Informazione


Da: Claudia Cernigoi

Oggetto: commemorazione di Pinko Tomažič e dei suoi compagni

Data: 14 dicembre 2010 21.02.21 GMT+01.00


Domani, 15 dicembre cade l'anniversario della fucilazione di  di Pinko Tomažič e dei suoi compagni Ivan Vadnal, Simon Kos, Viktor Bobek e Ivan Ivančič, avvenuta nel 1941.
Domenica 19 alle ore 15 al poligono di Opicina (strada per Vienna, verso Fernetti) si terrà la consueta commemorazione. Parleranno Claudia Cernigoi e Marisa Škrk.
 
siete invitati a partecipare
Claudia
 
nota storica

L’inchiesta del 1940 (nel corso della quale in conseguenza delle torture era morto Slavko Škamperle, Adolf Ursič impazzì ed Edvard Mlekuž riportò danni fisici permanenti) si concluse con quello che è noto come “il secondo processo di Trieste”, celebrato nel 1941, che vide imputati 60 antifascisti < di varia natura: comunisti, nazionalisti sloveni, terroristi, cattolici, demo-liberali > (così nella sentenza del 14/12/41). < Gli imputati sono arrestati per motivi diversi, ma vengono raggruppati in un unico processo affinché la repressione risulti spietata contro tutti gli oppositori del regime. I più colpiti sono comunque i comunisti e i nazionalisti sloveni, cui vengono attribuiti, senza alcuna prova, i casi che la polizia non è riuscita a risolvere nel corso di dieci anni... > (in Da Pont A., Leonetti A., Maiello F., Zocchi L., “Aula IV. Tutti i processi del tribunale speciale fascista”, La Pietra 1976, p. 454). Il processo si concluse con 9 condanne a morte, di cui 5 eseguite il 15/12/41 presso il poligono di Opicina. Furono fucilati Pinko Tomažič, Ivan Vadnal, Simon Kos, Viktor Bobek e Ivan Ivančič.

===

Il 15 dicembre sono 69 anni da che Pino (Pinko) Tomazic cadeva,ucciso dal piombo fascista, nel poligono di tiro di Opicina, 24 ore dopo l'iniqua sentenza del Tribunale  speciale per la Sicurezza dello Stato riunitosi a Trieste contro i patrioti arrestati nella primavera dell'anno prima, sentenza che lo condannava a morte mediante fucilazione alla schiena. Nove condanne a morte,di cui 4 commutate in ergastolo,23 condanne a 30 anni di reclusione ed altre a pene minori.Durante l'istruttoria alcuni detenuti morirono per le percosse subite. Era l'anno 1941, anno che segnò la folle e vile aggressione alla Yugoslavia,e poi alla Russia, la proclamazione della regione di Lubiana come provincia italiana,e quella città serena e pacifica venne trasformata in un campo di concentramento, circondata tutta dal filo spinato, come una enorme trincea . Durante il permesso,i soldati italiani uscivano armati,perchè la zona era considerata di alto  rischio causa quelle che venivano definite "bande",ma in realtà rappresentavano la Resistenza di patrioti che difendevano il suolo della propria terra occupata dall'invasore fascista. Persino il giornale "Il Piccolo" riportava,al suo interno ,la cronaca di  Lubiana, come di una città italiana,quale Udine o Gorizia e la farsa durò fino al 1943. Tutto sembrava,allora,inevitabilmente perso, sconfitti lo spirito di libertà ed indipendenza delle genti slave, inutile il ribellarsi. Ma  Pinko non si arrese, ed insieme ad altri compagni  continuò la lotta,tesse le reti per una Resistenza  combattiva ed efficace,propagandò gli ideali di libertà e preparò il riscatto, predispose ed organizzò la iniziale guerra partigiana, quella che poi ,espandendosi,alla fine, riuscì vittoriosa. Ma, inevitabilmente, incontrò avversità , disagi, ostilità anche interne,dubbi e perplessità, infine la repressione. E fu ,da ultimo ,catturato e imprigionato,  sottoposto al processo del Tribunale speciale insieme ad altri suoi compagni di lotta. Durante il dibattimento, di fronte ad una folla ostile ed ai giudici tesserati al PNF ,mantenne un comportamento dignitoso ed anche di sfida quando,ad un certo punto, salutò con il pugno ed il braccio alzato,gesto rivoluzionario allora ,che destò una reazione di sdegno ma al contempo di timore da parte degli astanti ,stupiti da cotanto coraggio.Qualche attimo prima che lo portassero al cospetto del plotone di esecuzione,salutò i suoi compagni con calma e tranquillità, come di chi sa di aver compiuto il proprio" dovere  verso l'umanità"  (così egli  diceva),di patriota e militante ideologicamente schierato e difensore di giusti ideali . "Zdravo" urlo'  con calma unita anche alla rabbia di chi non può fare altro(salve,ciao),rivolto ai suoi . La tua vita terrena finiva allora,Pinko, all'alba di quel giorno livido e gelido del 15 dicembre dell'anno 1941, ucciso con i tuoi compagni,giorno di guerra come tanti altri che dovevano succedersi, ma che segnò una spinta di passione e di rivolta contro il fascista invasore ,che divenne travolgente fino alla liberazione ed alla vittoria . Voglio ricordare ,con questa mia, un uomo ,a 69 anni di distanza, dicembre 2010 ,che lottò per gli ideali di giustizia sociale e per la libertà di noi tutti. Ciao,Pinko,compagno di lotta giusta e di riscatto, ti ricorderemo domenica 19 dicembre , alle 15 ,al poligono di tiro di Opicina ,con le tue bandiere e con le insegne della libertà. Grazie da tutti noi.

