Informazione
(francais / italiano)
Intellettuali di servizio: Alain Finkielkraut
"Non sono cattivi... sono musulmani"
ALAIN FINKIELKRAUT, saggista e giornalista francese di origine ebraica,
è tristemente noto a chi si è occupato in questi anni della crisi
jugoslava come uno di quegli intellettuali europei che con più
accanimento si sono adoperati per la secessione croata prima e per
quella bosniaca poi, ed a favore della uccisione della Jugoslavia
multietnica (intenzionalmente e propagandisticamente confusa con la
"Grande Serbia").
Finkielkraut è solo uno degli esponenti della agguerrita squadra dei
vecchi "nuovi filosofi" francesi distintisi per le medesime posizioni
antijugoslave: tra costoro ricordiamo anche Bernard HENRI-LEVI, André
GLUCKSMANN (particolarmente vicino ai radicali italiani ed alle loro
posizioni guerrafondaie), ed il loro amico Daniel COHEN-BENDIT,
l'"ebreo francese" degli slogan del '68 parigino, oggi europarlamentare
dei "Verdi" tedeschi favorevole agli interventi out of area
dell'esercito della Grande Germania riunificata.
Alain Finkielkraut all'inizio degli anni Novanta chiedeva
provocatoriamente: "Come si può essere croati oggi?". Le sue posizioni
etno-differenzialiste (anti-jugoslave) e razziste (anti-serbe) sono
state raccolte in Dispatches from the Balkan War and other writings
(University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1999 - una parte già
pubblicato in francese sotto il titolo: Comment peut-on être croate?,
Gallimard, Paris, 1992).
Più recentemente Finkielkraut ha pubblicato libri, articoli ed
interviste a ripetizione in cui articola la sua filosofia
"dell'appartenenza", basata sulla rivalutazione delle identità
etno-tribali e nazional-religiose, fino ad impegnarsi attivamente
all'interno della corrente revisionista che in Francia rivaluta la
Repubblica di Vichy, collaborazionista del nazismo, a partire dal suo
versante "culturale". Offendendo in questa maniera la sua stessa
origine ebraica nell'appoggio agli antisemiti di Petain dopo quelli di
Tudjman e di Izetbegovic.
Negli ultimi mesi Finkielkraut ha definitivamente gettato la maschera,
pubblicando prese di posizione esplicite contro i cittadini francesi di
religione islamica - proprio lui che ha tanto calorosamente, benché
strumentalmente, appoggiato i secessionisti di Izetbegovic... Posizioni
cariche di pregiudizi mutuati dalla propaganda dei neocons
statunitensi, delle oriane nostrane (Fallaci) e dei teorici sionisti
della guerra globale preventiva.
L'incitamento all'odio razziale-religioso di Finkielkraut raggiunge il
suo culmine oggi, con la pubblicazione sul supplemento settimanale del
18/11/2005 del quotidiano israeliano Haaretz di una lunga intervista
intitolata inequivocabilmente "Non sono cattivi, sono musulmani", nella
quale spiega il fenomeno della esplosione delle banlieues in Francia
sposando le tesi segregazioniste dello "scontro di civiltà".
(a cura di Italo Slavo)
-----
"Ils ne sont pas malheureux, ils sont musulmans"
Quand Finkelkraut, le philosophe de la république se lâche... dans la
presse israélienne
Extraits d'un reportage de 6 pages dans le supplément hebdomadaire de
Haaretz daté du 18 novembre - Pour contribution au débat : traduction
de l'hébreu - extraits - Michel Warschawski - Michèle Sibony
N.B. Tous les passages en italiques sont des traducteurs
Titre : Ils ne sont pas malheureux, ils sont musulmans
Chapeau : Le philosophe juif Alain Finkelkraut, l'un des plus célèbres
intellectuels francais et porte drapeau de la guerre contre le nouvel
antisémitisme ne peut pas entendre parler maintenant de racisme
français, de pauvreté et d'exclusion. Qu'on le laisse tranquille avec
ce discours mensonger. De son point de vue tout est clair, malgré tout
ce que la France a fait pour eux les fils d'immigrés islamiques la
haïssent. C'est comme çà dans leur culture. Et les belles âmes
bourgeoises et les écoles ramollies les encouragent. Et la France s'en
va au diable.
