February 24.  

---

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2011&mm=02&dd=16&nav_id=72757

Beta News Agency - February 16, 2011

Russian media on Pacolli 

MOSCOW: Moscow media are reporting that Kosovo presidential candidate Behgjet Pacolli is known in Russia for a Kremlin reconstruction scandal. 
Moscow-based daily Kommersant writes that Pacolli was at the center of corruption affairs close to former Russian President Boris Yeltsin. 
The media write that the New Kosovo Alliance (AKR) leader was in Russia in the early 1990s when his Switzerland-based company Mabetex Group was carrying out projects in Yakutia. 
He allegedly met Yakutsk Mayor Pavel Borodin who became head of the Presidential Property Management Department in 1993. 
Pacolli’s firm was soon hired to reconstruct the Kremlin, Shuyskaya Chupa presidential residence, government headquarters, headquarters of the State Duma and the Federation Council and many more projects, the media write. 
Moscow-based daily Moscow Komsomolets reports that “scandalous Behgjet Pacolli, a Kremlin restorer, will head Kosovo”, while RBC TV states that Pacolli was hired to do a reconstruction of the Russian state buildings thanks to his friendship with Borodin. 
Kommersant writes that Pacolli became a central figure of the corruption scandal close to Yeltsin and that several officials were suspected of accepting bribes in exchange for the Kremlin reconstruction job. 
Mabetex offices in Lugano were searched in January of 1999 at Russia’s request and Pacolli was questioned by then Swiss State Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte. 
According to the daily, the Swiss authorities charged him with money laundering and giving bribes worth USD 4mn in June 2000. The proceedings in Russia were in dismissed in December 2000 and Switzerland closed the case in March 2002. 
Kommersant also writes that a personal conflict in the meantime grew between Pacolli and then Russian State Prosecutor Yuri Skuratov, who launched the investigation against Mabetex and was subsequently relieved of his duties. 
The daily added that if Pacolli became the president of Kosovo, he would enter "high politics" and therefore achieve his goal. The report says that he has been actively lobbying for Kosovo’s independence since 2005 and that it would be "much easier for him to continue lobbying if he became president". 
Voice of Russia Radio has assessed that Pacolli is “simply an angel” compared to Kosovo Albanian Prime Minister Hashim Thaci. 
“Such a president can talk to Brussels, to Washington, to Belgrade and even to unobliging Moscow if he is lucky,” the radio reported. 
Russian Academy of Science Center for Study of Current Balkan Crisis’ Anna Filimonova told the radio, however, that Pacolli had also lobbied for the Nabucco gas pipeline and Iran-Turkey-Greece-Albania-Kosovo pipeline. 
According to her, this is fundamentally contrary to the Russian interests in the Balkans, especially regarding the construction of the rival South Stream gas pipeline.  




(italiano / srpskohrvatski)

Jedini jezik / Un'unica lingua

1) Un documento del Dipartimento dello Stato USA deplora che le lingue bosniaca, croata e serba siano considerate come lingue diverse
Američke diplomate o srpsko-hrvatskom jeziku / Hrvatski jezik je službeni u EU. Dokument američkog Stejt departmenta nije uznemirio Hrvate / Sprovođenje, provodba, implementacija

2) Snježana KordićJezik i nacionalizam (Zagreb: DURIEUX d.o.o., 2010) / Govori kao što govoriš

3) "Hrvati, Srbi, Bosanci i Crnogorci govore jedan te isti jezik"

4) Povodom knjige „Srpski jezik u normativnom ogledalu” (2006)

Sulla stessa tematica vedi anche la documentazione raccolta alla nostra pagina: https://www.cnj.it/CULTURA/jezik.htm


=== 1 ===

Da un documento interno di un ispettorato per le risorse umane del Dipartimento dello Stato USA trapela preoccupazione per il fatto che, nell'area linguistica serbo-croata, le lingue bosniaca, croata e serba siano considerate come lingue diverse. Nel documento, intitolato "La problematica linguistica nei Balcani" e prodotto dopo la visita degli ispettori, si afferma che le lingue parlate in questi Stati, da punto di vista linguistico, sono fondamentalmente identiche, con l'unico segno distintivo dell'utilizzo dell'alfabeto cirillico per il serbo. Si tratta di "dialetti di un'unica lingua", sta scritto nel documento, che suggerisce ed auspica che questo fatto sia accettato ai fini del risparmio nell'addestramento dei funzionari. Osservando che le piccole varianti linguistiche potrebbero essere apprese con un breve addestramento alla conversazione, nel documento si suggerisce che "è inutile che una persona già addestrata per la lingua croata, con il suo trasferimento lavorativo a Sarajevo, debba frequentare un intero corso per il bosniaco come se questa fosse un'altra lingua".
Secondo il documento, "ai fini di valutare la necessità di spesa per lo studio linguistico, il bosniaco, il croato, il serbo-croato e il serbo si dovrebbero trattare come un'unica lingua". Si menziona inoltre il fatto che negli ormai ben rodati programmi di lingue slave nelle università statunitensi, incluse Harvard e la UCLA, questi dialetti sono considerati nel novero di un'unica lingua.

Nell'articolo che di seguito riproduciamo, pubblicato dal quotidiano belgradese Politika, esperti linguisti delle repubbliche jugoslave, oltre ad esprimere soddisfazione per questa notizia, rilevano alcuni fatti politici, economici ed editoriali. Si presume che queste pressioni potrebbero avere il fine politico di orientare le repubbliche ex-federate a mantenere una maggiore collaborazione reciproca. Un'altra ragione sarebbe di carattere commerciale e consisterebbe nel fatto che molte imprese straniere, attive nell'ambito dell'editoria e dei media, diventate proprietarie di media locali desiderano adesso allargare i bacini di vendita...

(a cura di DK e AM)

---


Američke diplomate o srpsko-hrvatskom jeziku


Sa gledišta parlamenta SAD, reč je prvenstveno o uštedi novca jer oni ne žele da plaćaju četiri prevodioca, smatra profesor Ljubiša Rajić




Američka administracija izrazila je zabrinutost zbog prakse da se bošnjački, hrvatski, i srpski tretiraju kao različiti jezici. Glavni inspektorat američkog državnog sekretara je nedavno poslao interni dokument Odseku za ljudske resurse i Institutu za službu spoljnih poslova pod naslovom „Balkanska jezička problematika”, gde se posle posete američkih ambasada u Srbiji, Hrvatskoj, Crnoj Gori, BiH, došlo do zaključka da su jezici koji se govore u tim zemljama bazično lingvistički isti.

Reč je o „dijalektima jednog jezika”, navedeno je u dokumentu u kome inspektori sugerišu da bi bilo dobro kada bi takav stav bio prihvaćen jer bi to doprinelo uštedi na obuci službenika, prenosi Tanjug.

Podsetimo, kada je hrvatski lingvista Snježana Kordić u knjizi „Jezik i nacionalizam”, koja je objavljena prošle godine, napisala da svi narodi u regionu – Hrvati, Srbi, Crnogorci o Bošnjaci govore istim jezikom, i da je pravo na jezik na prostoru bivših jugoslovenskih republika postalo opravdanje za ekstremni nacionalizam, njena knjiga je izazvala burne reakcije i negodovanje među hrvatskim intelektualcima.

„U lingvistici je definisano da se radi o istom jeziku ako je najmanje 81 odsto osnovnog rečničkog blaga zajedničko, a Hrvati, Srbi, Bošnjaci i Crnogorci kad govore standardnim jezikom imaju 100 odsto zajedničko osnovno rečničko blago”, navodi Snježana Kordić.

Američke diplomate su utvrdile da „uprkos novim imenima, ove regionalne varijante ostaju lingvistički bazično iste s neznatnim varijacijama, uključujući korišćenje ćirilice u srpskom”. Primećujući da je reč o varijacijama koje se mogu prebroditi kratkotrajnom vežbom konverzacije, sugerisan je zaključak da je „nepotrebno da službenik koje je već obučen za, na primer, hrvatski jezik, ako iz Zagreba ode u Sarajevo, mora da prođe ceo kurs bošnjačkog kao da je reč o novom jeziku”.

Prema tom dokumentu, „bošnjački, hrvatski, srpsko-hrvatski i srpski jezik trebalo bi tretirati kao jedinstven jezik u cilju utvrđivanja podobnosti za plaćanje podsticanja za učenje jezika”.

Zaključeno je, naime, i da svi američki univerziteti sa dobro uhodanim programima slovenskih jezika, uključujući Harvard i UKLA, pomenute dijalekte tretiraju kao jedan jezik.

Upitan za komentar, profesor Filološkog fakulteta u Beogradu Ljubiša Rajić smatra da je, lingvistički gledano, ovde reč o jednom jeziku, koji se pravno definiše na četiri različita jezika.

– Nema potrebe za njihovim prevođenjem jer se samo minimalan broj reči razlikuje: arhaizmi koji se ne koriste, kao i dva dodatna slova u crnogorskom jeziku, koje koristi deo političke i intelektualne elite, ali ne i narod. Sa gledišta američkog parlamenta, reč je prvenstveno o uštedi novca jer oni ne žele da plaćaju četiri prevodioca. Kad je reč o Evropskoj uniji, pored 23 jezika, ne treba im još četiri. Verovatno se tom logikom vodi i američko Ministarstvo spoljnih poslova – kaže profesor Rajić.

On pretpostavlja da ovde postoji i politički cilj kako bi se bivše jugoslovenske republike, preko zajedničkog jezika, „pogurale” ka međusobnoj saradnji.

– Još jedan razlog, komercijalne prirode, vidim i u tome što su stranci postali vlasnici medija i žele veće tržište. Ako bi se knjige, novine i časopisi prodavali na većem tržištu, dobija se nekoliko miliona potencijalnih čitalaca više – kaže Rajić.