Claudio Cossu 


(deutsch / english.
L'ambiguo rapporto tra Francia e Germania, che negli ultimi venti anni appare essere stato stravolto a seguito della violenza con cui la Germania ha imposto lo squartamento della Jugoslavia a tutti gli altri paesi europei, Francia inclusa, è preso in esame nella seguente analisi apparsa sul sito german-foreign-policy.com)

--- deutsch ---


Kein Tandem
 
06.12.2010

PARIS/BERLIN
 
(Eigener Bericht) - Frankreich bleibt im europäischen Einflusskampf in wichtigen Zielregionen seiner Außenpolitik deutlich hinter Deutschland zurück. Dies bestätigt eine Serie von Untersuchungen, die die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik (DGAP) in den vergangenen Monaten veröffentlicht hat. Gleichzeitig hat Paris die Prioritäten der Berliner Außenpolitik weithin übernommen und leistet - anders als noch in den 1990er Jahren - in grundlegenden Fragen keinen Widerstand mehr gegen Berlin. Wie etwa eine Analyse der Pariser Südosteuropa-Politik zeigt, hat Frankreich schon vor Jahren seine traditionelle proserbische Haltung aufgeben müssen. Der damit einhergehende Einflussverlust dauert bis heute an. In Russland, heißt es bei der DGAP, sei Paris in den 1990er Jahren in großen Rückstand geraten. Bis heute kann es daher in Moskau nicht ernsthaft mit Berlin konkurrieren. Ähnlich verhält es sich in Südamerika, wo Frankreich für die Kooperation mit seinem traditionellen Partner Brasilien nicht genügend Kapazitäten bereitstellen kann - ganz im Unterschied zu Deutschland. Frankreichs politischer Einflussverlust gegenüber Berlin korreliert mit seinem wachsenden wirtschaftlichen Rückstand gegenüber der Bundesrepublik.

Große Vorbehalte

Besonders deutlich lässt eine Analyse der französischen Südosteuropa-Politik, die die Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik (DGAP) kürzlich veröffentlicht hat, den Einflussverlust Frankreichs gegenüber Deutschland hervortreten. Wie die Analyse in Erinnerung ruft, verfolgte Paris in Südosteuropa traditionell eine proserbische Politik, die es jedoch seit der Mitte der 1990er Jahre nicht mehr aufrecht erhalten konnte - unter dem Druck Washingtons und, was bei der DGAP allerdings unerwähnt bleibt, der Bundesrepublik. So hatte, wie der Autor der Analyse berichtet, Staatspräsident Jacques Chirac noch unmittelbar vor dem Überfall auf Jugoslawien im Frühjahr 1999 "bekanntlich große Vorbehalte gegen die Bombenangriffe". Während der Chef der OSZE-Beobachtungsmission im Kosovo, US-General William Walker, "die klare Aufgabe hatte, das Terrain für eine militärische Operation vorzubereiten", habe sein französischer Stellvertreter Gabriel Keller sich bemüht, "den Dialog mit Belgrad aufrechtzuerhalten" - vergeblich. Die traditionelle Nähe zwischen Frankreich und Serbien diente zuletzt der NATO, um den Widerstand gegen die Okkupation des Kosovo zu schwächen: Französische Soldaten besetzten den serbischsprachigen Teil der Provinz, da man hoffte, dort werde "die Präsenz französischer Soldaten (...) leichter akzeptiert (...) als die Stationierung amerikanischer, britischer oder deutscher Soldaten".[1]