Les réponses de Finkelkraut ont visiblement étonné les journalistes qui
l'ont interrogé à Paris. Ils signalent que« pourtant elles n'émanent
pas du front national mais de la bouche d'un philosophe qu'on
considérait autrefois comme l'un des porte parole de la gauche
française, et l'un des philosophes qui ont mûri dans la révolte des
étudiants de mai 68 » Ils précisent d'entrée de jeu que AF lors de ses
réponses insiste et revient régulièrement sur le fait que « il ne peut
plus dire (cela ) en France », « on ne peut pas dire çà en France »
« il est peut être dangereux de dire çà en France ».
Episode 1 - sur les émeutes en France :
Question : Dans la presse française les émeutes dans les banlieues sont
perçues surtout comme un problème économique, une réaction violente à
une situation de pauvreté dure et de discrimination , alors qu'en
Israël on a plutôt tendance à penser que l'origine de cette violence
est religieuse ou du moins ethnique. C'est-à-dire à voir en elle un
élément du combat islamique. Comment vous situez vous par rapport à ces
différentes positions ?
Réponse : En France on voudrait bien réduire les émeutes à leur niveau
social. Voir en elles une révolte de jeunes de banlieues contre leur
situation, la discrimination dont ils souffrent et contre le chômage.
Le problème est que la plupart de ces jeunes sont noirs ou arabes et
s'identifient à l'Islam. Il y a en effet en France d'autres émigrants
en situation difficile, chinois, vietnamiens portugais, et ils ne
participent pas aux émeutes. Il est donc clair qu'il s'agit d'une
révolte à caractère ethnico-religieux.
Q. Et d'où vient-elle ? Est ce une réponse des Arabes et des Noirs au
racisme dont ils sont victimes ?
R. Je ne le pense pas, parce que cette violence a été précédée de
signes annonciateurs très préoccupants que l' on ne peut réduire à une
simple réaction au racisme français. Prenons par exemple les événements
qui ont accompagné il y a quelques années le match de football
France-Algérie, ce match s'est déroulé à paris au stade de France, on
nous dit que l'équipe de France est adorée par tous parce qu'elle est «
black blanc beur », en fait aujourd'hui elle est black black black ce
qui fait ricaner toute l 'Europe. Si on fait une telle remarque en
France on va en prison mais c'est quand même intéressant que l'équipe
de France de football soit composée presque uniquement de joueurs
noirs. Quoiqu'il en soit cette Equipe est perçue comme le symbole d'une
société multi ethnique, ouverte etc...Le public dans le stade, des
jeunes d'origine algérienne, ont hué pendant tout le match cette même
équipe. Ils ont même hué la Marseillaise et le match a du être
interrompu quand les jeunes ont envahi le terrain avec des drapeaux
algériens.
Et il y a aussi les paroles des chansons de rap, des paroles très
préoccupantes, de véritables appels à la révolte, je crois qu'il y en a
un qui s'appelle docteur R qui chante « je pisse sur la France je pisse
sur de Gaulle » etc... ce sont des déclarations très violentes de haine
de la France. Toute cette haine et cette violence s'expriment
maintenant dans les émeutes, y voir une réponse au racisme français
c'est être aveugle à une haine plus large : La haine de l'occident qui
est responsable de tous les crimes. La France découvre cela aujourd'hui.
Q. Cela signifie d'après vous que ces émeutes ne sont pas orientées
contre la France mais contre tout l'Occident ?
R. Non, elles sont orientées contre la France, comme ancienne puissance
coloniale, contre la France, pays européen. Contre la France avec sa
tradition chrétienne, ou judéo chrétienne.
(.../...)
