Informazione
Oggetto: Svetska ekonomska kriza
Data: 28 ottobre 2008 13:24:33 GMT+01:00
Neoliberalizam doživljava svoj krah posle dve decenije surovog ataka na slobodu i prava radnih ljudi sirom planete.
Aktuelna kriza koja je začeta u SAD krahom finansijsko-kreditnog sektora posledica je anarhičnog razvoja kapitalizma, produkt truljenja i parazitizma kapitalizma čiju je sustinu osvetlio veličanstveni um Vladimira Iliča Lenjina, čija marksistička analiza i kritika ni do danas ne bledi.
Kriza koja se javlja jasni je pokazatelj neizbežne sudbine svih kapitalističkih ekonomija sto je jasni dokaz da kapitalizam nije svemoguć uprkos pokušajima kapitalista da ogromnom mašinerijom ubede radne mase kako je kapitalizam savršen i da ga bespogovorno treba slediti.
Neoliberalizam je ideologija multinacionalnih kompanija. Njegova sustina je da oni koji su bogati budu još bogatiji, dok su siromašni postajali sve siromašniji. Tu svoju nakaradnu ideologiju su umotali u propagandu o globalizaciji, slobodnom tržištu i civilnom društvu tvrdeći da ce tako svetu doneti mir i blagostanje. Ipak svedoci smo da ekonomski poredak koji je svetu namentuo neoliberalni globalizam neumoljivo čovečanstvu naplaćuje žrtvama miliona ljudi u najsiromašnijim zemljama sveta.
Multi nacionalnim kompanijama trebalo je sve veće tržište, da bi one uvećavajući svoje poslove, ostvarivali veće profite. Neoliberalni kapitalizam rušio je sve prepreke pred sobom ne štedeći novac i silu. Kao prva žrtva direktne izdaje pala je prva zemlja socijalizma SSSR što je otvorilo vrata globalizaciji, vrata krvavom pljačkaškom pohodu kapitalizma sirom planete.
Od kraja 1990-tih, američki Bord Federalnih rezervi pokušavao je da predupredi veliku ekonomsku krizu plaveći američku i svetsku ekonomiju jeftinim kreditima. Radnička klasa čije su realne nadnice u većini glavnih ekonomskih sistema stagnirale ili opadale podsticana je da pozajmljuju kako bi održala potražnju za dobrima i uslugama.
SAD u cilju spasavanja od narastajuće krize pribegava socijalističkim metodama u cilju finansijskog oporavka. Odgovor vodećih kapitalističkih zemalja – a posebno Sjedinjenih Država – sadrži se u pokušaju obuzdavanja finansijskog sistema putem ogromnih državnih intervencija, tu uključujući i nacionalizaciju i spasavanja velikih banaka i ostalih finansijskih institucija koje organizuju njihove vlade. Cilj ovih intervencija nije zaštita zaposlenja, životnog standarda ili plata i penzija radnih ljudi, ove intervencije za cilj imaju da održe kapitalistički sistem koji je svet gura iz krize u krizu svojom kazino ekonomijom.
Kapitalističke vlasti nameravaju da prebace teret krize upravo na leđa radnih i siromašnih ljudi. Od sindikata se zahteva da ne traže povećanja plata koja bi kompenzovala rastuće troškove života.
Kritike koje danas čitamo ne ulaze u samu sustinu problema već pokušavaju da odbrane stajalište neoliberalizma.
Obezbeđivanje maksimalnog zadovoljenja stalno rastućih materijalnih i kulturnih potreba celog društva putem neprekidnog povećanja i usavršavanja socijalističke proizvodnje na bazi vise tehnike i tehnologije (J.V.Staljin) osnovni je zakon socijalizma. Iskustva su pokazala da snažna ekonomski jaka i nezavisna socijalistička ekonomija može mirno da se razvija uprkos cikličkim krizama kapitalizma. Setimo se recesije koje je 30-tih gurnula svet u bedu. Uprkos blokadi SSSR je bio jedina država na planeti koje je ostvarivala ogromne kapitalne uspehe na svim poljima.
Uprkos ogromnim preprekama verujemo u snagu jedinstva radničke klase i imamo poverenja u sposobnost za borbu za novi, slobodan svet – svet socijalizma!