Kriegspropaganda

Wie aus der DGAP-Analyse hervorgeht, rief der äußere Druck auf Paris dort in den 1990er Jahren erhebliche innere Differenzen hervor. So hätten zu Beginn der 1990er Jahre führende Zeitungen wie Le Monde, Le Figaro und Libération "noch Wert darauf" gelegt, in Sachen Jugoslawien "eine vorsichtige Neutralität zu wahren". Bald habe sich allerdings "eine ausgesprochen belgradfeindliche Haltung" durchgesetzt, die während des Kosovokrieges eskaliert sei. "Kritische Stimmen verhallten, die Albaner wurden zu Ikonen des universellen Leids stilisiert", heißt es in der Analyse: "Diese außergewöhnliche Mobilisierung der Presse passte in den Rahmen einer wahren Kriegspropaganda der NATO". Staatspräsident Nicolas Sarkozy habe mit seiner Wende zu einer mehr proatlantischen Haltung das Ruder auch in der Südosteuropa-Politik herumgerissen: "Im Februar 2008 unterstützte Frankreich leidenschaftlich die Unabhängigkeitserklärung des Kosovo, und der französische Botschafter in Pristina gehörte zu den Ersten, die den neuen Staat anerkannten."[2] Damit befindet die Pariser Außenpolitik sich endgültig auf der Linie, die Deutschland vorgegeben hat.

Rein rhetorischer Natur

Den französischen Einflussverlust in Südosteuropa konnte jedoch auch dieser Schwenk nicht aufhalten. "Von einigen wenigen Ausnahmen abgesehen", urteilt der Autor der DGAP-Analyse, "sind französische Unternehmen in den meisten Ländern der Region (...) gar nicht vertreten". "In Wirklichkeit" seien die südosteuropäischen Staaten "weitgehend von der politischen Agenda Frankreichs verschwunden". Sogar der Gebrauch der französischen Sprache gehe "überall in der Region stark zurück", obwohl mehrere Länder (Albanien, Mazedonien, Serbien) sich inzwischen der Organisation französischsprachiger Staaten (Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, OIF) angeschlossen haben. "Frankreich dient sein Engagement für die Frankophonie als Aushängeschild", heißt es illusionslos in der DGAP-Analyse, "doch diese Politik ist oftmals rein rhetorischer Natur."[3]

Hinter Deutschland

Ein günstigeres Zeugnis stellt die DGAP der Stellung Frankreichs in Russland aus. Zwar habe Paris auf die Umbrüche in den 1990er Jahren "zögerlich reagiert" und sei dadurch in großen Rückstand geraten. Seit der Jahrtausendwende jedoch würden die Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Staaten wieder "dichter geknüpft", heute gebe es einen "ständigen Austausch auf höchster Ebene". Wie die DGAP festhält, stellt sich Frankreich in den Auseinandersetzungen um die Russland-Politik der EU zuverlässig "an die Seite Deutschlands" und setzt sich - wie Berlin - für die weitere Annäherung an Moskau ein. Dennoch habe Paris den französischen Rückstand bis heute nicht wettmachen können: Ungeachtet der politischen Kooperation bleibe "Frankreich als Handelspartner hinter seinen wichtigsten europäischen Partnern, vor allem hinter Deutschland und Italien zurück".[4]

Erlahmt

Auch in Südamerika kann Frankreich laut einer DGAP-Analyse nicht ernsthaft mit Deutschland konkurrieren. Demnach sind die Beziehungen Frankreichs zu Brasilien, die einst als besonders eng galten, "im Laufe der letzten Jahrzehnte erlahmt". Zwar habe Paris im Jahr 2005 eine "strategische Partnerschaft" mit Brasilia geschlossen - ein Schritt, der den Ausbau der Kooperation, wie ihn auch Deutschland anstrebt, zum Ziel hat. Dennoch geht aus der DGAP-Analyse hervor, dass Paris in Brasilien heute über eine deutlich schwächere Stellung verfügt als Berlin.[5] Damit ähnelt die innereuropäische Konkurrenzlage dort der Lage in Russland und in Südosteuropa: Frankreich verfolgt im Großen und Ganzen dieselbe außenpolitische Linie wie Deutschland und hat - wo sie zuvor vorhanden waren - abweichende Ansätze aufgegeben, liegt aber deutlich hinter der europäischen Hegemonialmacht zurück.