M. Sretenović


------------------------------------------


Hrvatski jezik je službeni u EU

Dokument američkog Stejt departmenta nije uznemirio Hrvate


Od našeg stalnog dopisnika


Zagreb – Tvrdnje da su hrvatski i srpski jezik u stvari jedan jezik u Hrvatskoj se od njenog osamostaljenja dočekuju s osetljivošću. Ovaj put, kada je u javnost „procurio” dokument iz američkog Stejt departmenta u kojem njegov funkcioner Harold Gejsel pre dve godine izražava zabrinutost što se hrvatski, srpski i bošnjački tretiraju kao tri jezika, a u stvari su „dijalekti jednog jezika”, takvog uzbuđenja u Hrvatskoj nije bilo, ili barem ne još.

Ovu temu, naime, domaća javnost i struka već su imali nedavno, kada se digla poprilična prašina pošto je objavljeno strahovanje da će Evropska unija „radi štednje” na sličan način kako se to sada čita u spomenutom američkom dokumentu rešiti upotrebu hrvatskog jezika u njenim organima i službama. Čak je bilo predloga u Briselu da će se u službenoj upotrebi u EU „ponovo uvesti” termin hrvatskosrpski (i obrnuto), ali se na kraju sve završilo povoljno za hrvatska očekivanja i jezična euforija je splasnula.

Krajem oktobra protekle godine doneta je odluka da će hrvatski biti jedan od službenih jezika EU, čime je potvrđen princip da jezik svake zemlje koja se priključuje Uniji postaje i jedan od njenih službenih jezika. Verovatno i zato ova upravo otkrivena razmišljanja Amerikanaca na tu temu u Hrvatskoj nisu izazvala dosadašnja uzbuđenja.

I pored čvrste i službene opredeljenosti da se tu radi o dva različita jezika, u Hrvatskoj ima i istaknutih intelektualaca i lingvista koji smatraju da se ipak radi o jednom jeziku. Poznate su u tom smislu, na primer, izjave pisaca Igora Mandića i Pere Kvesića, a kao bomba odjeknula je prošle godine knjiga „Jezik i nacionalizam” lingviste Snježane Kordić koja godinama predaje na nemačkim univerzitetima.

Zanimljivo je da je oštri protivnik njenog dokazivanja da se tu zaista radi o jednom jeziku s različitim oblicima upravo njena profesorka koja joj je na Filozofskom fakultetu u Osijeku predavala hrvatsku književnost, Sanda Ham, inače autor Školske gramatike hrvatskog jezika i koautor Hrvatskog školskog pravopisa s profesorima Babićem i Mogušem. Ona je duboko uverena, kao i većina hrvatskih lingvista, da su hrvatski i srpski dva različita jezika, a tezu svoje učenice Kordić ocenjuje kao „romantičarsku i nenaučnu”.


Radoje Arsenić


 ------------------------------------------------


Sprovođenje, provodba, implementacija


Od našeg stalnog dopisnika

Sarajevo – Bez obzira kako ga imenujemo to je lingvistički jedan jezik, kaže Senahid Halilović, profesor Filozofskog fakulteta u Sarajevu i autor pravopisa bosanskog jezika, kao i koautor gramatike i rečnika bosanskog jezika.

„Umesto jednog standardnog, danas postoje četiri zaokružena standardna jezika”, objašnjava Halilović i ponavlja da se radi o jezicima (srpski, hrvatski, bosanski i crnogorski) koji su iznikli na temelju jednog jugoslovenskog jezika, na istoj dijalekatskoj podlozi.

„Lingvistički gledano jedan jezik, sociolingvistički gledano imamo četiri standardna jugoslovenska jezika, potpuno ravnopravna”, precizira on i napominje da nam, uprkos određenim „pregonjenjima”, prevodilac ne treba. Bosna i Hercegovina će, sugeriše Halilović, kada postane članica EU „na trpezu jezika, pored srpskog i hrvatskog, prineti još i bosanski jezik”, tako da će ona imati „tri službena jezika”.

Hanka Vajzović, redovni profesor Fakulteta političkih nauka u Sarajevu, takođe, smatra da je reč o jednom jeziku.

„Svakako da je reč o jednom jeziku ako ga merimo stepenom istovetnosti, odnosno razlika, ili mogućnostima sporazumevanja”, objašnjava ona i dodaje da je pitanje procesa standardizacije nešto drugo. Na pitanje treba li nam prevodilac, Vajzovićeva odgovara da je, u najmanju ruku, „glupo” da se prevodimo, jer i nije, kaže, „reč o prevođenju”, nego „o adaptaciji” koja se, praktično, svodi „na komične situacije”. Navodi primer službenih glasnika u kojima je na hrvatskom „provodba zakona”, na srpskom „sprovođenje”, a na bošnjačkom „ona fina, iskonska, domaća, autentična reč – implementacija”.

„Važno je da nađemo razliku i to je odavno naš problem” – ocenjuje Vajzovićeva i napominje da se radi o „zasebnim procesima standardizacije” koja je po njenom mišljenju „vrlo tendenciozno urađena” i da se „jezičke razlike izmišljaju na sve tri strane, jer važno je da se udaljimo”.

Kad su u pitanju jezici naroda u BiH, naša sagovornica ističe da prevođenje dolazi u obzir samo ukoliko se radi o engleskom jeziku, na primer. „Kad se nešto prevede sa engleskog onda definitivno nema reči o prevođenju, nego samo o adaptaciji teksta, usklađivanju sa onim što je pretežno u bogatstvu sinonimije koja je po svojoj prirodi relativna”.


Duška Stanišić

objavljeno: 16.02.2011.



=== 2 ===

Kordić Snježana

Jezik i nacionalizam

Zagreb: DURIEUX d.o.o., 2010
ISBN 978-953-188-311-5
Format: 13x21, tvrdi uvez - Cijena: 200 kn / 28 Eur

Ovo je u domaćoj sredini prva knjiga koja na osnovi uvida u obimnu inozemnu literaturu rasvjetljava odnos između jezika i nacije. Čitatelju se u njoj nude spoznaje o tome kako se prave nacije, kako se instrumentalizira jezik za nacionalističke ciljeve, kako se falsificira prošlost i izgrađuju mitovi koji podupiru ideološki poželjnu sliku stvarnosti. U knjizi se identitet razotkriva kao konstrukcija, a kultura kao nepodudarna s nacijom. Pokazuje se da jezik kojim govorimo ima šire granice nego što mu uobičajeno ucrtavaju, a predočava se i prava priroda jezičnog purizma.
S obzirom na ovdašnja proširena shvaćanja, mnogima bi se sadržaj knjige mogao učiniti revolucionarnim. Ali on to nije, nego se prije radi o izoliranosti domaće sredine od dosega znanosti u svijetu. Cilj ove knjige i jest da se ta izoliranost prevlada i da se nadoknade postojeći deficiti u znanju. (http://www.durieux.hr/pregled.asp?id=776)

---


Snježana Kordić: govori kao što govoriš

Domaći jezikoslovci uvjeravaju ljude da država i nacija ne može postojati ako nema zaseban jezik sa zasebnim imenom. Kad bi bilo tako, ne bi postojala čak ni američka država i nacija, ne bi postojala švicarska nacija i država, ni kanadska, argentinska... Ako je najmanje 81 posto osnovnog rječničkog blaga zajedničko, radi se o istom jeziku.
15 august 2010


Snježana Kordić, lingvistica iz Osijeka, u svojoj knjizi Jezik i nacionalizam [1] piše o tome da se u BiH, Hrvatskoj, Srbiji i Crnoj Gori govori istim jezikom. Naime, Kordić je u intervjuu zaSlobodnu Bosnu kazala da se spomenuti narodi međusobno razumiju i da govore jednim jezikom. Lingvistica napominje kako je u lingvistici definirano da se radi o istom jeziku ako je najmanje 81 posto osnovnog rječničkog blaga zajedničko. "A Hrvati, Srbi, Bošnjaci i Crnogorci, kad govore standardnim jezikom, imaju 100 posto zajedničko osnovno rječničko blago", kazala je Kordić.

Prije nekoliko godina Kordić je bila optužena da "potkopava temelje hrvatske države" zbog svojih radova i stajališta o jeziku. Ona kaže da je do toga došlo jer "domaći jezikoslovci uvjeravaju ljude da država i nacija ne može postojati ako nema zaseban jezik sa zasebnim imenom". "To je, naravno, besmislica jer inače ne bi postojala čak ni američka država i nacija, ne bi postojala švicarska nacija i država, ni kanadska, argentinska...", smatra Kordić.

lingvistički dokazi o postojanju zajedničkog jezika ne ugrožavaju postojanje zasebne države

"Čovjek stvarno mora biti potpuno neuk, da ne kažem slijep, pa da misli da lingvistički dokazi o postojanju zajedničkog standardnog jezika ugrožavaju postojanje Hrvatske, Bosne i Hercegovine, Srbije i Crne Gore kao četiri zasebne države, ili da ugrožavaju postojanje četiriju nacija", smatra Kordić.

Kordić u svojoj knjizi navodi kako se radi o standardnom jeziku koji je policentričan, odnosno da nekoliko nacija govori istim jezikom pa on ima nekoliko centara. "Sve četiri varijante su ravnopravne, nije jedna od njih nekakav ‘pravi’ jezik, a druga ‘varijacija’ tog jezika. Policentrični su svi svjetski jezici, a i brojni drugi. Razlike između njihovih varijanti su često veće nego u našem slučaju", smatra.

jezična netolerancija je politički prihvatljiva maska za netoleranciju prema drugoj naciji

Lingvistica naglašava da pojedinci koji razdraženo reagiraju na neke riječi koje prepoznaju kao znak druge nacije izražavaju jezičnu netoleranciju. Ona se slaže s tim da je jezična netolerancija često politički prihvatljiva maska za netoleranciju prema drugoj naciji. "Ta maska se koristi jer je u današnjim društvima politički prihvatljivije govoriti o jezičnoj čistoći nego govoriti direktno o neprijateljstvu prema drugoj naciji", kazala je.

"Tipično je da mislimo kako nacionalizam postoji uvijek samo kod drugih, a naš nacionalizam predočavamo kao ’patriotizam’, koristan i neophodan", kazala je Kordić.