Sekretarijat SKOJ-a
28. oktobar 2008. god.
Savez komunisticke omladine Jugoslavije SKOJ - The League of Yugoslav Communist Youth SKOJ
Nemanjina 34/III , 11000 Beograd - Nemanjina 34/III, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
web: www.skoj.org.yu *
web: www.youtube.com/user/skoj05 * e-mail skoj05@... * skoj@...
Peace Laureate Ahtisaari endorsed terrorism
0) IL PACIFISTA MONDIALE E’ FIGLIO DI UN NAZISTA / SVETSKI MIROVNJAK, SIN NACISTE
1) How the Nobel Peace Prize Was Won (G. Elich)
2) The conflicting Nobel Peace Prize (D. Kozyrev)
3) Peace Laureate Ahtisaari endorsed terrorism (Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research)
4) Ahtisaari after Gorbachev: Degradation of the Nobel Prize (P. Iskenderov)
5) "Kosovo state inevitable", says Ahtisaari
6) 2007: Ahtisaari received money for proposal on Kosmet's independence / Evidence of Ahtisaari Corruption on Kosovo Plan
2007: L'inviato particolare dell'Onu per il Kosovo Marti Ahtisaari aveva ricevuto soldi dalla mafia albanese...
7) 2007: Ahtisaari-Lavrov diplomatic dispute
Sulla figura di Marti Ahtisaari si vedano anche, dalla nostra newsletter, gli articoli in varie lingue / see also:
Premio Nobel contro la Pace
JUGOINFO 14 ottobre 2008
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/6196
Ahtisaari’s Collusion With Albanian Mafia Confirmed
JUGOINFO 22 luglio 2007
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/5577
Albanska mafija kupila Ahtisarija
JUGOINFO 28 giugno 2007
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/5540
SKOJ condemns Ahtisaari's antiserb racism
JUGOINFO 5 settembre 2006
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/5081
Martti Ahtisaari; Nepoznata biografija
SVETSKI MIROVNJAK, SIN NACISTE
www.nedeljnitelegraf.co.yu
IL PACIFISTA MONDIALE E’ FIGLIO DI UN NAZISTA
Sintesi:
Si trova anche tra i nomi elencati come membri del gruppo Bilderberg, almeno dal 1994, insieme anche alla Boniver, Bettiza, gli Agnelli... (CNJ)
Una lapide commemorativa dei nazisti
Durante i bombardamenti contro la Serbia, nel 1999, la Finlandia aveva deciso di commemorare con una lapide i nazisti finlandesi del battaglione Nord-Ost delle famigerate truppe SS Viking, morti in Ucraina. In questa divisione era in servizio anche "un certo" dottor Josef Mengele.
Questa iniziativa ha trovato un'aspra reazione presso la comunità ebraica finlandese, come anche tra gli ebrei in tutto il mondo ed in particolare dal Centro Simon Wiesenthal e dal Congresso ebraico a Parigi, che dichiararono unanimemente: "La commemorazione dei nazisti finlandesi da parte di Ahtisaari è un'offesa a tutte le vittime del nazismo e distoglie dagli obiettivi fissati dai paesi membri dell'UE nella lotta contro il razzismo e l'antisemitismo".
=== 1 ===
http://www.counterp unch.org/ elich10142008. html
October 14, 2008
For Services Rendered
How the Nobel Peace Prize Was Won
By GREGORY ELICH
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari has been widely hailed in the West, where there has been an outpouring of praise for the man and his efforts. Generally seen as a tireless promoter of peace and reconciliation, Ahtisaari has another side that has not received sufficient attention.
Although his record is long, Ahtisaari’s role in the diplomatic end to NATO’s 1999 war against Yugoslavia is regarded as the key to his selection. In praising the man, Nobel committee secretary Geir Lundestad noted, “There is no alternative to an independent Kosovo.” This baldly political statement indicates why Ahtisaari’s selection is proving so popular among Western leaders, and it is Kosovo that shows just whose interests Ahtisaari has served.