Q. Est ce que vous pensez que la source de cette haine envers l
'Occident parmi les français qui participent à ces émeutes est dans la
religion , dans l'islam ?
R. sur ce sujet il faut être clair, c'est une question très difficile
et il faut essayer de garder un langage de vérité. On a tendance à
avoir peur du langage de vérité, pour des raisons « nobles ». On
préfère dire « les jeunes » que « noirs » ou « arabes ». Mais on ne
peut sacrifier la vérité quelques soient les nobles raisons. Il faut
bien entendu éviter les généralisations : Il ne s'agit pas de tous les
noirs et de tous les arabes, mais d'une partie des noirs et des arabes.
Et évidemment la religion, non pas comme religion, mais comme ancre
d'identité joue un rôle. La religion telle qu'elle apparaît sur
internet et les chaînes de télévision arabes, sert d'ancre
d'identification pour certains de ces jeunes. Contrairement à d'autres,
moi je n'ai pas parlé d'Intifada des banlieues, et je ne pense pas
qu'il faille utiliser ce terme. J'ai pourtant découvert qu'eux aussi
envoyaient en première ligne de la lutte les plus jeunes, et vous en
Israël vous connaissez çà, on envoie devant les plus jeunes parce qu'on
ne peut pas les mettre en prison lorsqu'ils sont arrêtés. Quoiqu'il en
soit ici il n'y a pas d'attentats et on se trouve à une autre étape :
je pense qu'il s'agit de l'étape du pogrom anti républicain. Il y a des
gens en France qui haïssent la France comme république.
Q. Mais alors pourquoi ? Pour quelle raison ?
R Pourquoi est ce que le monde arabo-musulman en partie du moins a
déclaré la guerre à l'occident ? La république est la version française
de l'Europe. Eux et ceux qui les justifient disent que cela provient de
la fracture coloniale. D'accord, mais il ne faut pas oublier que
l'intégration des travailleurs arabes en France à l'époque du pouvoir
colonial était beaucoup plus simple. C'est-à-dire que c'est une haine à
retardement, une haine a posteriori. Nous sommes témoins d'une
radicalisation islamique qu'il faut expliquer dans sa totalité avant
d'arriver au cas français, d'une culture qui au lieu de s'occuper de
ses propres problèmes recherche un coupable extérieur. Il est plus
simple de trouver un coupable extérieur. Il est séduisant de se dire
qu'en France tu es exclu et « donnez-moi ! donnez-moi ! »
Cà n'a jamais marché comme cela pour personne et çà ne peut pas marcher.
De l'école en France et des bienfaits du colonialisme
Aux Etats unis également nous sommes témoins de l'islamisation des
noirs. C'est Lewis Farkhan en Amérique qui le premier a dit que les
juifs ont joué un rôle central dans l'esclavagisme. Et le principal
porte parole de cette théologie en France aujourd'hui c'est Dieudonné,
c'est lui qui est aujourd'hui le vrai patron de l'antisémitisme en
France, et non le front national. Mais en France au lieu de combattre
son discours on fait précisément ce qu'il demande : on change
l'enseignement de l'histoire coloniale et de l'histoire de l'esclavage
dans les écoles. On y enseigne aujourd'hui l'histoire coloniale comme
une histoire uniquement négative. On n'enseigne plus que le projet
colonial voulait aussi éduquer, apporter la civilisation aux sauvages.
On ne parle que des tentatives d'exploitation, de domination, et de
pillage. Mais en fait qu'est ce que veut Dieudonné ? Il exige une
« shoah » et pour les arabes et pour les noirs, mais si l'on met la
shoah et l'esclavage sur le même plan alors on est obligé de mentir,
car ce n'était pas une shoah. Et ce n'était pas un crime contre
l'humanité parce que ce n'était pas seulement un crime. C'était quelque
chose d'ambivalent. Ainsi en est-il également de l'esclavage. Il a
commencé bien avant l'Occident. En fait, la spécificité de l'Occident
pour tout ce qui concerne l'esclavage c'est justement tout ce qui
concerne son abolition. L'abolition de l'esclavage est une question
européenne et américaine. Cette vérité là sur l'esclavage il est
maintenant interdit de l'enseigner dans les écoles.