Kordić smatra da su naši lektori postali cenzuristi. "Ono što čine domaći lektori, to nije posao lektora, nego cenzora. Ni u kojem slučaju lektori u inozemstvu ne vrše odstrel riječi navedenih na nekakvim listama nepodobnosti, a upravo to čine domaći lektori", smatra Kordić.

index.hr



=== 3 ===



18.01.2011

"Hrvati, Srbi, Bosanci i Crnogorci govore jedan te isti jezik"


Njemačke novine „Frankfurter Rundschau“ se u svom online izdanju od utorka, 18. januara, osvrću na jezike koji su nastali u zemljama stvorenim nakon raspada bivše Jugoslavije.


Pod naslovom „Nema popusta za budale“, list prenosi mišljenje hrvatske lingvistkinje Snježane Kordić koja bespoštedno i pedantno pokazuje  – kako piše magazin - ono što su zapravo uvijek svi znali: naime, Hrvati, Srbi, Bosanci i Crnogorci govore jednim te istim jezik.

„U Hrvatskoj se nakon raspada bivše Jugoslavije govori hrvatski, a u Srbiji srpski. Može li jedan jezik jednostavno nestati kao što to mogu neka država ili nacija? Ako je odgovor pozitivan, šta to znači? Da li odjednom svi govore različitim jezicima i više se međusobno ne razumiju, kao nakon propale gradnje Babilonskog tornja? Hrvatska lingvistkinja Snježana Kordić pronašla je sada u jednoj knjizi jednostavan odgovor: Ne. I od tada se svađa cijela zemlja.

U Hrvatskoj se govori hrvatski, a u Srbiji srpski – dakle, opšta formula nakon raspada bivše Jugoslavije je glasila: sve lijepo razdvojiti. Jezički čistunci, koji su 20 godina narodu u novi hrvatski jezik ubacivali nove riječi, energično su reagirali. Knjiga je „smeće“, rekao je romanopisac Hrvoje Hitrec, predsjedavajući konzervativnog Hrvatskog kulturnog vijeća i to u najgledanijem terminu na televiziji.“

Liberalni listovi su sa zadovoljstvom iznosili sve apsurdnosti


„Frankfurter Rundschau“ navodi da je najtiražniji dnevni „Večernji list“ u Hrvatskoj s tim u vezi dopustio Sandri Ham, koautorici Hrvatskog školskog pravopisa, da na više od dvije stranice polemizira o toj – kako je u Hrvatskoj nazivaju - odmetnici. 


List piše: „Nacionalisti su se našli u defanzivi. Hrabri izdavač Snježane Kordić, Nenad Popović se nije dao zbuniti. Vodeći hrvatski intelektualci kao što su dramatičar Slobodan Šnajder, pisac Miljenko Jergović i satiričar Boris Dežulović nagradili su do danas manje poznatu naučnicu aplauzom. Liberalna štampa je sa zadovoljstvom listala sve apsurdnosti koje su nastale iz teze da su hrvatski, srpski, bosanski i crnogorski različiti jezici. Tako da je svaki Hrvat na svijet morao doći kao poliglota, jer je automatski vladao sa tri druga jezika. Jedan list je uočio da od 70 hrvatskih ambasadora u svijetu, samo jedan od njih na svojoj webstranici navodi da, pored engleskog ili francuskog, također govori i srpski. Za sve ostale to je nešto što se, čini se, podrazumjeva.“      

Doprinos lingvistike u odbrani nacionalnih interesa je bio dobrodošao

List podsjeća da je lingvistkinja Snježana Kordić diplomirala u Zagrebu te da je karijeru nastavila u Njemačkoj.

„Frankfurter Rundschau“ piše: „Ona jasno i nepodmitljivo iznosi argumente da srpsko-hrvatski jezik i dalje postoji – neovisno od nacionalnih političara – i to kao „policentrični jezici“, kao što su njemački, engleski i francuski. Ono što njenu knjigu čini skandaloznom je to što bivšim protivnicima u ratu u njihovom boju za jezik ne daje nikakav popust na budalaštinu. Suparničke strane se, naime, nisu morale truditi 20 godina oko svojih argumenata: u strankama, izdavaštvima i redakcijama doprinos lingvistike u ideološkoj odbrani nacionalnih interesa je samo bio dobrodošao“, piše, pored ostalog. njemački list „Frankfurter Rundschau“.

Priredio: Senad Tanović

Odg. ured.: Mehmed Smajić


www.dw-world.de | © Deutsche Welle.





=== 4 ===

http://www.politika.co.yu/detaljno.php?nid=11699&lang=2

Rasparčavanje srpskog jezika

Lojalnost Dejtonskom sporazumu 

Povodom knjige „Srpski jezik u normativnom ogledalu”, koju su priredili Branislav Brborić, Jovan Vuksanović i Radojko Gačević, a objavila „Beogradska knjiga” (2006)


Da u Srbiji postoji centar za rasparčavanje srpskog jezika i da on, pod nazivom Odbor za standardizaciju srpskog jezika, deluje u Srpskoj akademiji nauka i umetnosti, to se vidi u knjizi Srpski jezik u normativnom ogledalu, koju su priredili Branislav Brborić, Jovan Vuksanović i Radojko Gačević, a objavila Beogradska knjiga (2006).

Podnaslov ove publikacije glasi: 50 odluka Odbora za standardizaciju srpskog jezika. Među odlukama ima i onih koje su korisne, kao i onih koje su irelevantne. U nekoj normalnoj istorijskoj situaciji, bavljenje jezičkim sitnicama, nedoumicama i finesama stvarno ima smisla. Ali, prve dve odluke ne tiču se sitnica i, za razliku od ostalih, od strateškog su značaja. One su pogubne jer poriču identitet i integritet srpskog jezika. Prvom odlukom legalizuje se novoproglašeni bošnjački jezik, uz već „priznati” – „hrvatski” jezik. Drugom odlukom ispoljen je negativni odnos prema srpskoj filološkoj tradiciji. Ove dve ključne odluke su u međusobnoj saglasnosti. Obe vode ka rasparčavanju srpskog jezika, a posledično, i ka rasparčavanju srpskog naroda.


Bosanski ili bošnjački


U prvoj odluci, koja je prihvaćena 13. februara 1998. pod naslovom Bošnjački ili bosanski jezik; sat ili čas; jevrejski, hebrejski (jezik) ili ivrit, indirektno je izvršeno priznavanje bošnjačkog jezika. Pošlo se od toga kao da takav jezik zaista postoji i samo mu treba odrediti pravo ime. Odbor za standardizaciju video je svoj zadatak samo u tome da odgovori na pitanje da li ga treba zvati bosanski ili bošnjački. Tako je jedno od kapitalnih pitanja za srpsku lingvistiku, koje se tiče identiteta i integriteta srpskoga jezika, dobilo isti tretman kao i pitanje da li treba pisati sat ili čas. Učinjeno je to u ime novoustanovljenog principa da je jezički standard isto što i nacionalni jezik.

Po ovom principu, koji važi samo za srpski jezik, implicitno je rečeno: koliko jezičkih standarda, toliko jezika. Čim bude utvrđen crnogorski jezički standard, i on će od ovog Odbora, iz istih kvaziprincipijelnih razloga, biti proglašen za poseban jezik.

Poznato je da i engleski jezik ima više standarda; da se britanski engleski razlikuje od američkog engleskog, kao i od australijskog engleskog. Ali u svim slučajevima to je uvek engleski jezik. Iskazujući slepu lojalnost Dejtonskom sporazumu, koji se i nije bavio pitanjima jezika, ali je bio potpisan, tobože, na četiri jezika: srpskom, hrvatskom, bošnjačkom i engleskom, srpski lingvisti se nisu potrudili da pokažu da je taj Sporazum pisan na samo dva jezika: na engleskom (u američkom jezičkom standardu) i na srpskom (u srpskoj, hrvatskoj i bošnjačkoj verziji). Izraz bošnjački jezik do Dejtona postojao je samo tri ratne godine, a onda je taj izraz stekao isti status sa izrazom srpski  jezik. I to tako što su ga srpski lingvisti eksplicitno podržali. Izraz hrvatski jezik s pravom se odnosi na čakavsko ili kajkavsko narečje; ali tim narečjima nije pisan Dejtonski sporazum. Pisan je u hrvatskoj standardnojezičkoj verziji srpskog jezika.

Dejtonski dokument nisu pisali lingvisti već političari. Ali prvu odluku Odbora za standardizaciju srpskog jezika pisali su oficijelno reprezentativni srpski lingvisti. I oni su standardnojezički izraz Hrvata i Muslimana stavili u isti rang sa srpskim narodnim i književnim jezikom.

Ako je jezik kojim nam se preko televizije obraća Rasim Ljajić bošnjački, a jezik kojim govori Ivana Dulić Marković – hrvatski, koji je onda srpski jezik? Jesu li Vuk i Šantić pisali bošnjačkim ili srpskim jezikom? Reprezentativni srpski lingvisti kao da nisu svesni šta ovakvim svojim odlukama priređuju svom jeziku i svom narodu. Posledice ovakve jezičke politike stvaraju haos. Na severu Bačke, na primer, mereno normalnim lingvističkim kriterijima, govore se dva jezika: srpski i mađarski. Ali naopakim lingvističkim odlukama daje se za pravo proizvoljnim političkim stavovima koji kažu da se tamo govori: mađarskim, srpskim, hrvatskim, bunjevačkim, crnogorskim, jugoslovenskim jezikom, a možda i nekako drugačije. Ne verujem da bi iko ozbiljan u naučnom svetu postupio ovako kao Odbor za standardizaciju srpskog jezika u svojoj pomenutoj odluci.

Zašto srpski lingvisti tako rade? Zato što tako radi idejni centar za rasparčavanje srpskog jezika u Zagrebu koji je srpskim lingvistima doturio ideju o standardizaciji kao vrhovnom jezičkom zakonu. Dovoljno je pogledati Novu deklaraciju Hrvatske akademije nauka i umjetnosti (od 23. veljače 2005), pa videti da su u njoj svi ovi jezici (tj. „hrvatski”, „bošnjački”, „crnogorski” i srpski) tretirani kao standardno posebni, a genetski „bliski” jezici. U ovoj Deklaraciji se samo ne pominje bunjevački, koji je već pominjan od nekih članova Odbora za standardizaciju srpskog jezika. Niko nije upitao: a gde su se izgubili jezici: slavonski, slovinski ili dalmatinski ili dubrovački? Na ideji o standardizaciji, kao osnovi za razlikovanje nacionalnih jezika, srpski lingvisti su odradili zadatak koji su dobili iz Zagreba. Zar onda nije tačno da SANU, u ovom jezičkom domenu, i dalje deluje kao puki ogranak HAZU?