During the 1999 war, NATO’s attacks were having little effect on Yugoslav forces. Through the use of extensive camouflage and decoys, Yugoslav troops had managed to emerge largely unscathed by the end NATO’s bombing campaign. U.S. General Wesley Clark led the NATO campaign, and he pressed military and diplomatic contacts from other NATO countries for agreement to widen the scope of bombing. Clark was a strong advocate of bombing civilian targets, and at one meeting he rose from his chair and banged the table with his fist, bellowing, “I’ve got to get the maximum violence out of this campaign – now!” (1) Under Clark’s direction, the air campaign rapidly took on the character of sustained terror bombing. I saw the effects myself when I was in Yugoslavia in 1999. Every town I visited had been bombed. Purely residential areas had been flattened. Cluster bombs struck civilian areas. Hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, factories, bridges, office buildings – there was no category of civilian targets that NATO had not seen fit to hit. It was impossible to avoid the conclusion that NATO’s strategy was to win its war through terror tactics.
Terror bombing paved the way for final negotiations. It was Yugoslavia’s misfortune that Boris Yeltsin was the president of Russia at the time. He selected former prime minister Victor Chernomyrdin to handle negotiations with Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Always anxious to please the U.S., Yeltsin had Chernomyrdin essentially do little more than deliver NATO’s messages to Milosevic. This approach was not yielding fruit, so Chernomyrdin suggested to American officials that it would be helpful to have someone from a non-NATO Western nation join him when he next visited Belgrade. It was Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who offered the name of Martti Ahtisaari. Getting the Russians on board with the American insistence on NATO leading the occupation of Kosovo was the main sticking point. In the end, Yeltsin, as was his habit, gave the U.S. everything it wanted. (2)
Ahtisaari recalls that before departing for Belgrade, through “a major effort we achieved a final communiqué, signed by both the Russians and by the Americans.” Russian acquiescence, he correctly felt, would push Milosevic “in a corner.” It was the task of Ahtisaari and Chernomyrdin to deliver NATO’s final terms, and they visited President Milosevic on June 2. (3)
Ljubisa Ristic was president of the Yugoslav United Left (JUL), a party formed from 23 smaller communist and left parties. JUL was closely allied with the ruling Socialist Party and a member of the governing coalition. Ristic was also a personal friend of Milosevic’s. He explains what happened at the June 2 meeting. Ahtisaari opened the meeting by declaring, “We are not here to discuss or negotiate,” after which Chernomyrdin read aloud the text of the plan. (4) Ahtisaari says that Milosevic asked about the possibility of modifying the plan, to which he replied, “No. This is the best that Viktor and I have managed to do. You have to agree to it in every part.” (5) Ristic reports that as Milosevic listened to the reading of the text, he realized that the “Russians and the Europeans had put us in the hands of the British and the Americans.” Milosevic took the papers and asked, “What will happen if I do not sign?” In answer, “Ahtisaari made a gesture on the table,” and then moved aside the flower centerpiece. Then Ahtisaari said, “Belgrade will be like this table. We will immediately begin carpet-bombing Belgrade.” Repeating the gesture of sweeping the table, Ahtisaari threatened, “This is what we will do to Belgrade.” A moment of silence passed, and then he added, “There will be half a million dead within a week.” Chernomyrdin’s silence confirmed that the Russian government would do nothing to discourage carpet-bombing. (6)
The meaning was clear. To refuse the ultimatum would lead to the deaths of large numbers of civilians and total devastation. President Milosevic summoned the leaders of the parties in the governing coalition and explained the situation to them. “A few things are not logical, but the main thing is, we have no choice. I personally think we should accept…To reject the document means the destruction of our state and nation.” (7) For Ristic, acceptance meant one thing: “We had to save the people.” (8) Three weeks after Ahtisaari and Chernomyrdin delivered NATO’s ultimatum, Yugoslav Prime Minister Momir Bulatovich explained to both chambers of the Assembly why the government had accepted terms. “Our country was faced with a threat of total annihilation. Through diplomatic mediators and through the media, the aggressors spoke of the future targets to be bombed, including civilian victims counted in the hundreds of thousands.” (9)
It did not take NATO long to violate the peace agreement that Ahtisaari had delivered to Milosevic. While NATO dawdled over entering Kosovo, the secessionist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) went on a rampage, looting and burning homes, murdering and expelling thousands of Serbs, Roma, Turks, Slavic Muslims, Gorans, Egyptians, Croats and pro-Yugoslav Albanians. Milosevic was livid, and shortly after midnight on June 17, he phoned Ahtisaari and complained that NATO’s delay in entering Kosovo had allowed the KLA to threaten the population. “This is not what we agreed,” he said. (10) It hardly mattered. Once NATO troops entered Kosovo, they did nothing to deter KLA attacks against the populace. The KLA had unimpeded freedom to carry out a pogrom. That summer in Yugoslavia, I heard many refugees tell how attacks had taken place in the presence of NATO troops, who invariably did nothing. On numerous occasions people were thrown out of their homes, threatened, their possessions looted and homes burned while NATO soldiers stood aside and watched.