C'est pourquoi tous ces événements là m'attristent beaucoup : non pas
parce qu'ils se sont produits, après tout il fallait être aveugle et
sourd pour ne pas voir qu'ils auraient lieu, mais à cause des
explications qui les accompagnent. Elles sont un coup mortel à la
France que j'ai aimée, et j'ai toujours dit que la vie deviendrait
impossible pour les juifs de France quand la francophobie vaincrait, et
c'est ce qui va se passer. Ce que j'ai dit maintenant les juifs le
comprennent. Tout d'un coup ils regardent autour d'eux et voient tous
les « bobos » qui chantent des louanges aux nouveaux « damnés de la
terre » et se disent : qu'est ce que c'est que ce pays, que lui est il
arrivé ?
Q. Puisqu'il s'agit selon vous d'une offensive islamique, comment
expliquez vous que lors des derniers événements les juifs n'ont pas été
attaqués ?
R. Premièrement on dit qu'une synagogue a été attaquée. Mais je pense
que ce qu'on a vécu c'est un pogrom anti républicain. On nous dit que
ces quartiers sont délaissés et que les gens sont dans la misère. Quel
lien y a-t-il entre la misère et le désespoir et brûler des écoles ? Je
pense qu'aucun juif ne ferait jamais çà. Ce qui unit les juifs -
laïques, religieux, de la Paix Maintenant ou partisans du grand Israël
- c'est un mot, le mot schlule(lieu d'étude)* c'est ce qui nous unit
tous comme juifs. Et j'ai été tout simplement scandalisé de ces actes
qui se sont répétés et encore plus scandalisé par la compréhension
qu'ils ont rencontré en France. On les a traités comme des révoltés
comme des révolutionnaires. C'est la pire des choses qui pouvait
arriver à mon pays et je suis très malheureux. Pourquoi ? Parce que le
seul moyen de surmonter c'est de les obliger à avoir honte. La honte
c'est le début de la morale. Mais au lieu de les pousser à avoir honte,
on leur a donné une légitimité : ils sont « intéressants ». Ils sont
« les damnés de la terre ». Imaginez un instant qu'ils soient blancs
comme à Rostock en Allemagne on dirait immédiatement : le fascisme ne
passera pas. Un arabe qui incendie une école c'est une révolte, un
blanc c'est du fascisme. Je suis daltonien : le mal est le mal, peu
importe sa couleur. Et ce mal là pour le juif que je suis est
totalement inacceptable.
Pire, il y a là une contradiction, car si effectivement ces banlieues
étaient dans une situation de délaissement total, il n'y aurait pas de
salles de sport à incendier, il n'y aurait pas d'écoles et d'autobus.
S'il y a des gymnases des écoles et des autobus, c'est que quelqu'un a
fait un effort. Peut-être insuffisant mais un effort quand même.
Q. Mais pourtant le taux de chômage dans les banlieues est
insupportable, près de 40% des jeunes entre 15 et 25 ans n'ont aucune
chance de trouver un travail ?
R. Revenons un moment à la schule. Lorsque les parents t'envoient à
l'école, est-ce que c'est pour trouver un travail ? Moi on m'a envoyé à
l'école pour apprendre. La culture et l'éducation ont une justification
en elles même. Tu vas à l'école pour apprendre, c'est çà le but de
l'école. Et ces gens qui détruisent des écoles, que disent-ils en
fait ? leur message n'est pas un appel à l'aide ou une exigence de plus
d'écoles ou de meilleures écoles, c'est la volonté de liquider les
intermédiaires entre eux et les objets de leurs désirs. Et quels sont
les objets de leurs désirs c'est simple : l'argent, les marques, et
parfois des filles. C'est pourquoi il est certain que notre société a
sa responsabilité, parce qu'ils veulent tout maintenant et ce qu'ils
veulent c'est l'idéal de la société de consommation. C'est ce qu'ils
voient à la télévision.
schule : mot yiddish qui signifie école , désigne plutôt chez les juifs
ashkénaze de France la synagogue (ndlt)
Non à l'antiracisme
..../... Mais justement le philosophe juif qui lutte contre
l'antisémitisme pour entrer en guerre contre « la guerre antiraciste ».