Der tatsächliche Hegemon

Dabei korreliert der politische Einflussverlust Frankreichs mit dem wachsenden wirtschaftlichen Rückstand gegenüber Deutschland. Die Bundesrepublik hat in den vergangenen Jahren mit harten Einschnitten bei Löhnen und Sozialausgaben ihre Konkurrenzvorteile gegenüber dem Nachbarland vergrößert (german-foreign-policy.com berichtete [6]). 2009 stieg der deutsche Handelsüberschuss gegenüber Frankreich auf einen neuen Rekordwert von 27,38 Milliarden Euro an. Eine Umkehr in der Tendenz ist nicht zu erkennen; vielmehr spitzen sich die innereuropäischen Ungleichgewichte, die auch im Verhältnis zwischen Deutschland und Frankreich immer offener zu erkennen sind, in wachsendem Maße zu. Die offiziöse Phrase vom "deutsch-französischen Tandem", das in der EU die Führung innehabe, kann angesichts des zunehmenden außenpolitischen und wirtschaftlichen Rückstands Frankreichs immer weniger über die tatsächlichen Herrschaftsverhältnisse täuschen - über die kaum noch verhüllte deutsche Hegemonie.

[1], [2], [3] Jean-Arnault Dérens: Die schwindende Präsenz Frankreichs auf dem Balkan; DGAPanalyse Frankreich No. 9, November 2010
[4] Laure Delcour: Frankreich und Russland. Neue Dynamik für eine besondere Beziehung; DGAPanalyse Frankreich No. 6, Juli 2010
[5] Martine Droulers, Céline Raimbert: Vom Leitbild zur Partnerschaft. Eine Analyse der französisch-brasilianischen Asymmetrie; DGAPanalyse Frankreich No. 8, November 2010
[6] s. dazu Die Frage der Führung und Die Macht in Europa


--- english ---


No Tandem
 
2010/12/06

PARIS/BERLIN
 
(Own report) - France is clearly lagging behind Germany in important targeted regions of its foreign policy. This has been confirmed in a series of studies published over the past few months by the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP). At the same time, Paris has, for the most part, adopted Berlin's foreign policy priorities and - contrary to the 1990s - puts up no resistance to Berlin on basic issues. Paris' policy toward Southeast Europe shows, for example, that Paris had to give up its pro-Serbian policy years ago. The loss of influence that accompanied this fact is still to be felt today. According to the DGAP, in the 1990s, Paris lost much ground in Russia and, therefore even today is no serious competition to Berlin. A similar situation reigns with South America, where France, unlike Germany, does not have the necessary capacity for cooperation with its traditional partner, Brazil. France's loss of political influence vis à vis Berlin is in correlation with its growing economic loss of ground vis à vis Germany.

Great Reservations

An analysis of French policy toward Southeast Europe, published recently by the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP), clearly shows France's loss of influence, in relationship to Germany. The analysis recalls that - under pressure from Washington and, what the DGAP does not mention, from Germany as well - Paris had been unable to maintain its traditionally pro-Serb policy in Southeast Europe since the mid-90s. For example, the author of the analysis reports that, immediately preceding the aggression against Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999, President Jacques Chirac, "as is well known," had had, "great reservations toward the bombing attack." Whereas the head of the OSCE observation mission in Kosovo, (US) General William Walker, "clearly had the job of preparing the terrain for a military operation", his French second in command, Gabriel Keller, sought to "keep open the dialogue with Belgrade" but to no avail. France's traditional affinity to Serbia was used, in the end, by the NATO to weaken resistance to the occupation of Kosovo. French soldiers were the occupation troops in the Serb-speaking sector of the province, because it was hoped that "the presence of French soldiers would be (...) easier accepted (...) than the stationing of US, British or German soldiers."[1]

War Propaganda

The analysis published by the DGAP explains that the external pressure applied to Paris in the 90s elicited serious domestic differences. At the beginning of the 90s, for example, leading dailies, such as Le Monde, Le Figaro and Liberation "still found it important" to "maintain a careful neutrality" in the Yugoslav question. Soon thereafter "a pronounced anti-Belgrade position" became predominant, that escalated during the war for Kosovo. "Critical voices were smothered, the Albanians became the icons of universal suffering" according to the DGAP analysis. "This extraordinary media mobilization fitted into the framework of a true NATO war propaganda." With President Nicolas Sarkozy's transformation to a more pro-atlanticist position, France has changed course also in its Southeast Europe policy: "In February 2008, France effusively supported the Kosovo declaration of independence, and the French ambassador in Pristina was among the first to recognize the new nation,"[2] which places Paris' foreign policy clearly in line with the policy prescribed by Germany.