Štosmajerovske ideje


Druga odluka Odbora za standardizaciju zove se U odbranu dostojanstva srpske jezičke nauke. Ona je doneta 11. avgusta 1998. To je polemički tekst kojim se reagovalo na pojavu dokumenta Slovo o srpskom jeziku, potpisanog imenima 14 srpskih filologa i književnika među kojima je i moje ime. Glavna ideja pokreta za obnovu srbistike i Slova o srpskom jeziku, jeste: da Srbi treba da se okanu štrosmajerovske (hrvatske) ideje jugoslovenstva i da se okanu jagićevske ideje serbokroatistike; da se vrate svojim slavističkim i srbističkim korenima, a pre svega stavovima glavnog reprezentanta srbistike Vuka Stefanovića Karadžića. Po ovoj filološkoj orijentaciji Srbi su objektivno, kao i drugi evropski narodi, određeni svojim jezikom i, kao i drugi evropski narodi, i Srbi su višekonfesionalan narod.

Na osnovu tih stavova, srpski jezik i srpski narod ne mogu se proizvoljno rasparčavati, kao što se po konfesionalnoj i regionalnoj osnovi ne rasparčavaju ni drugi evropski jezici i narodi.

Odbor za standardizaciju srpskog jezika je svojom prvom odlukom  priznavao jezike koje srbistika ne bi mogla priznati kao posebne jezike. Svojom drugom odlukom, ovaj Odbor se pokazao revnosnim u zatiranju srpske filološke tradicije. Odbor je javnosti jasno poručio: Treba odbaciti slavističku i srpsku filološku tradiciju (srbistiku) iz prve polovine 19. veka, koju simbolizuje Vuk Karadžić. Dakle, treba odbaciti onakvu tradiciju kakvu u svojim nacionalnim filologijama, postojano čuvaju svi slovenski narodi. Nijedna od tih nacionalnih filologija nije dovela do toga da se njihovi nacionalni jezici rasparčaju na četiri i više jezika.

Otuda nijedan slovenski narod i nije doživeo sudbinu Srba u 20 veku: da se delovi istojezičnog naroda okrenu jedni protiv drugih. Po drugoj odluci ovog Akademijinog Odbora, ispada da se treba držati tradicije tvorca serbokroatistike Vatroslava Jagića iz druge polovine 19. veka koja je srpskom jeziku nametnula dvonacionalno ime. Ova tradicija je, takoreći do juče, govorila: da hrvatska narečja (čakavski i kajkavski) sa srpskim narečjem (štokavskim) čine jedan narodni jezik. Pa je zatim govorila da su četiri naroda: Srbi, Hrvati, Crnogorci i Muslimani stvorili isti narodni i književni jezik štokavski. Pa je, najzad, smislila da ta četiri naroda, od kojih su dva stvorena u Titovo vreme, imaju četiri posebna nacionalna jezika koji su svi štokavski.

Delujući  „u ime dostojanstva srpske jezičke nauke”, Odbor je podržao rasparčavanje srpskog jezika. Njegov je glavni rezultat: da su se od nekada jednog srpskog jezika napravila bar četiri. Učinio je tačno ono što mu je projektovano u HAZU. Izraz srpski jezik, po njima, sada označava samo parče stvarnoga srpskog jezika: ono koje se dobija kada se od njega oduzmu „hrvatski”, „bošnjački” i „crnogorski”.

Neka đavolska pamet je smislila da se rad ovog Odbora legitimitzuje tako što će iza njega stati gotovo sve srpske naučne i visokoškolske ustanove. Sporazum o njegovom osnivanju potpisali su: SANU, CANU, ANURS, Matica srpska, Institut za srpski jezik SANU, Filološki Fakultet u Beogradu, Filozofski fakultet u Novom  Sadu, SKZ, Filološki fakultet u Prištini, Filozofski fakultet u Nišu, Univerzitet u Kragujevcu, Filozofski fakultet u Nikšiću, Filozofski fakultet u Srpskom Sarajevu, Filozofski fakultet u Banja Luci. Veštom manipulacijom, svi ovi potpisnici stavljeni su u funkciju tuđe politike. Iste one politike koja je dovela do razbijanja Jugoslavije i koja je nastavila da Srbima razbija ono što Srbe svih vera i regija još uvek spaja: njihov jezik. 

Petar MILOSAVLjEVIĆ

[objavljeno: 11.11.2006.]



(english / italiano)

Otpor in Egitto per etero-dirigere la rivolta araba

1) Dietro le rivolte in Medio oriente (come per la Serbia nel 2000) c'è un signore di 83 anni che sta a Boston (Sole24Ore)
2) Giovani attivisti egiziani ispirati da Otpor serbo / A Tunisian-Egyptian Link That Shook Arab History (New York Times)
3) AlJazeera's VIDEO on Otpor's Srdja Popovic training "young activists in nonviolent strategy and tactics" i.e. a "form of warfare"... / FLASHBACK: Excerpt from an interview of Retired U.S. Army Colonel Robert Helvey who teached a group of Otpor students in the spring of 2000 (Belgrade, January 29, 2001)
4) Serbian non-violence group shares know-how with Egyptian activists (Deutsche Welle)


=== 1 ===


il Sole24Ore, 15 febbraio 2011

Dietro le rivolte in Medio oriente (come per la Serbia nel 2000) c'è un signore di 83 anni che sta a Boston

di Christian Rocca

Uno degli eroi delle rivolte mediorientali è un oscuro signore di ottantatrè anni di Boston. Si chiama Gene Sharp. I militanti democratici egiziani, secondo quanto riportato dal New York Times, lo paragonano a Martin Luther King e al Mahtma Gandhi. Le sue idee hanno influenzato le rivoluzioni democratiche e nonviolente in Serbia, quelle colorate in Ucraina, in Georgia, in Kyrgyzstan e ora quelle tunisine ed egiziane.
Libri tradotti in 28 lingue e studiati dalle opposizioni di Zimbabwe, Birmania e Iran 
Quattro anni fa, era stato l'autocrate venezuelano Hugo Chavez ad accusare Sharp di aver ispirato le rivolte antigovernative nel suo paese. Nel 2007, in Vietnam, i militanti dell'opposizione sono stati arrestati mentre distribuivano un suo libro del 1993, From Dictatorship to Democracy, un manuale strategico per liberarsi dalle dittature (93 pagine scaricabili dal sito dell'Albert Einstein Institution). A Mosca, nel 2005, le librerie che vendevano la traduzione in russo dello stesso libro sono state distrutte da incendi dolosi. Gli scritti di Sharp, tradotti in 28 lingue, sono stati studiati dalle opposizioni in Zimbabwe, in Birmania e in Iran. Nel 1997, racconta il Wall Street Journal, un militante polacco-americano, Marek Zelazkiewicz, fotocopiò le 93 pagine di Sharp e le portò con sé nei Balcani, insegnando le tattiche di resistenza nonviolenta in Kosovo e poi a Belgrado.
A Sharp si ispirano gli attivisti di Otpor, "mercenari della democrazia" 
Il testo di Sharp è stato tradotto in serbo e distribuito segretamente tra i militanti dell'opposizione, in particolare tra gli iscritti di Otpor, un gruppo di opposizione giovanile anti Milosevic. Otpor, grazie anche ai 42 milioni di dollari americani, ha esportato le tecniche di opposizione, apprese dal libro di Sharp, nelle ex repubbliche sovietiche, organizzando seminari di resistenza democratica in Georgia, in Ucraina, in Ungheria. Nel 2000 la Casa Bianca ha aperto un ufficio a Budapest per coordinare le attività dell'opposizione democratica serba, fornendo anche strumenti e tecnologia per diffondere notizie e informazioni alternative a quelle del regime. Nel 2003, sei mesi prima della rivoluzione delle rose, l'opposizione georgiana ha stabilito contatti con Otpor con un viaggio a Belgrado finanziato dalla Fondazione Open Society del finanziere americano George Soros. I militanti di Otpor hanno addestrato gli attivisti georgiani e in Georgia è nata Kmara, una versione locale di Otpor. I soldi sono arrivati da Soros e da una delle tante agenzie semi-indipendenti di cui si serve il Congresso americano per finanziare i gruppi democratici in giro per il mondo. In Ucraina è nato Pora, un altro gruppo democratico con forti legami con l'Otpor serbo e finanziato con 65 milioni di dollari dall'Amministrazione Bush. I militanti di Otpor sono diventati mercenari della democrazia, hanno viaggiato per il mondo a spese del governo americano per addestrare le opposizioni a organizzare una rivoluzione democratica.
Otpor e Sharp hanno influenzato i ragazzi delle piazze di Tunisi e del Cairo 
Il modello Otpor e le idee di Gene Sharp, racconta il New York Times, hanno influenzato i ragazzi delle piazze di Tunisi e del Cairo. Promuovere la democrazia non è una politica facile da imporre. Deve seguire una strategia diversa paese per paese, calibrata su un ampio arco temporale e centrata sui diritti umani, sulla rappresentanza politica, sullo stato di diritto, sulla trasparenza, sulla tolleranza, sui diritti delle donne. Ma le tecniche di opposizione, redatte da un anziano signore di Boston, possono essere facilmente trasmesse.

15 febbraio 2011
(segnalato da Paola C., che ringraziamo)


=== 2 ===

Da: Jasmina 
Data: 14 febbraio 2011 21.54.06 GMT+01.00
A: unponteper@...
Oggetto: [unponteper] giovani attivisti egiziani ispirati da Otpor serbo
Rispondi a: unponteper@...