Ahtisaari’s mission was a success. He “was sensational,” said a senior U.S. official. Chernomyrdin won praise for remaining silent while Ahtisaari threatened Milosevic. “Chernomyrdin did great,” an appreciative U.S. official noted. (11)
The final agreement between Yugoslavia and NATO was spelled out in UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which was implemented in a one-sided way. NATO got everything it wanted, but those aspects of the resolution not to its liking were never implemented. The required demilitarization of the KLA was a sham, with its members handing in obsolete weapons while retaining their arsenal. The resolution also called for the return of some Yugoslav forces to maintain “a presence at Serb patrimonial sites” and at “key border crossings,” as well as to liaise with international forces. NATO never permitted that. Most importantly, the resolution affirmed that the political process of arriving at an agreement on the status of Kosovo would take full account of the “sovereignty and territorial integrity” of Yugoslavia. (12) Instead, Western officials did everything possible to undermine that stipulation.
So pleased were Western leaders with Ahtisaari’s performance in 1999, that they called upon the man once again when it came time to negotiate a solution for the province of Kosovo. They saw to it that Ahtisaari was appointed as special envoy to the UN Secretary General to develop a set of recommendations for the final status of Kosovo.
U.S. officials were repeatedly promising secessionist Albanian officials in Kosovo that if negotiations with Serbian officials were to fail, then the province would be granted independence. This ensured that the Albanian delegation was unwilling to compromise or engage in serious negotiations. The Albanians’ maximal demands would be met as long as they could avoid a negotiated settlement. Ahtisaari’s role was to develop the plan for Kosovo’s final status that would be implemented if lieu of an agreement. In the end, secessionist Albanian leaders unilaterally declared independence, which was quickly followed by U.S. and Western European recognition. Yet much of Ahtisaari’s plan provided the basis for the agreement that was implemented between the province and the U.S.
Not surprisingly, Ahtisaari’s plan called for independence. This was to be supervised by “the international community,” that term that seems always to mean Western leaders and their interests and excludes the vast majority of the world’s population. Interestingly, the Ahtisaari plan required that Kosovo “shall have an open market economy with free competition.” (13) Already by this point Western officials in Kosovo had overseen the privatization of much of Kosovo’s socially owned property. Ahtisaari’s inclusion of the phrase “free competition” appears meant to protect the interests of Western investors. U.S. officials are never reluctant to push their own agenda, whatever noble-sounding themes they may trumpet. It may be recalled that the pre-war Rambouillet plan, drawn up by U.S. officials in order to sabotage any possibility of a peaceful outcome, required that “the economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles” and allow for the free movement of international capital. (14)
Kosovo’s independence under Ahtisaari’s plan was be supervised and monitored by Western officials. Kosovo would be required to prepare its budget in consultation with the Western-appointed official responsible for managing the province. The plan called for NATO to maintain its military presence. There was to be “close cooperation” with the IMF, and in regard to the privatization of publicly owned entities Kosovo officials were called upon to “take appropriate measures to implement the relevant international principles of corporate governance and liberalization.” The governing Western official would be “the final authority in Kosovo regarding interpretation” of the plan, and positions would be filled through appointment by Western officials. (15) Under Ahtisaari-influenced plan as implemented by the Western powers, Kosovo has less control over its affairs then it would have had under the plan for full autonomy offered by the Yugoslav delegation at Rambouillet.
The selection of Martti Ahtisaari for the Nobel Peace Price was a reward for services rendered. This was a purely political statement, meant to underline an important principle in international affairs. The same Western nations that forcibly carved Kosovo from Serbia are vociferously complaining that independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia violates international law and the territorial integrity of Georgia. This year’s Nobel Peace Prize affirms the lofty principle that it is only the West that will draw and redraw borders in the manner of 19th-century imperial powers.
Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and on the Advisory Board of the Korea Truth Commission. He is the author of the book Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit.
NOTES
[1] Dana Priest, “The Battle Inside Headquarters: United NATO Front was Divided Within,” Washington Post, September 21, 1999.
[2] “Getting to the Table,” Newsweek, June 14, 1999.
[3] Interview with Martti Ahtisaari by Riccardo Chiaberge, “Ahtisaari: This is How I Bent Milosevic,” Corriere della Sera (Milan), July 21, 1999.
[4] Interview with Ljubisa Ristic by Renato Farina, “Why We Serbs Have Given In,” Il Giornale (Milan), June 7, 1999.
[5] Interview with Martti Ahtisaari by Riccardo Chiaberge, “Ahtisaari: This is How I Bent Milosevic,” Corriere della Sera (Milan), July 21, 1999.
[6] Interview with Ljubisa Ristic by Renato Farina, “Why We Serbs Have Given In,” Il Giornale (Milan), June 7, 1999.
[7] Michael Dobbs and Daniel Williams, “For Milosevic, Internal Battle Just Starting,” Washington Post, June 6, 1999.
[8] Interview with Ljubisa Ristic by Renato Farina, “Why We Serbs Have Given In,” Il Giornale (Milan), June 7, 1999.
[9] “Yugoslav Prime Minister Momir Bulatovic Address to Both Chambers of the Assembly of Yugoslavia,” Yugoslav Daily Survey (Belgrade), June 24, 1999.
[10] Geert-Jan Bogaerts, “If Democracy Returns then Milosevic will be Gone,” De Volkskrant (Amsterdam), June 25, 2008.
[11] “Getting to the Table,” Newsweek, June 14, 1999.
[12] Resolution 1244 (1999), UN Security Council, June 10, 1999.
[13] “Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement,” UN Security Council S/2007/168/Add.1, March 26, 2007.
[14] “Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-Government in Kosovo,” February 23, 1999.
[15] “Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement,” UN Security Council S/2007/168/Add.1, March 26, 2007.
=== 2 ===
ANALYSIS
The conflicting Nobel Peace Prize
On Friday, former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari won the $1.4 million Nobel Peace Prize for his 30-year work as peace mediator on different continents and for his contribution to settling the Kosovo conflict. Naturally, millions of people in Russia, Serbia and dozens of other countries will be enraged because Kosovo is not a classic example of a peace settlement.
On the contrary, the conflict highlights a situation when the Kosovo Liberation Army, a terrorist organization, used the most brutal methods, including armed force, to expel the Serbs from their native lands. However, KLA attacks met with armed Serb resistance.
In 1999, the United States and several European countries decided to support the KLA and enabled it to establish control over Kosovo, thanks to a plan formulated by U.N. Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari in violation of international law. Now Kosovo is a Taiwan-style territory that is officially recognized by some nations and shunned by others. But at least there is no more warfare there.
In 1999, NATO launched air strikes against Belgrade and forced it to cede Kosovo to the Albanian diaspora. Had the Kosovo conflict erupted after Sept 11, 2001, the situation could have been different because the international community had changed its opinion of terrorism and armed separatism after the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington. Nonetheless, the issue is still being debated.
The awarding of the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize to Ahtisaari is probably the most scandalous decision in the past 10-15 years. However, the decision highlights all-out disagreements between the international community on some key issues, including war and peace, justice and legality. The Norwegian Nobel Committee's controversial decision has sparked a lively debate that will continue for a while.
This and other similar decisions will always be controversial because the losing side in a conflict will feel that it has been treated unjustly. Peace enforcement also served to aggravate the situation in the former Yugoslavia. The committee should therefore look for different approaches and promote other candidates, rather than career diplomats like Ahtisaari.
In the last few years, the Norwegian committee has awarded the Peace Prize to many people who have had nothing to do with peace-making or the prevention of wars. In 1996, East Timor's outspoken and often fiery Roman Catholic bishop Carlos Belo and an exiled activist, Jose Ramos-Horta, shared the Peace Prize "for their work toward a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor".