Merely Rhetoric

But not even this shift in policy could stop the decline of French influence in Southeast Europe. "Aside from a few exceptions, according to the author of the DGAP analysis, "in most countries of that region (…) there is no representation of French companies. "In fact, southeast European countries "are no longer on the French political agenda. Even the use of the French language has been "sharply receding throughout the region, even though some countries (Albania, Macedonia, Serbia) have joined the Organization of French speaking Nations (Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, OIF). "France’s engagement for French speaking communities has simply served as a figurehead, the DGAP analysis states without any illusions, "but this policy is often merely rhetoric".[3]

Lagging Behind Germany

France's position in relations with Russia is more favorable, assesses the DGAP. Even though France reacted very "hesitantly to the changes taking place in the 90s and therefore lagged behind, the relations between the two countries have "grown closer since the turn of the century, today with "regular exchanges at the highest levels. According to the DGAP, France is firmly on „Germany's side" in the EU's Russia policy dispute and - like Berlin - is pleading for further rapprochement with Moscow. Still France has not been able to catch up. In spite of its political cooperation, "as a commercial partner, France is lagging behind its most important European partners, especially Germany and Italy.[4]

Grown Weary

Also in South America, France cannot seriously compete with Germany, according to the DGAP analysis. France's relations with Brazil, which had been particularly close in the past, have "grown weary over the past few decades. Even though France had concluded a "strategic partnership agreement with Brazil in 2005 - a move aimed at enhancing the cooperation pursued also by Germany, Paris, today, is in a much weaker position than Germany in its relations with Brazil, analyzes the DGAP.[5] The inner-European competition in relationship to Brazil can therefore be compared to that in relationship to Russia and to Southeast Europe: Overall, France is pursuing the same line of foreign policy as Germany and has given up previous deviating approaches. But France is clearly lagging behind the European hegemonic power.

The Real Hegemon

France's loss of political influence is in correlation with the growing economic distance with which it is trailing behind Germany. With its important cuts in salaries and social spending, Germany has been enhancing its advantages over the neighboring countries. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[6]) In 2009, the German trade surplus in relation to France reached a new record of 27.38 billion Euros. A reversal of this tendency is not in sight, but the increasingly evident inner-European imbalance - also in German-French relations - is becoming more prevalent. In light of the growing foreign political and economic distance with which France is lagging behind Germany, the unofficial characterization of a "German-French tandem" leading the EU, cannot disguise the true leadership relations - the hardly veiled German hegemony.

[1], [2], [3] Jean-Arnault Dérens: Die schwindende Präsenz Frankreichs auf dem Balkan; DGAPanalyse Frankreich No. 9, November 2010
[4] Laure Delcour: Frankreich und Russland. Neue Dynamik für eine besondere Beziehung; DGAPanalyse Frankreich No. 6, Juli 2010
[5] Martine Droulers, Céline Raimbert: Vom Leitbild zur Partnerschaft. Eine Analyse der französisch-brasilianischen Asymmetrie; DGAPanalyse Frankreich No. 8, November 2010
[6] see also Die Frage der Führung and Die Macht in Europa




DA CHI NE HA ESPERIENZA DIRETTA


<< Come si potrebbe far cessare il terrorismo islamico nel mondo?

"Lo si deve chiedere a coloro che hanno creato queste correnti islamiste, come Al Qaeda. Chi le ha create? Gli Stati Uniti d'America e l'Arabia Saudita che in Afghanistan, negli anni '80, quando sostenevano i mujaheddin locali contro l'occupazione sovietica. Si deve risalire all'origine di di questa situazione, che è una politica degli Stati Uniti". >>

Da L'Arena di Verona, 30/11/2010: intervista a mons. Athanase Matti Shaba Matoka, arcivescovo cattolico di Baghdad
(segnalato da Fabio M., che ringraziamo)

(english / srpskohrvatski / italiano)

Il Beogradski Forum al Congresso degli antimilitaristi tedeschi

A Kassel (Germania) il movimento antimilitarista tedesco ha appreso della "situazione esplosiva" in Kosovo attraverso l'intervento di Zivadin Jovanovic del Forum di Belgrado (in inglese, vedi sotto; Galleria fotografica: http://picasaweb.google.com/beoforum/UcesceBeogradskogForumaNaKongresuSavetaZaMirNemacke ).