Oggi il New York Times scrive come gli attivisti egiziani sono andati in Serbia ad incontrarsi con gli ex attivisti di Otpor per organizzare la loro rivoluzione. Persino il pugno chiuso (l'iconografia rubata dal movimento della gioventù comunista jugoslavo, lo SKOJ) hanno preso da OTPOR, solo con lo sfondo rosso.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world/middleeast/14egypt-tunisia-protests.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=otpor%20egypt&st=cse

Che dire, auguro agli egiziani di avere più fortuna di noi. Almeno di ottenere più pane. In Serbia oggi si comincia a morire di fame, ma si gode di tanta bella libertà, dosata a piacere di chichesia.
Spero da tutto il cuore che gli arabi avranno più fortuna e più saggezza a non farsi manipolare dall'esterno.
Jasmina

---


February 13, 2011

A Tunisian-Egyptian Link That Shook Arab History


By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and DAVID E. SANGER


CAIRO — As protesters in Tahrir Square faced off against pro-government forces, they drew a lesson from their counterparts in Tunisia: “Advice to the youth of Egypt: Put vinegar or onion under your scarf for tear gas.”

The exchange on Facebook was part of a remarkable two-year collaboration that has given birth to a new force in the Arab world — a pan-Arab youth movement dedicated to spreading democracy in a region without it. Young Egyptian and Tunisian activists brainstormed on the use of technology to evade surveillance, commiserated about torture and traded practical tips on how to stand up to rubber bullets and organize barricades.

They fused their secular expertise in social networks with a discipline culled from religious movements and combined the energy of soccer fans with the sophistication of surgeons. Breaking free from older veterans of the Arab political opposition, they relied on tactics of nonviolent resistance channeled from an American scholar through a Serbian youth brigade — but also on marketing tactics borrowed from Silicon Valley.

As their swelling protests shook the Egyptian state, they were locked in a virtual tug of war with a leader with a very different vision — Gamal Mubarak, the son of President Hosni Mubarak, a wealthy investment banker and ruling-party power broker. Considered the heir apparent to his father until the youth revolt eliminated any thought of dynastic succession, the younger Mubarak pushed his father to hold on to power even after his top generals and the prime minister were urging an exit, according to American officials who tracked Hosni Mubarak’s final days.

The defiant tone of the president’s speech on Thursday, the officials said, was largely his son’s work.

“He was probably more strident than his father was,” said one American official, who characterized Gamal’s role as “sugarcoating what was for Mubarak a disastrous situation.” But the speech backfired, prompting Egypt’s military to force the president out and assert control of what they promise will be a transition to civilian government.

Now the young leaders are looking beyond Egypt. “Tunis is the force that pushed Egypt, but what Egypt did will be the force that will push the world,” said Walid Rachid, one of the members of the April 6 Youth Movement, which helped organize the Jan. 25 protests that set off the uprising. He spoke at a meeting on Sunday night where the members discussed sharing their experiences with similar youth movements in Libya, Algeria, Morocco and Iran.

“If a small group of people in every Arab country went out and persevered as we did, then that would be the end of all the regimes,” he said, joking that the next Arab summit might be “a coming-out party” for all the ascendant youth leaders.

Bloggers Lead the Way

The Egyptian revolt was years in the making. Ahmed Maher, a 30-year-old civil engineer and a leading organizer of the April 6 Youth Movement, first became engaged in a political movement known as Kefaya, or Enough, in about 2005. Mr. Maher and others organized their own brigade, Youth for Change. But they could not muster enough followers; arrests decimated their leadership ranks, and many of those left became mired in the timid, legally recognized opposition parties. “What destroyed the movement was the old parties,” said Mr. Maher, who has since been arrested four times.

By 2008, many of the young organizers had retreated to their computer keyboards and turned into bloggers, attempting to raise support for a wave of isolated labor strikes set off by government privatizations and runaway inflation.

After a strike that March in the city of Mahalla, Egypt, Mr. Maher and his friends called for a nationwide general strike for April 6. To promote it, they set up a Facebook group that became the nexus of their movement, which they were determined to keep independent from any of the established political groups. Bad weather turned the strike into a nonevent in most places, but in Mahalla a demonstration by the workers’ families led to a violent police crackdown — the first major labor confrontation in years.

Just a few months later, after a strike in Tunisia, a group of young online organizers followed the same model, setting up what became the Progressive Youth of Tunisia. The organizers in both countries began exchanging their experiences over Facebook. The Tunisians faced a more pervasive police state than the Egyptians, with less latitude for blogging or press freedom, but their trade unions were stronger and more independent. “We shared our experience with strikes and blogging,” Mr. Maher recalled.

For their part, Mr. Maher and his colleagues began reading about nonviolent struggles. They were especially drawn to a Serbian youth movement called Otpor, which had helped topple the dictator Slobodan Milosevic by drawing on the ideas of an American political thinker, Gene Sharp. The hallmark of Mr. Sharp’s work is well-tailored to Mr. Mubark’s Egypt: He argues that nonviolence is a singularly effective way to undermine police states that might cite violent resistance to justify repression in the name of stability.

The April 6 Youth Movement modeled its logo — a vaguely Soviet looking red and white clenched fist—after Otpor’s, and some of its members traveled to Serbia to meet with Otpor activists.

Another influence, several said, was a group of Egyptian expatriates in their 30s who set up an organization in Qatar called the Academy of Change, which promotes ideas drawn in part on Mr. Sharp’s work. One of the group’s organizers, Hisham Morsy, was arrested during the Cairo protests and remained in detention.

“The Academy of Change is sort of like Karl Marx, and we are like Lenin,” said Basem Fathy, another organizer who sometimes works with the April 6 Youth Movement and is also the project director at the Egyptian Democratic Academy, which receives grants from the United States and focuses on human rights and election-monitoring. During the protesters’ occupation of Tahrir Square, he said, he used his connections to raise about $5,100 from Egyptian businessmen to buy blankets and tents.

‘This Is Your Country’

Then, about a year ago, the growing Egyptian youth movement acquired a strategic ally, Wael Ghonim, a 31-year-old Google marketing executive. Like many others, he was introduced into the informal network of young organizers by the movement that came together around Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel Prize-winning diplomat who returned to Egypt a year ago to try to jump-start its moribund political opposition.

Mr. Ghonim had little experience in politics but an intense dislike for the abusive Egyptian police, the mainstay of the government’s power. He offered his business savvy to the cause. “I worked in marketing, and I knew that if you build a brand you can get people to trust the brand,” he said.

The result was a Facebook group Mr. Ghonim set up: We Are All Khalid Said, after a young Egyptian who was beaten to death by police. Mr. Ghonim — unknown to the public, but working closely with Mr. Maher of the April 6 Youth Movement and a contact from Mr. ElBaradei’s group — said that he used Mr. Said’s killing to educate Egyptians about democracy movements.

He filled the site with video clips and newspaper articles about police violence. He repeatedly hammered home a simple message: “This is your country; a government official is your employee who gets his salary from your tax money, and you have your rights.” He took special aim at the distortions of the official media, because when the people “distrust the media then you know you are not going to lose them,” he said.

He eventually attracted hundreds of thousands of users, building their allegiance through exercises in online democratic participation. When organizers planned a “day of silence” in the Cairo streets, for example, he polled users on what color shirts they should all wear — black or white. (When the revolt exploded, the Mubarak government detained him for 12 days in blindfolded isolation in a belated attempt to stop his work.)

After the Tunisian revolution on Jan. 14, the April 6 Youth Movement saw an opportunity to turn its little-noticed annual protest on Police Day — the Jan. 25 holiday that celebrates a police revolt that was suppressed by the British — into a much bigger event. Mr. Ghonim used the Facebook site to mobilize support. If at least 50,000 people committed to turn out that day, the site suggested, the protest could be held. More than 100,000 signed up.

“I have never seen a revolution that was preannounced before,” Mr. Ghonim said.

By then, the April 6 movement had teamed up with Mr. ElBaradei’s supporters, some liberal and leftist parties, and the youth wing of the Muslim Brotherhood to plaster Cairo with eye-catching modernist posters advertising their Tunisia-inspired Police Day protest. But their elders — even members of the Brotherhood who had long been portrayed as extremists by Mr. Mubarak and the West — shied away from taking to the streets.

Explaining that Police Day was supposed to honor the fight against British colonialism, Essem Erian, a Brotherhood leader, said, “On that day we should all be celebrating together.

“All these people are on Facebook, but do we know who they are?” he asked. “We cannot tie our parties and entities to a virtual world.”

‘This Was It’

When the 25th came, the coalition of young activists, almost all of them affluent, wanted to tap into the widespread frustration with the country’s autocracy, and also with the grinding poverty of Egyptian life. They started their day trying to rally poor people with complaints about pocketbook issues: “They are eating pigeon and chicken, but we eat beans every day.”

By the end of the day, when tens of thousands had marched to Tahrir Square, their chants had become more sweeping. “The people want to bring down the regime,” they shouted, a slogan that the organizers said they had read in signs and on Facebook pages from Tunisia. Mr. Maher of the April 6 Youth Movement said the organizers even debated storming Parliament and the state television building — classic revolutionary moves.

“When I looked around me and I saw all these unfamiliar faces in the protests, and they were more brave than us — I knew that this was it for the regime,” Mr. Maher said.

It was then that they began to rely on advice from Tunisia, Serbia and the Academy of Change, which had sent staff members to Cairo a week before to train the protest organizers. After the police used tear gas to break up the protest that Tuesday, the organizers came back better prepared for their next march on Friday, the 28th, the “Day of Rage.”

This time, they brought lemons, onions and vinegar to sniff for relief from the tear gas, and soda or milk to pour into their eyes. Some had fashioned cardboard or plastic bottles into makeshift armor worn under their clothes to protect against riot police bullets. They brought spray paint to cover the windshields of police cars, and they were ready to stuff the exhaust pipes and jam the wheels to render them useless. By the early afternoon, a few thousand protesters faced off against well over a thousand heavily armed riot police officers on the four-lane Kasr al-Nile Bridge in perhaps the most pivotal battle of the revolution.

“We pulled out all the tricks of the game — the Pepsi, the onion, the vinegar,” said Mr. Maher, who wore cardboard and plastic bottles under his sweater, a bike helmet on his head and a barrel-top shield on his arm. “The strategy was the people who were injured would go to the back and other people would replace them,” he said. “We just kept rotating.” After more than five hours of battle, they had finally won — and burned down the empty headquarters of the ruling party on their way to occupy Tahrir Square.