That was an obvious setback for the Nobel Committee because the East Timor conflict escalated into a bloodbath just three years afterward. Even today East Timor can hardly be called a normal country. Similarity between East Timor and Kosovo - Ahtisaari is obvious. The 1997 Peace Prize went to American teacher and aid worker Jody Williams for her work in the banning and clearing of anti-personnel landmines.
The United Nations and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan received the 2001 Peace Prize, seen by some as an obviously predictable and trivial gesture. In the last few years the committee was prone to improvisation. In 2006, the Nobel Peace Prize went to Professor Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank for efforts to create the foundations of socioeconomic development.
Professor Yunus who invented micro-finance, namely, collateral-free loans, a powerful tool for fighting poverty worldwide, probably deserves a Nobel Economic Prize for this landmark achievement. The 2007 Peace Prize was awarded to former US Vice President Al Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Although global warming is a major problem, it has nothing to do with peace-making.
It appears that the Nobel Peace Prize will soon be presented to international celebrity activists. The choice of Nobel Prize winners inevitably has a philosophical side. The Nobel Committee often faces the dilemma of awarding scientists who have discovered new killer bacteria or a potent medication. The painful choice may have far-reaching implications because the medication could prove useless within the next 50 years, while the discovered germ could prove a work of genius, because once discovered, it can
eventually be destroyed.
The Nobel Prize in Literature has even more profound philosophical implications because the Committee can either award a well-to-do bestselling novelist or some obscure author who can change public taste. However, the public may not be interested in changing its taste. Predictably, the Nobel Committee now prefers to award cosmopolitan writers preaching the global merger of cultures.
True, awarding the Peace Prize can be a difficult challenge, but not that difficult as to lose any relation to peace. Some prospective candidates are human-rights, rather than peace, activists. But modern human-rights activists are more like political and ideological fighters than selfless champions of peace. Although the Nobel Committee tried to select a classic peacemaker this time, its decision has caused discontent.
Let's not forget, however, that the decision was made by a group of individuals representing a rival global political philosophy. If the voting for the Nobel Peace Prize had been held at the United Nations, or better online on a global scale, the result would have been quite different. Let's hope this will happen in the future. For the time being let's be grateful for what we have today.
NOTE: Dmitry Kosyrev is a political commentator for the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti - MCT
Betreff: Peace Laureate Ahtisaari endorsed terrorism
Datum: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:58:46 +0200
Von: T F F PeaceTips <TFF@...>
An: TFF PeaceTips <TFF@...>
October 22, 2008
Lund, Sweden
*Four reasons why Ahtisaari does not deserve Nobel's Peace Prize*
**************************************************
*Here is one of the four arguments:*
*
*
*The Nobel Committee - literally amateurs about peace - implicitly gave
its Prize this year to the opposite of Nobel¹s will and vision as well
as the opposite of the UN Charter norm of peace by peaceful means.*
*
*
*It gave it to a man who worked for an organization committed in
practise to ³peace² by extreme violence and sheer terror (killing of
innocent for a political goal) and an extremely unjust far-too-late and
non-mediated solution to the Kosovo conflict.*
*
*
*Concretely: Ahtisaari brought the US/NATO terrorist ultimatum that
Belgrade would be flattened and 500 000 citizens would be killed in a
week/ if/...*
*
*
Media, political colleagues and peace people praise him as a peace mediator.
In addition, Ahtisaari also just received UNESCO's Peace Prize... It's
all well and good in a world in which peace means war and war means peace.
Read what others could have told you had they done a bit of research:
http://www.transnational.org/Resources_Treasures/2008/Oberg_Ahtisaari_2.html
/*TFF*/
/*- for peace with passion*/
Send TFF PressInfos and PeaceBrowser to a friend of mine
mailto:subscribe-TFFpressinfo@...
I don't want TFF PressInfo and PeaceBrowser
mailto:unsubscribe-pressinfo@...
If e-mails from TFF end up in your spam/junk e-mail folder please
whitelist them yourself or notify your ISP or spam filtering company
regarding their mistake. Also, if you have a Hotmail, Yahoo or similar
type of account, remember to adjust your settings to ensure that TFF
e-mails do get through to you.