--

Космет извор дугорочне нестабилности - На 17. конгресу Савета за мир Немачке говорио председник Београдског форума Живадин Јовановић


На позив Проф. Петера Штрутинског, председника Савета за мир Немачке, Живадин Јовановић, председник Београдског форума за свет равноправних, учествовао је на 17. конгресу немачких мировњака одржаном 4. и 5. децембра 2010. на Универзитету у граду Каселу.
На скупу од око 400 делегата из свих делова Немачке Јовановић је говорио о актуелним процесима и проблемима на Балкану са посебним освртом на проблеме које изазивају једнострано, илегално проглашење независности Косова и Метохије, друге сепаратистичке тенденције, притисци усмерени на ревизију Дејтонско-париског споразума о миру у Босни и Херцеговини као и велики социјално-економски проблеми. Јовановић је оценио да ће Балкан, посебно подручје раније СФРЈ, још дуго времена трпети последице оружане агресије НАТО од 1999. године и продужене подршке сепартистичким тенденцијама које угрожавају стабилност Србије. Он је указао да Запад, истовремено, врши велике притиске у циљу унитаризације Босне и Херцеговине  одузимањем надлежности Републике Српске које су јој гарантоване Дејтонско-париским уговором. У томе очекује „коперативност“ српског руководства којом ће плаћати подршку на „европском путу“.
Поред излагања у пленуму, Јовановић је говорио и на посебном семинару где су кроз питања и дијалог ближе разрађене поједине тезе из уводног излагања.
Интегрално излагање Ж. Јовановића в. сајт Форума на енглеском језику

---


Kosovo the prime cause of instability in the Balkans - by Živadin Jovanović

Mr. Chairman,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear Friends,

Allow me, first of all, to thank you for your kind invitation and for the warm hospitality accorded to me by your leaders and activists. I am honored indeed by the opportunity to speak to this friendly audience on the issues of common interest. As this is my first opportunity to address delegates of German Peace Council from the whole of Germany, I would like also to thank you for your enormous efforts in spreading the truth about real causes and consequences of the Yugoslav crisis and real objectives of 1999 NATO aggression.

Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals is an independent, nonpartisan and non-profit association founded eleven years ago. We share similar values and objectives: we are devoted to peace, justice and truth. We want Europe of peace and stability, Europe of equal nations, equal human beings, and equal opportunities, Europe without nuclear armament and foreign military bases, Continent of justice and prosperity for all. We strive against militarization and any kind of hegemony. So called new concept of the NATO strategy adopted at the recent Lisbon Summit new one. It is only codification of precedent of NATO aggression on Serbia (Yugoslavia) in 1999, Afghanistan of 2001, Iraq of 2003. So called new strategy is new attempt military complex to justify  expansion of a war machinery. NATO is imposing itself as a global aggressive Alliance ready to engage its war machinery any time, in any corner of the globe, contrary to the basic principles of the international law and the role of the UN Security Council. Instead of removing military arsenal, especially nuclear, NATO has adopted plans to develop and deploy the new ones in Europe and elsewhere. Implementation of such plans would undoubtedly provoke a new arms race depriving peoples of decent life and jeopardizing peace and stability. We are disturbed by the fact that there are more military bases in Europe today, than at the peak of the Cold War era.

Dear Friends,

Stable and prosperous Balkan is of the paramount interest of the Balkan peoples as well as of Europe. The situation in the region, however, remains complex with political, security and socio-economic problems which, least in carry potential for new problems and even conflicts.
It should be noted that in the period of the last twenty years the Balkan has been testing ground for new doctrines, the region of the most dramatic changes and precedents in international relations:
- Second Yugoslavia (SFRY) was destroyed in 1992, the third Yugoslavia in 2006, both in conjunction of internal an external factors;
- NATO aggression against Serbia (Yugoslavia) in 1999 was the first war on Europe’s soil after the Second World War, presented as “humanitarian intervention”, contrary to basic principles of International Law, without approval of UN SC, 
- Unilateral proclamation of Independence of Kosovo and Methija in 2008, while the Provence was under UN mandate, again, without UN SC approval, and contrary to the Constitution of Serbia;