(fin des commentaires des journalistes)
« Je suis né à paris et suis le fils d'immigrants polonais, mon père a
été déporté de France, ses parents ont été déportés et assassinés à
Auschwitz, mon père est rentré d'Auschwitz en France. Ce pays mérite
notre haine. Ce qu'il a fait à mes parents était beaucoup plus brutal
que ce qu'il a fait aux Africains. Qu'a-t-il fait aux Africains ? Il
n'a fait que du bien. Mon père, il lui a fait vivre l'enfer pendant 5
ans. Et on ne m'a jamais enseigné la haine. Aujourd'hui la haine des
noirs est encore plus forte que celle des arabes.
Q. Mais justement vous qui combattez le racisme antijuif affirmez que
la discrimination et le racisme dont parlent ces jeunes n'existent pas
en réalité ?
R. Bien sûr qu'il y a une discrimination. Et il y a certainement des
Français racistes. Des Français qui n'aiment pas les arabes et les
noirs. Et ils les aimeront encore moins maintenant quand ils prendront
conscience de combien eux même les haïssent. C'est pourquoi cette
discrimination va s'approfondir pour tout ce qui concerne le logement
et aussi le travail.
Imaginez que vous gérez tous deux un restaurant et vous êtes
antiracistes, vous pensez que tous les hommes sont égaux et en plus
vous êtes juifs, c'est-à-dire que pour vous parler d'inégalité entre
les race pose problème, et imaginez qu'un jeune des banlieues vienne
demander un emploi de serveur, il a l'accent des banlieues, vous ne
l'engagerez pas, c'est très simple. Vous ne l'engagerez pas parce que
c'est impossible. Il doit vous représenter, et ceci exige de la
discipline de la politesse et une manière de parler. Et moi je peux
vous dire que même des Français blancs qui copient aujourd'hui les
codes de conduite des banlieues, et cela existe, se heurteront au même
problème exactement. La seule manière de lutter conte la discrimination
est de revenir aux exigences, une éducation sévère, c'est le seul
moyen. Mais cela aussi il est interdit de le dire. Je ne le peux pas.
Ce sont des choses du bon sens auxquelles on préfère le mythe du
« racisme français ». Ce n'est pas juste. Nous vivons aujourd'hui dans
un environnement de « guerre permanente contre le racisme », et il faut
étudier la nature de cet antiracisme. Tout à l'heure j'ai entendu à la
radio quelqu'un qui s'opposait à la décision du ministre de l'intérieur
Sarkozi d'expulser quiconque n'a pas la citoyenneté française a
participé aux émeutes et a été arrêté. Et qu'a-t-il dit ? Qu'il
s'agissait d'une « épuration ethnique ». J'ai combattu pendant la
guerre de Yougoslavie contre l'épuration ethnique des musulmans en
Bosnie. Aucune organisation musulmane française ne s'est jointe à nous,
ils ne se sont réveillés que pour soutenir les Palestiniens. Et
maintenant on parle d'épuration ethnique ? Il n'y a pas eu un seul mort
pendant ces émeutes, en fait si, il y en a eu deux mais c'était un
accident. On ne les poursuivait pas mais ils se sont enfuis et cachés
dans un transformateur électrique malgré les panneaux d'avertissement
qui étaient énormes.
Mais je pense que l'idée généreuse de guerre contre le racisme se
transforme petit à petit monstrueusement en une idéologie mensongère.