Hvis e-mails fra TFF havner i din spam/junk-boks, så benyt dine
"indstillinger" til at sikre at de i stedet kommer til din in-boks eller
gør din leverandør opmærksom på fejlen. Hvis du bruger Hotmail, Yahoo
eller lignende, så gør de indstillinger, der sikrer at TFF's mails
faktisk går igennem til dig.
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
TFF
Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research
Transnationella Stiftelsen för Freds- och Framtidsforskning
http://www.transnational.org
Vegagatan 25
S - 224 57 Lund
Sweden
Phone +46 46 14 59 09
Fax + 46 46 14 45 12
Email TFF@...
Public not-for-profit charity
Organisationsnummer 845001-4637
TFF Guide, News & Themes
http://www.transnational.org/sitemap.htm
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Strategic Culture Foundation
October 16, 2008
Ahtisaari after Gorbachev: Degradation of the Nobel Prize
The recent decision the Norway’s Nobel Prize Committee
had never been as biased and politicised as this year.
In recent years this award was given to statesmen,
activists of international organisations and other
candidates, the significance of whose contribution to
the cause of peace on the planet Earth could be
doubted by someone, but nevertheless, there was no one
doubting their positive aspirations.
Even the fact of giving the 2007 Nobel Prize to the UN
Expert Group on Climate led by former vice-president
Albert Gore for their contribution to combatting
global warming, the activities only remotely
corresponding to the goals and gist of peace-making,
could be comprehended given the importance of
environment problems.
But awarding Finland’s ex-president Martti Ahtisaari
with the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize for his achievements
in the settlement of international conflicts was a
rude violation of the seemingly firm and positive
trend.
In a nutshell, the chief moderator at the Kosovo
status negotiations acquired this award on October 10,
just two days after the ruling of the UN General
Assembly to make the UN International Court of Justice
verify the compliance to international law of the fact
of according to Kosovo the state of independence which
that Serbian province was given in line with “the
Ahtisaari plan.”
The collision in which a Nobel Prize winner’s
“achievement” was to be studied by an international
court could be laughed at but for the bitter thoughts
about the state of the rights and morals of the world
we all live in.
“Ahtisaari worked for peace and reconciliation” , reads
the text of the decision of the Norwegian Nobel Prize
Committee.
Meanwhile, the five experts selected by the Norwegian
parliament could not be unaware of the fact that in
his capacity as a special envoy of the UN General
Secretary since late 2005, moderating negotiations
between Serbia and the leaders of Albanian Kosovo
separatists, the new Nobel Prize winner failed to
broker the signing by Belgrade and Pristina of even a
generalised formal agreement on the province’s status.
In February of 2007 he proposed a plan that aimed at
giving Kosovo independence under international
control.
Belgrade’s authorities were absolutely right to assess
the plan as a direct violation of the UN Security
Council’s Resolution 1244 of June 10, 1999 that
stipulated that the status of Kosovo was to be worked
out taking into account “the commitment of all the
member-states to the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of all Balkan states."
As top level Russian diplomats told me at the time,
“the Ahtisaari plan” was devised by the European Union
and its nominal author had no say in adopting a single
decision without previously consulting Brussels.
And given the EU leadership’s resolve to give Kosovo
independence as early as 2006, Ahtisaari’s proposals
could never form the basis of a compromise agreement.
As a result, on the initiative of the US and EU the
“Ahtisaari plan” was tabled at the UN Security
Council, but after Vitaly Churkin, the standing
Russian ambassador in the United Nations said he would
use the right of veto, the voting was cancelled.
Nevertheless, ignoring Russia’s and Serbia’s strong
opposition to “the Ahtisaari plan”, Pristina and
Brussels continued to support it.
After Albanian separatists unilaterally declared
Kosovo independent in February of 2008, its provisions
became the basis of the province’s Constitution, and
soon after that the EU got down to the business of
installing its mission in Kosovo, another provision of
the ”Ahtisaari plan” that the UN never approved.
At present, Kosovo’s independence, nurtured by Martti
Ahtisaari, was recognised by only 50 countries out of
the 192 UN member states.
Incidentally, Norway recognised Kosovo’s independence
on March 28, 2008. Possibly, to give the Nobel Peace
Prize to the “architect” of the Kosovo independence
was exactly a way of making the unilateral illegal act
look weightier to provoke other countries to waste no
time recognising Kosovo’s independence.