Seven new hardly sustainable states have been created, some even through severe civil wars consequences of which will be felt over decades to come 1. In spite of some progress in the process of normalization of relations, mistrust is still there limiting the efforts to revive economic, social, cultural and other links. After over 70 years of common life, these links were abruptly cut during the secessions and conflicts. There is great need to remove all politically motivated obstacles and encourage widest possible cooperation based on recognition of mutual interests. Free flow of goods, people, ideas, culture and capital would certainly push ahead overall development, diminish dependence on foreign assistance and help dealing with consequences of the global economic and financial crisis.
New international borders while not general problem, in a number of instances are still to be defined, including parts of Serbia-Croatian border on Danube and Serbia-Bosnian border on the Drina River. The best way in resolving these issues is to apply international standards. 
New national minorities have appeared in addition to old ones. Balkan renown through history as mixture of nations, cultures and religions and conflicts, of course, after further territorial fragmentation during the last two decades, has “enriched” itself by producing even more national minorities, more languages, and even more religions. For good? It is doubtful. Standards of their human, political and national rights in a number of instances are not respected.  
Serbia is still hosting about 220.000 displaced persons from Kosovo and Metohija, mainly Serbs, and about 300.000 Serb refugees from Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This is the highest figure of refugees and displaced persons in one European country. This causes not only serious socio-economic but political problems, too. Members of neither of the two groups are permitted to return to places of their origin freely and safely. Serbs in Croatia although promised territorial autonomy, are deprived even of some basic individual rights such as right to private ownership of their houses, apartments and farms. 
One of the potential sources of destabilization is Bosnia and Herzegovina which is occasionally termed “failed state”. Constitutional set up of Bosnia and Herzegovina is defined by the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement (1995) guaranteeing sovereign equality of the three constituent peoples (Moslems, Serbs and Croats) and equality of the two entities – Bosnia and Herzegovina federation (Moslems and Croats) and Republika Srpska. Attempts, channeled through High Representative, to change the con-federal and impose unitary system contrary to what was established by Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement, to annul consensus in decision making and introduce majorization are counter productive, to say, at least. They tend to return the stabilization process back to the beginning of 90-ies and, therefore, are very dangerous for the very existence of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state. In closing this chapter of my speech, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that after the recent elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina Croat Community came to openly ask for creation of own, third entity. This reveals that both, Serbs and Croats have same fear – of being discriminated Moslems dominated Bosnia. 
In my opinion, Serbia does not and cannot recognize illegal secession of Kosovo and Metohija. Therefore, this remains an open issue yet to be resolved. Solution should be sought respecting basic principles of the international law, UN decisions and Constitution of Serbia as a sovereign state. Such a position is supported by major part of International community, including some of the permanent members of UN SC (Russia and China) as well as some members of EU (Spain, Greece, Romania, Slovak Republic and Cyprus). New negotiations on the status seem to be unavoidable. Any expectation on further softening the official Serbia Government’s position could turn to be counterproductive. Perhaps not so much because of the Government’s firmness in defending territorial integrity and sovereignty, but first of all because compromise is the only away to to guarantee Serbia’s internal stability which, in turn, is important for the lasting peace and stability of the Balkan.  
It has been repeatedly noted that the future of the Balkan lies in the hands of the Balkan countries. This is true, but mainly theoretically. In real life one of the general problems in the region is excessive involvement of out-of-the-region power centers. Considering that Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Province of Kosovo and Metohija continue to be international protectorates, that the governments in the most of the countries in the region owe their loyalty to the West which helped them various ways to come to power (“colored revolutions”), it is rather unclear what the regional factors can do themselves, what are real margins for them to work out needed compromises.
International community, essentially being limited to NATO and EU, lacks capacity and political will for compromised solutions and continue to impose own solutions which, sooner or later, appear not to be sustainable. This, perhaps explains, why NATO and EU maintain substantial military, police and civil presence in Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR Macedonia and particularly in the Province of Kosovo and Metohija where about 10.000 NATO troops are deployed including one of the biggest military base in the world (Bondstil). 
No doubt that the key source of destabilization of the Balkan today remains Kosovo and Metohija. Aparent massive violation of human rights of Albanians in Kosovo and Metohija was just excuse for NATO aggression against Serbia. In my opinion, NATO aggression in 1999, was a historic mistake of the West, especially of Western Europe and Germany. It was a precedent, first ring in a chain of aggressions and occupations which ensued after. Ever since Europe has been obliged to take part in other military interventions away of its zone of defense. With recent Lisbon documents such a practice has been codified and formalized. The aggression was a blunder towards the United Nations particularly towards Security Council and its role in maintaining peace in the world. It gave a push to separatist tendencies in the region, Europe and the World. New military bases mushroomed from Kosovo to Bulgaria, Rumania, Baltic states. Economic destructions, including some of the strategic European corridors, have been valued over 100 billions of US dollars. 
Unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija in February this year was also a dangerous precedent. As to whether it encouraged independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia may be disputable, but the general effect of Kosovo’s “unique case” should not be disputable. 
Last month, representatives of Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija, FYROM, Greece, Montenegro and three southern districts of Serbia (Presevo, Bujanovac and Medvedja) gathered in Tirana to announce their devotion to the “natural Albania”. This gathering was preceded by repeated declarations of highest Albanian officials that Albanians have the right to live together and followed by the declaration of former chief of OSDE Kosovo Verification Mission, American ambassador William Walker that Albanians have the right to unite. 
“Side” effects of Prishtina’s unilateral secession may be summed up in one word - divisions – divisions within EU, UN, OSCE, between EU/NATO – Russia, divisions in the Balkan and divisions within Serbia itself.
Appart from the fact that the Province is faced with dramatic socio-economic problems, unemployement at the same time, it is a safe heaven and a jumping board for extremists and clans of organized crimes whose real aim is to operate in the EU area. It is assesed that over 60 percent of the total marketing of heroin in Europe is controlled by Albanian mafia. Trafiking of human beings, their vital organs and smugling of armaments is also under their control.