L'antiracisme sera au vingt et unième siècle ce qu'a été le communisme
au vingtième. Aujourd'hui les juifs sont attaqués au nom du discours
antiraciste : la barrière de séparation, « sionisme égal racisme », la
même chose en France. Il faut se garder de l'idéologie de
l'antiracisme. Bien sûr il y a un problème de discrimination, il y a un
réflexe xénophobe c'est vrai, mais présenter les événements comme une
réaction au racisme est tout à fait mensonger, tout à fait mensonger.
Q. Que pensez-vous des moyens qu'utilise le gouvernement français pour
mettre fin à la violence, l'état d'urgence, le couvre feu ?
R .Mais c'est tellement normal ! Ce que nous avons vécu est terrible.
Il faut comprendre que ceux qui ont le moins de pouvoir dans la société
sont les autorités, les gouvernants. C'est vrai ils sont responsables
du maintien de l'ordre, et c'est important parce que sans eux il y
aurait eu une autodéfense, et les gens auraient tiré. Alors ils
maintiennent l'ordre et font cela avec une prudence extraordinaire, il
faut les saluer pour cela. En mai 68, il y avait un mouvement tout à
fait innocent comparé à celui d'aujourd'hui et il y a eu une violence
policière. Ici on jette des cocktails Molotov et on tire à balles
réelles. Et il n'y a eu aucun cas de violence policière. (note des
journalistes : depuis l'interview plusieurs policiers ont été arrêtés
suspectés de violence) Il n'y a aucun précédent. Comment maintenir
l'ordre ? Par des moyens dictés par le bon sens,que soit dit en passant
73% des français soutiennent d'après une enquête du journal le
Parisien. Mais je pense qu'il est trop tard pour provoquer chez eux la
honte, parce que à la télévision, à la radio et dans les journaux, ou
du moins dans la plupart d'entre eux, on présente aux émeutiers un
miroir embellissant. Ce sont des gens « intéressants », on flatte leur
souffrance et on comprend leur désespoir. En plus il y a la grande
perversion du spectacle. On brûle des voitures pour qu'on puisse le
voir à la télévision, cela leur permet de se sentir « importants » de
sentir qu'ils vivent dans un quartier important, cette course après le
spectacle doit être analysée, elle produit des effets tout à fait
pervers. Et la perversion du spectacle est accompagnée de commentaires
tout à fait pervers.
..../....
Si cela ne leur plaît pas qu'ils rentrent chez eux :
AF. On dit que le modèle républicain s'est effondré dans ces émeutes.
Mais le modèle multiculturel ne va pas mieux. Ni en hollande ni en
Angleterre. A Bradford et à Birmingham aussi ont eu lieu des émeutes
sur fond racial. Deuxièmement l'école républicaine, le symbole du
modèle républicain n'existe plus depuis longtemps. Je connais l'école
républicaine j'y ai étudié. C'était une institution avec des exigences
sévères, austère, assez antipathique, qui avait construit de hautes
murailles pour se protéger du bruit de l'extérieur.
Trente années de réformes stupides ont changé ce paysage. L'école
républicaine a été remplacée par « la communauté éducative »,
horizontale et non verticale, on a révisé à la baisse les programmes
scolaires, le bruit de l'extérieur est entré, la société est rentrée
dans l'école. Ce qui signifie que ce que nous voyons aujourd'hui c'est
en fait l'échec du modèle post républicain « sympa ». Le problème avec
ce modèle c'est qu'il se nourrit de ses propres échecs : chaque fiasco
est une raison pour le rendre encore plus extrême. L'école sera encore
plus « sympa ». En fait, face à ce que nous voyons, le minimum de ce
que nous devons exiger c'est la sévérité et plus d'exigence. Sinon on
aura bientôt des « cours de délinquance ».
Ceci est une évolution caractéristique de la démocratie. La démocratie
comme processus ainsi que l'a bien montré Tocqueville,nesupporte pas
l'horizontalité. En démocratie il est difficile de supporter des
espaces non démocratiques. Tout doit être démocratique dans la
démocratie. Mais l'école ne peut pas être ainsi. Elle ne le peut pas.