As for Serbs in Kosovo, on June 28 they convened a
rally (scupschina) of Serbian communities in Kosovo
Mitrovica, where they declared their refusal to honour
Pristina’s decisions and preparedness to continue
their straight-out fight for safeguarding Serbia’s
jurisdiction of Kosovo.
That was the “reconciliation” that Martti Ahtisaari
brought to the long-suffering Kosovo land!
But who could expect that he would come up with some
compromise solutions after his statement as the UN
General Secretary’s Special Envoy that “Serbs as a
nation were to blame for the Kosovo crisis”, after
which Vojislav Kostunica’s government demanded that
the UN General Secretary withdraw his ungirdled
messenger.
However, the follow-up developments indicated that the
UN officialdom, too, shared Ahtisaari’s anti-Serbian
views.
Apparently, with an eye to at least saving its face,
the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee stated that the
prize was awarded to Martti Ahtissari “for a totality”
of peace-keeping activities, including Kosovo,
assistance to Namibia’s gaining independence in
1989-1990, as well as his role in organising in 2005
negotiations between the government of Indonesia and
separatists in the Aceh province that resulted in
signing a peaceful agreement.
Nevertheless, allusions of the sort can hardly
disguise the politically biased decision of the Nobel
Prize Committee.
Russia should also learn its lesson from the fact of
awarding a Nobel Peace Prize to one of the fiercest
persecutors of Serbs.
Martti Ahtisaari’s $1 million is the price of
trampling on the pre-2008 world order based on the UN
Charter and the Helsinki Final Act with their
guarantees of equal rights and territorial integrity
of states.
From now on, similar to the developments of the 19th
century, there are other principles to rule the world
on.
Russia’s task is to secure itself a place to suit its
genuine interests and influence.
The act of the recognition of the independence of
South Ossetia and Abkhazia on August 26 is an
indication that the right option was made.
18 years before Martti Ahtisaari, in 1990 the Nobel
Peace Prize was awarded to the grave-digger of the
Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev.
Russia no longer needs either blood-stained Nobel
Prizes or crooked brokers. It is again capable of
acting independently in the Balkans, the Caucasus and
other regions of its vital interests.
The Guardian
October 18, 2008
Kosovo state inevitable, says Nobel laureate
Martti Ahtisaari, the former Finnish president awarded
the Nobel peace prize for his mediation in Kosovo and
a string of other conflicts around the world, said
yesterday that Serbia would have no option but to
accept the new Balkan state.
In his first interview with a British newspaper since
being named Nobel laureate last week, Ahtisaari
shrugged off the apparent setback to his work in
Kosovo inflicted when Serbia succeeded in having its
declaration of independence referred to the
international court of justice.
The 71-year old also argued that it did not matter
that the former Serbian province had been recognised
so far by only 51 of the world's 192 countries. That
was less important than the economic clout of the
nations that did recognise Kosovo, including the US
and most of western Europe.
....
Ahtisaari was commissioned by the UN in 2005 to find a
compromise solution for Kosovo's status as a way of
ending the deadlock that followed the 1999 war and
Nato intervention.
His plan for supervised independence. ..was rejected by
Serbia and Russia last year. However, Kosovo - with
western backing - declared independence in February.
Belgrade has vowed never to accept Kosovo's
sovereignty, but Ahtisaari said Serbia would have to
relent if it wanted eventual European membership. "You
can't be poking the EU in the eye [while] saying you
want to join EU," he said.
He sent private messages to all parties soon after
taking his role as mediator, that Kosovo's secession
was inevitable. "[I said] in light of what had
happened in Kosovo, the return of Kosovo to Serbia is
not a viable option," Ahtisaari said. "So since March
2006 no one should have had any illusion what my plan
was going to be."
Russia furiously opposed Kosovo's independence, and
pointed to it as justification of its own recognition
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, pro-Russian enclaves in
Georgia. Ahtisaari rejected the parallel.
"We did Kosovo within the UN framework. In Georgia
there was not even an attempt," he argued. "You cannot
go into an independent country and do whatever you
like. Even if you are Russia."
....
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)