Pressuring Mubarak

In Washington that day, President Obama turned up, unexpectedly, at a 3:30 p.m. Situation Room meeting of his “principals,” the key members of the national security team, where he displaced Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, from his seat at the head of the table.

The White House had been debating the likelihood of a domino effect since youth-driven revolts had toppled President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, even though the American intelligence community and Israel’s intelligence services had estimated that the risk to President Mubarak was low — less than 20 percent, some officials said.

According to senior officials who participated in Mr. Obama’s policy debates, the president took a different view. He made the point early on, a senior official said, that “this was a trend” that could spread to other authoritarian governments in the region, including in Iran. By the end of the 18-day uprising, by a White House count, there were 38 meetings with the president about Egypt. Mr. Obama said that this was a chance to create an alternative to “the Al Qaeda narrative” of Western interference.

American officials had seen no evidence of overtly anti-American or anti-Western sentiment. “When we saw people bringing their children to Tahrir Square, wanting to see history being made, we knew this was something different,” one official said.

On Jan. 28, the debate quickly turned to how to pressure Mr. Mubarak in private and in public — and whether Mr. Obama should appear on television urging change. Mr. Obama decided to call Mr. Mubarak, and several aides listened in on the line. Mr. Obama did not suggest that the 82-year-old leader step aside or transfer power. At this point, “the argument was that he really needed to do the reforms, and do them fast,” a senior official said. Mr. Mubarak resisted, saying the protests were about outside interference.

According to the official, Mr. Obama told him, “You have a large portion of your people who are not satisfied, and they won’t be until you make concrete political, social and economic reforms.”

The next day, the decision was made to send former Ambassador Frank G. Wisner to Cairo as an envoy. Mr. Obama began placing calls to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and other regional leaders.

The most difficult calls, officials said, were with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Mr. Netanyahu, who feared regional instability and urged the United States to stick with Mr. Mubarak. According to American officials, senior members of the government in Saudi Arabia argued that the United States should back Mr. Mubarak even if he used force against the demonstrators. By Feb. 1, when Mr. Mubarak broadcast a speech pledging that he would not run again and that elections would be held in September, Mr. Obama concluded that the Egyptian president still had not gotten the message.

Within an hour, Mr. Obama called Mr. Mubarak again in the toughest, and last, of their conversations. “He said if this transition process drags out for months, the protests will, too,” one of Mr. Obama’s aides said.

Mr. Mubarak told Mr. Obama that the protests would be over in a few days.

Mr. Obama ended the call, the official said, with these words: “I respect my elders. And you have been in politics for a very long time, Mr. President. But there are moments in history when just because things were the same way in the past doesn’t mean they will be that way in the future.”

The next day, heedless of Mr. Obama’s admonitions, Mr. Mubarak launched another attack against the protesters, many of whom had by then spent five nights camped out in Tahrir Square. By about 2:30 p.m., thousands of burly men loyal to Mr. Mubarak and armed with rocks, clubs and, eventually, improvised explosives had come crashing into the square.

The protesters — trying to stay true to the lessons they had learned from Gandhi, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gene Sharp — tried for a time to avoid retaliating. A row of men stood silent as rocks rained down on them. An older man told a younger one to put down his stick.

But by 3:30 p.m., the battle was joined. A rhythmic din of stones on metal rang out as the protesters beat street lamps and fences to rally their troops.

The Muslim Brotherhood, after sitting out the first day, had reversed itself, issuing an order for all able-bodied men to join the occupation of Tahrir Square. They now took the lead. As a secret, illegal organization, the Brotherhood was accustomed to operating in a disciplined hierarchy. The group’s members helped the protesters divide into teams to organize their defense, several organizers said. One team broke the pavement into rocks, while another ferried the rocks to makeshift barricades along their perimeter and the third defended the front.

“The youth of the Muslim Brotherhood played a really big role,” Mr. Maher said. “But actually so did the soccer fans” of Egypt’s two leading teams. “These are always used to having confrontations with police at the stadiums,” he said.

Soldiers of the Egyptian military, evidently under orders to stay neutral, stood watching from behind the iron gates of the Egyptian Museum as the war of stone missiles and improvised bombs continued for 14 hours until about four in the morning.

Then, unable to break the protesters’ discipline or determination, the Mubarak forces resorted to guns, shooting 45 and killing 2, according to witnesses and doctors interviewed early that morning. The soldiers — perhaps following orders to prevent excessive bloodshed, perhaps acting on their own — finally intervened. They fired their machine guns into the ground and into the air, several witnesses said, scattering the Mubarak forces and leaving the protesters in unmolested control of the square, and by extension, the streets.

Once the military demonstrated it was unwilling to fire on its own citizens, the balance of power shifted. American officials urged the army to preserve its bond with the Egyptian people by sending top officers into the square to reassure the protesters, a step that further isolated Mr. Mubarak. But the Obama administration faltered in delivering its own message: Two days after the worst of the violence, Mr. Wisner publicly suggested that Mr. Mubarak had to be at the center of any change, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned that any transition would take time. Other American officials suggested Mr. Mubarak might formally stay in office until his term ended next September. Then a four-day-long stalemate ensued, in which Mr. Mubarak refused to budge, and the protesters regained momentum.

On Thursday, Mr. Mubarak’s vice president, Omar Suleiman, was on the phone with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. at 2 p.m. in Washington, the third time they had spoken in a week. The airwaves were filled with rumors that Mr. Mubarak was stepping down, and Mr. Suleiman told Mr. Biden that he was preparing to assume Mr. Mubarak’s powers. But as he spoke to Mr. Biden and other officials, Mr. Suleiman said that “certain powers” would remain with Mr. Mubarak, including the power to dissolve the Parliament and fire the cabinet. “The message from Suleiman was that he would be the de facto president,” one person involved in the call said.

But while Mr. Mubarak huddled with his son Gamal, the Obama administration was in the dark about how events would unfold, reduced to watching cable television to see what Mr. Mubarak would decide. What they heard on Thursday night was a drastically rewritten speech, delivered in the unbowed tone of the father of the country, with scarcely any mention of a presumably temporary “delegation” of his power.

It was that rambling, convoluted address that proved the final straw for the Egyptian military, now fairly certain that it would have Washington’s backing if it moved against Mr. Mubarak, American officials said. Mr. Mubarak’s generals ramped up the pressure that led him at last, without further comment, to relinquish his power.

“Eighty-five million people live in Egypt, and less than 1,000 people died in this revolution — most of them killed by the police,” said Mr. Ghonim, the Google executive. “It shows how civilized the Egyptian people are.” He added, “Now our nightmare is over. Now it is time to dream.”


David D. Kirkpatrick reported from Cairo, and David E. Sanger from Washington. Kareem Fahim and Mona El-Naggar contributed reporting from Cairo, and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 17, 2011


An article on Monday about the collaboration between young Tunisian and Egyptian activists that helped lead to the revolutions in their countries misspelled the name of a city in Egypt where a violent police crackdown in March 2008 proved to be an important event in the evolution of the Egyptian opposition movement. It is Mahalla, not Malhalla.



=== 3 ===

(Source: Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages )

VIDEO: AlJazeera's People & Power reveals the story behind the unprecedented political protests in Egypt
In the Al Jazeera video Otpor's Srdja Popovic uses the exact expression he was taught by U.S. Army Colonel Robert Helvey (see below): "form of warfare."

---

The Roots of Egypt’s Pro-Democracy Movement


By Eric Stoner 

February 16, 2011

In this [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrNz0dZgqN8 ] great episode of People & Power, Al Jazeera looks at the role that the April 6 Movement played in getting Egyptians out on the streets and sustaining the struggle to oust Mubarak. It also highlights the work of our good friend Srdja Popovic – one of the leaders of Otpor, the youth movement that brought down Slobodan Milosevic in 2000 – who had helped train the young activists in nonviolent strategy and tactics. (To read his thoughts on the Egyptian uprising see the “Rise up like an Egyptian” series we’ve been publishing over the last several days.)

There was also a good front-page story [ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world/middleeast/14egypt-tunisia-protests.html ] in the New York Times yesterday that reported on the various Egyptian activist groups – from Kefaya and the April 6 Movement to We Are All Khalid Said -  that were behind the recent successful uprising in Egypt and their connection with activists in Tunisia. It too mentions the important role that Otpor activists and the writings of Gene Sharp played in educating Egyptians about the dynamics of nonviolent struggle.

Stories like these are important because they make it clear that what happened in Egypt wasn’t spontaneous or leaderless, but the result of the hard work of thousands of activists over the course of several years. This mainstream attention is also generating new, unprecedented interest in nonviolence which I find extremely hopeful and exciting.

This article was originally published on WagingNonviolence.org.


--- FLASHBACK ---


Interview: Col. Robert Helvey

 

Retired U.S. Army Colonel Robert Helvey was sent by the International Republican Institute to teach seminars in nonviolent strategy for a group of Otpor students in the spring of 2000.

On the origins of his interest in nonviolent action:

My career has been that of a professional soldier. And one of my last assignments was to be the defense attache in Rangoon [Burma]. And I really had an opportunity — two years living in Rangoon and getting around the country — to really see first hand what happens when a people are oppressed to the point that they're absolutely terrorized. When people would talk to me-- and it required a bit of courage to talk to a foreigner-- sometimes they would place their hands over their mouth because they were afraid someone was watching and they could read their lips. That's how paranoid they became.
And, you know, there was no future for [those] people, and there was a struggle for democracy going on, but it was an armed struggle on the periphery of the country and in the border regions. And it was very clear that that armed struggle was never going to succeed. There was no [international] interest in Burma. Burma had been isolated for decades.
So, when I got back, I kept Burma in the back of my mind. Here were a people that really wanted democracy, really wanted political reform, but the only option they had was armed struggle. And that was really a non-starter, so there was really a sense of helplessness.
So, I got selected to be a senior fellow at the Harvard Center for International Affairs. So when I was up at Cambridge one day, I saw a little poster saying "Program for Nonviolent Sanctions," you know, room such and such. I didn't have anything to do that afternoon so I went up to the seminar on nonviolent sanctions. Primarily, I guess, being an army officer I was going to find out who these people are, you know, these pacifists and things like that — troublemakers. Just trying to get an understanding of it.
And Dr. Gene Sharp happened to be there. And he started out the seminar by saying, "Strategic nonviolent struggle is all about political power. How to seize political power and how to deny it to others." And I thought, "Boy, this guy's talking my language." And, you know, that's what armed struggle is about. So I got interested in this approach because I saw immediately that there may be an opportunity here for the Burmese. You know, if you only have a hammer in your tool box every problem looks like a nail. So maybe if they had another tool in their toolbox, they could at least examine the potential of strategic nonviolent struggle. So that's how I got interested in it.
I had done some work along the Thai-Burmese border with the International Republican Institute. So when they were looking for someone to present information on strategic nonviolent struggle to a Serb group, they called me.