L'asymétrie saute pourtant aux yeux : entre celui sait et celui qui ne
sait pas, entre celui qui apporte avec lui un monde, et celui qui est
nouveau dans ce monde. Le processus démocratique a provoqué une
délégitimité de cette asymétrie. C'est un phénomène général dans le
monde occidental, mais en France il prend une forme plus pathétique,
parce que l'une des caractéristiques de la France était son éducation
sévère. La France a été construite autour de son école.
Q. Beaucoup de jeunes disent que le problème est qu'ils ne se sentent
pas Français, que la France ne les traite pas comme des Français.
R. Le problème est qu'il faut qu'ils se considèrent eux même comme
Français. Si les immigrants disent : « les Français » quand ils partent
des blancs, alors on est perdu. Si leur identité se trouve ailleurs et
ils sont en France par intérêt alors on est perdu. Je dois reconnaître
que les juifs aussi commencent à utiliser cette expression, je les
entends dire « les Français » et je ne peux pas supporter çà. Je leur
dis « si pour vous la France n'est qu'une question d'intérêt et votre
identité est le judaïsme alors soyez cohérents avec vous-même vous avez
Israël ». C'est effectivement un grand problème : nous vivons dans une
société post nationale dans laquelle pour tout le monde l'Etat n'est
qu'une question d'intérêt , une grande compagnie d'assurance, il s'agit
là d'une évolution très grave.
Mais s'ils ont une carte d'identité française ils sont Français et s'il
n'en ont pas ils ont le droit de s'en aller. Ils disent « je ne suis
pas Français, je vis en France, et en plus ma situation économique est
difficile. » Personne ne les retient de force ici, et c'est précisément
là que se trouve le début du mensonge. Parce que s'ils étaient victimes
de l'exclusion et de la pauvreté ils iraient ailleurs. Mais ils savent
très bien que partout ailleurs, et en particulier dans les pays d'où
ils viennent, leur situation serait encore plus difficile pour tout ce
qui concerne leurs droits et leurs chances.
Q. Mais le problème aujourd'hui est l'intégration dans la société
française de jeunes gens et de jeunes filles de la troisième
génération, et non d'une vague de nouveaux immigrants. Ils sont nés en
France et ils n'ont nulle part ailleurs où aller.
R. Ce sentiment qu'ils ne sont pas Français ce n'est pas l'école qui le
leur donne ; Il y a ici des écoles partout. En France comme vous le
savez peut-être, on inscrit les enfants dans les écoles, même s'ils se
trouvent illégalement dans le pays. Il y a ici quelque chose de
surprenant de paradoxal. L'école pourrait très bien appeler la police
puisque l'enfant se trouve en France illégalement, et malgré tout
l'école ne prend pas en considération leur illégalité.
Il y a des écoles là-bas, et il y a des ordinateurs partout. C'est là
que vient le moment où il faut faire un effort, et ceux qui font les
émeutes ne sont pas prêts à faire cet effort. Jamais.
Prenez par exemple la langue, vous dites qu'ils sont d'une troisième
génération, alors pourquoi est-ce qu'ils parlent le français comme ils
le parlent. C'est un français égorgé, l'accent, les mots, la grammaire.
C'est à cause de l'école ? A cause des profs. ?
Q. Puisque les arabes et les noirs apparemment n'ont pas l'intention de
quitter la France, comment pensez-vous traiter le problème ?
R. Ce problème est le problème de tous les pays européens. En Hollande
on est confronté à ce problème depuis l'assassinat de Théo Van Gogh. La
question n'est pas quel est le meilleur modèle d'intégration, mais la
possibilité même d'une intégration pour des gens qui vous haïssent.