Putting an end to the protectorate status of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be important step in good direction. After 15 years of peace and international governance, local institutions and politicians must be given a chance of working together, compromising and running the country without almighty so called High Representative. Reopening negotiations on the status of Kosovo and Metohija after the opinion of the International Court of Justice is announced later this year is quite reasonable expectation. Compromise based on the respect of International Law, particularly. The UN SC resolution 1244 (1999) must be considered a lasting legal document, starting point and coroner stone of any future solution for Kosovo and Metohija problem. This is the most important precondition to peace and stability in the Balkan. Foreigners come and go, their interests vary but the Balkan nations will stay here for ever. For this reason they should relay on compromises of their long term interests.
EU appears to be key partner of the Balkan states. How long will last the current financial, economic and institutional crisis in EU? What conclusions Brussels drew from up to now enlargements of the EU membership? Answering these questions would certainly help to asses realistically prospects for EU membership of a number of Balkan countries. To continue submitting to endless demands of Brussels bureaucracy in exchange for repeated promises of “European perspectives”, may turn to be loss of time and vital interests.
Democratization and transition has left, among others, profound social divisions and tensions, extremely high rate of unemployment, corruption, and organized crime. These tendencies are not assets for peace and stability. To alleviate the roots of these tendencies require political will, strategies, recourses, including financial, and – time.  
Western benevolence towards obvious rise of separatism and territorial fragmentation, especially affecting Serbia and Serbian nation, in one hand, and clear support for centralization, unitarization of certain other countries, notably Bosnia and Herzegovina, are examples of double standards policy. Putting aside motives and interests of the West, it must be noted that such a policy would definitely hinder prospects of peace and stability today, up to 2020 and beyond.
Proliferation of puppet sates with unsustainable economies, national minorities with uneven level of their rights, political parties based on ethnic and religious criteria and refugees and displaced persons with the lack of political will to scure conditions for free and safe return to their homes;
Expansion of Islamism not as a religion or culture, but as overall social and governmental system. Some Islamite leaders do consider Balkan as a spring board for further expansion. (Vehabist groups, Islamic extremist organizations have been uncovered recently in a number of Balkan countries);
In my opinion, Serbia with its geostrategic position and resources is capacitated and willing to play its role in achieving sustainable stability, peace and development in the Balkans. But Serbia is faced with serious problems. First of all, stagnation of the socio-economic development, about one million of unemployed, 700.000 people billow the bottom line of poverty, disregard of her legitimate national interest. 
Serbia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty is not jeopardized by illegal unilateral secession of Kosovo and Metohija only, but such tendencies are present in some other parts (Vojvodina, Raska, Southern districts). 
Recently “The Group of Friends of Sandzak” (Raska) was established in Belgrade composed of the ambassadors of USA, Germany, Britain and Italy! What would be real political objective of such a move? These ambassadors surely have been welcomed to Belgrade as friends of Serbia and they are expected to behave as such. Forming “Group of friends” of same states is known practice at the UN Headquarters in New York, usually, to show strong support to a country with certain problems usually pending consideration within UN. But, forming a “Group of Friends” of any particular part (region) of a sovereign country by diplomats accredited to such a country is neither diplomatic nor respecting partnership nor hospitality of particular country and nation. 
Serbian public and civic society should like to see everybody investing into mutual understanding and respect so that the Balkan becomes region of integration, peace and stability leaving behind divisions, distrust and confrontation.

Dear friends,
I am aware that aforesaid is more a list of open problems, with some suggestions, than a list of solutions. Our answers should be close cooperation and coordination, , to find ways to mass media – conventional and new ones, ability to foresee developments.

In closing, let me congratulate you for great success of your Congress.
Thank you.


Zivadin Jovanovic
President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals,
Former Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs of FR of Yugoslavia



1 Kosovo and Metohija’s self-proclaimed secession from Serbia has not been recognized in the region by Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Greece, Cyprus


Photo Galleryhttp://picasaweb.google.com/beoforum/UcesceBeogradskogForumaNaKongresuSavetaZaMirNemacke