On the Otpor training seminar:

What I did initially was, I had sort of a side session with five or six of the Otpor leaders of this leaderless organization and asked them some questions to get a feel for what they were looking for. And then I started into my seminar.
I think they were looking for something to keep the momentum going. You know, they had done very, very effective work in mobilizing individual groups. But there was something missing to take them beyond protest into actually mobilizing to overthrow theregime. I just felt that something was lacking. They were doing something very, very well, but there seemed to be an invisible wall here that they needed to get over.
So we started with the basics of strategic nonviolent struggle theory. And I did it sort of as a review because apparently they were doing many things right so there must have been some basic understanding. But sometimes you miss some of the dynamics of it if you don't understand the theory. And I focused on the pluralistic basis of power. That the sources of power are the skills and knowledge and the numbers of people, the legitimacy, the fear of sanctions, things like that. Why people obey the regime, even though they dislike it. There are many reasons why people obey that regime. And the primary one is one of habit. So you focus on breaking the habits of obedience. But before you can break the habits you have to understand what it is, why it's in their interests to disobey.
So, once we got beyond that then we looked at — I don't know how to say this, but — you're fighting a war and wars can only be fought successfully if you have a very clear objective and just defeating your opponent, getting him out of power, is just an intermediate objective if you want to go to democracy. So you have to have a vision of tomorrow that includes transforming a society so that it can be democratic. So we talked about that for a while, some of the things that needed to be looked at.
And then we talked a little bit about propaganda. Propaganda today is not a very good word. We like to use the word media or information. But I still use the same old term because it clearly identifies what propaganda is, and that is providing information to change attitudes that influence behavior. And so you look at your society, where the sources of power are, and sources of power are expressed in institutions. Individuals can't exert much power. But organizations is how these sources of power are expressed. And these are expressed in organizations and institutions that you refer to as pillars of support.


(Originalni tekst na srpskohrvatskom: Berlinska revolucija januara 1919.


La rivoluzione berlinese del gennaio 1919


Rosa Luxemburg e Carl Liebknecht: la loro morte significò la fine della speranza nella vittoria della rivoluzione mondiale


Nel mese di gennaio 1919, sono stati rapiti torturati e trucidati di nascosto, i fondatori del Partito Comunista tedesco nonché, capi della Ribellione Spartachista: Karl Liebknecht e Rosa Luxemburg.

Gli esecutori del delitto sono stati i reparti militari dei tiratori scelti nonché, i Freikörps; il crudele assassinio è stato ordinato dal governo socialdemocratico presieduto da Friedrich Ebert. Il corpo di Rosa Luxemburg, è stato buttato in un canale del fiume, tanto martoriato da diventare irriconoscibile sicchè, nemmeno più tardi, quando fu ritrovato, non si è potuto affermare con assoluta certezza che i resti fossero autentici. La certezza non ci fu persino nel momento in cui ai corpi fu data la degna sepoltura e quando gli fu eretto il monumento. Questa fosca catastrofe del gennaio 1919 ha avuto conseguenze tragiche, non soltanto sulla storia del movimento operaio mondiale ma, sulla storia del mondo intero e in qualche maniera indiretta, essa è la causa dei giorni difficili che viviamo tutt’ora.

Lenin e i bolscevichi quando, in piena guerra mondiale, avevano scatenato la Rivoluzione d’Ottobre, non erano stati sfiorati dal dubbio, nemmeno per un momento, che il proletariato del mondo intero non sarebbe insorto e che la rivoluzione non sarebbe stata mondiale. Soltanto se ci fosse stata la rivoluzione mondiale, essa avrebbe potuto avere il successo finale. Molti segni incoraggiavano aspettative del genere, visto che le sollevazioni erano avvenute un po’ ovunque, da Cuba alla Spagna al Messico, fino all’Impero Austro-Ungarico. Dappertutto, nella base si creavano i consigli dei soldati, degli operai e dei contadini e il popolo fu molto risoluto nella sua protesta contro la sanguinaria carneficina della Prima guerra mondiale, contro lo sfruttamento bestiale e contro la vita grama. Dalle parti nostre (ex Jugoslavia ndr) si sono sollevati i marinai nelle Bocche di Cataro ma, la ribellione fu repressa nel sangue ed i capi marinai furono fucilati.

Il paese più vicino alla Russia e con cui capi i bolscevichi (ma anche i menscevichi ed i socialisti-rivoluzionari) russi avevano stretto i legami più forti, il paese che era più sviluppato industrialmente e organizzato politicamente, il paese la cui classe operaia fu più duramente colpita a causa delle perdite di guerra, era la Germania.

Le cannonate dall’incrociatore Aurora e la caduta del Palazzo d’Inverno a Pietroburgo, ebbero una forte eco in tutta la Germania. La guerra ebbe fine improvvisamente nel novembre 1918 sul fronte occidentale, visto che in Germania era successa la Rivoluzione. La tregua fu firmata in un vagone ferroviario a Compiègne, visto che nonostante le enormi perdite i tedeschi non furono realmente sconfitti. La causa, della percezione d’ingiustizia subita, da parte del popolo in Germania, sarà anzitutto per le umilianti e pesanti condizioni della pace di Versailles, che gettarono in ginocchio il paese. La Germania risulterà punita per essersi comportata da aggressore, mentre alle masse popolari pareva falso, sia che fossero stati sconfitti, sia che avessero scatenato la guerra e soprattutto, fu vissuto come un’oltraggio estremo, la perdita di vaste regioni sia dell’oriente che dell’occidente. Tutto ciò sarà la causa dell’altra, ancora più grande catastrofe: lo scoppio della seconda guerra mondiale.

Ma, nel novembre e nel dicembre del 1918, dopo che la guerra fu interrotta e l’imperatore mandato in manicomio, tutto il paese fremette sotto la rossa ondata rivoluzionaria. Dal nord al sud del paese s’incendiò la rivolta. Prima si ribellarono i marinai di Kiel, dopo insorse Berlino, eppoi Monaco. La fiammata fu grande, ma di breve durata.

La Germania, fu il secondo paese, in ordine di tempo, in cui i marinai rivoluzionari issarono la bandiera dei Soviet sull’intero territorio e in cui il Comitato esecutivo degli operai e soldati di Berlino aveva nominato un governo socialista nel paese. Al momento pareva che le Rivoluzioni russe di Febbraio e d’Ottobre, in Germania si fossero saldate in un’ unica cosa, visto che dopo l’abdicazione dell’imperatore sembrava che il potere nella capitale fosse passato nelle mani dei socialisti più radicali. Purtroppo si trattò soltanto d’una illusione, causata dalla momentanea ma, altrettanto completa paralisi dell’esercito e dell’apparato dello stato, ai quali il fallimento drastico, nonchè lo scoppio della rivoluzione diedero il colpo di grazia.

La storia conosce questi balzi improvvisi, quando la fiammata rivoluzionaria vola inaspettatamente alta, causando salti in avanti, per dopo tornare ancora più in dietro. Molto presto il regime, ritorna al suo posto, ora nelle vesti repubblicane, per esso i socialisti, infatti, non rappresentavano più un vero pericolo, visto che nelle elezioni che furono indette subito dopo la rivoluzione l’ala radicale dei socialisti non ebbe la maggioranza. I socialdemocratici ottennero 38% dei voti, mentre i socialisti che avevano compiuto una scissione e peroravano la causa rivoluzionaria, ottennero soltanto il 7,5% dei voti. Ancora minore minaccia per i capitalisti tedeschi, rappresentava l'appena fondato KPD Partito Comunista Tedesco, i cui capi furono subito trucidati.

Ma, la speranza bolscevica nella rivoluzione mondiale e nella vittoria delle forze rivoluzionarie in Germania rimase tenace, nonostante quello che accadde a Rosa Luxemburg e a Karl Liebknecht. Nella primavera di quel sciagurato 1919 in Baviera fu proclamata la Repubblica Sovietica, che fu sconfitta con l'uccisione del suo capo, dopo di che, si sollevò Monaco di Baviera, il centro di cultura e di arte del paese, tradizionale baluardo dell’opposizione. Il movimento rivoluzionario in Europa non fini per questo e continuò a dare molte speranze ai bolscevichi. Dopo la Germania si sollevò l’Ungheria, in cui la rivoluzione durò dal mese di marzo fino al luglio 1919 ma, fu sopraffatta , causando poi una grande ondata emigratoria.


La rivoluzione si riduce ad un solo paese


La sconfitta delle rivoluzioni in Europa aveva lasciato la Russia cioè l’Unione Sovietica sola e isolata cosi che, ne la vittoria ottenuta con eroismo in guerra civile, ne la sconfitta dell’intervento straniero riusciranno a salvarla dallo sbandamento. Mai Marx né chiunque altro abbia appassionatamente seguito gli insegnamenti del Capitale e del Manifesto comunista, aveva creduto che la vittoria delle rivoluzioni comunitarie, avvenisse in un unico paese e per giunta cosi orrendamente arretrato come era la Russia. E' stata una rivoluzione contro il Capitale, come fu chiamata da Antonio Gramsci, e tutte le tragedie, tutti gli insuccessi e tutte le macchie sulla bandiera rossa e tutte le ignominie in cui fu trascinato il movimento rivoluzionario che accaddero nel ventesimo secolo, furono causati dal fallimento della rivoluzione mondiale. La prima tragica sconfitta fu la decapitazione dei rivoluzionari in Germania, il fallimento degli Spartachisti e l’assassinio dei loro capi :Rosa Luxemburg e Karl Liebknecht. Dicono che lo stesso Lenin ne fu perfettamente conscio e Trotsky non smise mai di predicare e vedere la vittoria della rivoluzione esplicitamente come un fenomeno mondiale.

Ma, se pure in un unico paese, la Rivoluzione d’Ottobre, fu la prima vittoria dei più diseredati sul capitale mondiale, che segnò tutto il XX secolo, liberando da una vita di sofferenze e di lavoro da schiavi, non solo gli sfruttati del proprio paese ma, irradio nel mondo una colossale speranza, che suscitò ispirazione in tutti gli oppressi per cento anni.

Il paese dei Soviet, ha fatto la parte del leone nella Seconda guerra mondiale, sacrificando per la vittoria sul nazifascismo, venti milioni di vite dei propri cittadini ed ha permesso l’esistenza di tutti i movimenti antimperialisti ed anti colonialisti del Terzo Mondo, nonchè una posizione comoda alla classe operaia in Occidente, visto che il capitalismo mondiale temeva la vittoria operaia, che malgrado tutto, il bastione dell’Unione Sovietica ha sempre rappresentato.

Però le differenze nel concepire la rivoluzione e le sue istituzioni tra i bolscevichi e i socialisti di sinistra tedeschi, si erano manifestate ben presto nella nota polemica fra Lenin e la Luxemburg. Rosa Luxemburg fu contraria alla dittatura del proletariato leninista, contraria allo scioglimento del parlamento, fu per il rispetto rigoroso della libertà di parola e delle altre libertà civili, per l' espressione dei gruppi sociali, tramite le organizzazioni politiche. Lottò per allargare e non per restringere i diritti civili, frutto della Rivoluzione Francese. Senza quei diritti ritenne che alla classe operaia sarebbe stata indossata la camicia di forza e che abolire la democrazia e privare della libertà il parlamento fosse funesto per la stessa classe operaia. Però, rimase fermamente sulle posizioni rivoluzionarie nonostante i giorni burrascosi che presto sconvolsero la Germania. Ancora oggi echeggia il suo grido, vivo tutt’ora con la stessa drammaticità: ”Rivoluzione o barbarie!”

Purtroppo in Germania le forze reazionarie uscirono vittoriose sia nel 1919 che nel 1933 e questa vittoria portò la barbarie sulla scena mondiale. Le crudeltà perpetrate, finora inimmaginabili, come pure la morte industrializzata, faranno subire al mondo intero un inaudito bagno di sangue. La rovina degli Spartachisti, fu in un certo senso l’annunciazione di tutte le catastrofi che si succedettero nel ventesimo secolo, secolo di guerre con distruzioni mai viste, e indirettamente fu pure l’annuncio del fallimento totale dell’Unione Sovietica e della tragedia odierna della sinistra nel mondo. Se la Rivoluzione avesse vinto in Germania, la storia del mondo avrebbe preso un'altra piega.

I concetti che erano propri del movimento Spartachista sono vivi tutt’ora nel movimento operaio e rappresentano gli scopi per cui vale la pena di lottare. Questi principi sono la spontaneità rivoluzionaria e la democrazia che parte dalla base, con le decisioni che sono portate dalla base stessa da parte dei consigli operai e cittadini. Gli organi rivoluzionari come pure le istituzioni rivoluzionarie devono obbedire alle decisioni prese dalla base, e non dalle risoluzione di apparato di partito. La stessa importanza, si da all’internazionalismo proletario in grado di trasformare le minoranze locali in una enorme maggioranza, visto che loro che non hanno nulla, rappresentano ieri come oggi, la stragrande maggioranza della gente. Un importanza enorme viene data alla coscienza della classe lavoratrice, visto che senza questa, la lotta di classe non può essere vittoriosa. Gli Spartachisti si erano pronunciati anche contro la proprietà privata dei mezzi di produzione e consideravano come loro compito principale, la lotta per la pace contro la guerra imperialista, e credevano che uno sciopero generale di tutti gli operai del mondo poteva assicurare la vittoria della rivoluzione mondiale. Il loro ultimo compito, era la realizzazione di una società comunista, ma questo sogno fini con la loro liquidazione fisica e col buttare nei canali i loro resti.

Cosi il sogno della rivoluzione mondiale, ebbe fine in una fredda giornata di gennaio nel fiume Spree e sul mondo cominciarono ad addensarsi le nubi della futura sciagura, sciagura di dimensioni inimmaginabili.

Rosa Luxemburg, il cui nome ancora oggi da forza ai comunisti e alla gente di sinistra autentica, del mondo intero, era nata nella cittadina di Zamosc 1871, quinta figlia di una famiglia ebrea molto povera. La bambina, a scuola, fu subito notata per sua intelligenza fuori del comune, poi riusci a studiare a Zurigo, nonostante la povertà. Fini gli studi con un intera generazione di menti eccelse, che diventeranno personaggi di spicco del movimento operaio ed ebbero dei ruoli importanti, sia nelle rivoluzioni incombenti sia nelle conquiste intellettuali e scientifiche dell’Europa dell’inizio del ventesimo secolo. Finiti gli studi Rosa Luxemburg svolse l’attività politica in Polonia, ma a causa delle persecuzioni fu costretta ad emigrare. Dal 1907 fino al 1914 insegnò economia politica a Berlino. Quando scoppiò la guerra si mantenne fermamente sulle posizioni antimperialiste e organizzò una serie di manifestazioni pacifiste. Per questo fu arrestata per ordine dell’imperatore Guglielmo II e condannata a diversi anni di galera. Esce dal carcere nel 1916 e continua l'attività politica. L’azione pacifista di Rosa Luxemburg, di Karl Liebknecht, di Clara Zetkin e di Franz Mering, insieme alla voce di Jean Jorès in Francia, che furono ammazzati per poter iniziare la guerra, erano gli unici punti luminosi nel oscuramento mentale delle nazioni intere, guerra che ha portato il mondo ad una carneficina immensa nell’interesse degli imperialisti e dei loro servitori.

Jorès e la Luxemburg chiamarono la gente ad uno sciopero generale contro la guerra, fatto che tutti e due pagarono con la vita. La morte di Rosa Luxemburg, non fu soltanto una perdita fatale per la rivoluzione in Germania e in Polonia, ma significò la scomparsa di una teorica del marxismo d’eccezione, che si era ben presto accorta della forza di resistenza del capitalismo tratta dall’imperialismo e non prevedeva, a differenza di Lenin e dei bolscevichi, la sua fine rapida. Però lottò con la forza degli argomenti e con tenacia politica contro il revisionista Bernstein; la sua insistenza nel negare la proprietà privata le diede il merito storico nell’affermazione che l’unica alternativa al socialismo fosse la barbarie. Come ebrea polacca diffidò assai di ogni movimento nazionalista e persino osò esprimere qualche dubbio sul principio leninista dell’autodeterminazione dei popoli, in parte per aver assistito all’ascesa sanguinaria del nazionalismo polacco, in parte perche era dell’avviso che, in ogni caso, bisogna dare la precedenza alla lotta di classe e all'internazionalismo. Dietro di se lascio le lettere dal carcere, il libro il Capitale e la sua accumulazione e la Rivoluzione in Russia , come pure i testi di accesa polemica con Lenin e molti altri scritti che sono sempre d’una attualità eccezionale, una vera miniera dei suoi pensieri e delle prese di posizione originali, valide ancora oggi. Senz’altro una curiosità nella tragedia della sua fine rappresenta il fatto che fu ammazzata per ordine d’un suo studente, il presidente del governo socialdemocratico, Ebert.

Il co -fondatore del movimento spartachista con Rosa, Karl Liebknecht era il figlio del fondatore del Partito Socialdemocratico tedesco, Wilhelm Liebknecht originario di Lipsia. Laureatosi in giurisprudenza ed economia politica, dopo aver discusso la tesi di dottorato, Karl Liebknecht aveva aperto con il fratello Theodor, uno studio legale in cui si occupava della difesa dei socialisti trascinati in tribunale. Come membro del Partito Socialdemocratico divenne il presidente dell’Internazionale socialista. A causa del suo libro Militarismo e antimilitarismo fu arrestato per la prima volta già nel 1910. Diventa membro del Reichstag e nel 1914 fonda con Clara Zetkin, Paul Levi, Leo Jogiches e Franz Mering la Lega degli Spartachisti. Presto viene arrestato e mandato al fronte. Liberato per motivi di salute, fu preso di nuovo nel 1916 e messo sotto processo per alto tradimento. Ma quando scoppiarono i moti rivoluzionari, fu liberato dalla prigione e continuò l’azione rivoluzionaria. L’autore espressionista Döblin gli dedicò le pagine più belle della sua opera descrivendolo come capo popolo e citando le sue parole, pronunciate al funerale ai caduti nella Rivoluzione a Berlino del 1918.

Gli Spartachisti pubblicarono il giornale La bandiera rossa e nel novembre 1918, Liebkencht dal balcone del Castello di Berlino, proclamò la Libera Repubblica Socialista, due ore dopo che Philipp Schleidemann aveva proclamato la Repubblica tedesca, dal balcone del Reichstag il 31 dicembre 1918. Il primo gennaio 1919 è stato fondato il Partito Comunista tedesco. L’insurrezione a Berlino fu sollevata dagli Spartachisti il 6 gennaio e capeggiata da Karl Liebknecht, Clara Zetkin, Rosa Luxemburg, e Leo Jorgiches. L’insurrezione falli, l’esercito la soffocò. La Luxemburg e Liebknecht furono rapiti il 13 gennaio, ammazzati il 15 e buttati nel canale del fiume Spree.

In quella fredda giornata di gennaio non smisero di battere soltanto due cuori rivoluzionari del popolo tedesco, sono state distrutte anche due splendide menti che avevano saputo comprendere e prevedere la storia.


Jasna Tkalec


(traduzione dell'autrice, versione italiana a cura di Dario di CU-FVG)