Q. Et que va-t-il se passer en France ?
R. je ne sais pas je suis désespéré. A cause des émeutes et à cause de
leur accompagnement médiatique. Ils vont se calmer, mais qu'est ce que
çà veut dire ? Ce ne sera pas un retour au calme. Ce sera un retour à
la violence habituelle. Alors ils vont arrêter parce qu'il y a tout de
même un couvre feu, et les étrangers ont peur, et les dealers veulent
reprendre les affaires. Mais ils jouiront du soutien et de
l'encouragement à leur violence antirépublicaine, par le biais du
discours repoussant de l'autocritique sur leur esclavage et le
colonialisme. C'est cela, ce n'est pas un retour au calme mais à la
violence de routine.
Q. Alors votre conception du monde n'a aucune chance ?
R. Non. J'ai perdu. Pour tout ce qui concerne la lutte sur l'école,
j'ai perdu. C'est intéressant, parce que quand je parle comme je parle
beaucoup de gens sont d'accord avec moi. Beaucoup. Mais il y a quelque
chose en France, une espèce de déni qui provient des « bobos » des
sociologues et des assistants sociaux, et personne n'a le courage de
dire autre chose. Ce combat est perdu, je suis resté en arrière.
Dror Mishani et Aurélia Samothraiz
Traduction de toutes les questions et réponses du philosophe. La
parties non traduites sont des passages de commentaires des
journalistes qui semblent plutôt surpris de ce qu'ils entendent.
Titre sur la couverture du supplément sous la photo de A.
Finkielkraut : « Vous les Israéliens, vous me comprenez. »
(ndlt)
[source: melusine @ nerim.net]
Intellettuali di servizio: Alain Finkielkraut
"Non sono cattivi... sono musulmani"
ALAIN FINKIELKRAUT, saggista e giornalista francese di origine ebraica,
è tristemente noto a chi si è occupato in questi anni della crisi
jugoslava come uno di quegli intellettuali europei che con più
accanimento si sono adoperati per la secessione croata prima e per
quella bosniaca poi, ed a favore della uccisione della Jugoslavia
multietnica (intenzionalmente e propagandisticamente confusa con la
"Grande Serbia").
Finkielkraut è solo uno degli esponenti della agguerrita squadra dei
vecchi "nuovi filosofi" francesi distintisi per le medesime posizioni
antijugoslave: tra costoro ricordiamo anche Bernard HENRI-LEVI, André
GLUCKSMANN (particolarmente vicino ai radicali italiani ed alle loro
posizioni guerrafondaie), ed il loro amico Daniel COHEN-BENDIT,
l'"ebreo francese" degli slogan del '68 parigino, oggi europarlamentare
dei "Verdi" tedeschi favorevole agli interventi out of area
dell'esercito della Grande Germania riunificata.
Alain Finkielkraut all'inizio degli anni Novanta chiedeva
provocatoriamente: "Come si può essere croati oggi?". Le sue posizioni
etno-differenzialiste (anti-jugoslave) e razziste (anti-serbe) sono
state raccolte in Dispatches from the Balkan War and other writings
(University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1999 - una parte già
pubblicato in francese sotto il titolo: Comment peut-on être croate?,
Gallimard, Paris, 1992).
Più recentemente Finkielkraut ha pubblicato libri, articoli ed
interviste a ripetizione in cui articola la sua filosofia
"dell'appartenenza", basata sulla rivalutazione delle identità
etno-tribali e nazional-religiose, fino ad impegnarsi attivamente
all'interno della corrente revisionista che in Francia rivaluta la
Repubblica di Vichy, collaborazionista del nazismo, a partire dal suo
versante "culturale". Offendendo in questa maniera la sua stessa
origine ebraica nell'appoggio agli antisemiti di Petain dopo quelli di
Tudjman e di Izetbegovic.
Negli ultimi mesi Finkielkraut ha definitivamente gettato la maschera,
pubblicando prese di posizione esplicite contro i cittadini francesi di
religione islamica - proprio lui che ha tanto calorosamente, benché
strumentalmente, appoggiato i secessionisti di Izetbegovic... Posizioni
cariche di pregiudizi mutuati dalla propaganda dei neocons
statunitensi, delle oriane nostrane (Fallaci) e dei teorici sionisti
della guerra globale preventiva.
L'incitamento all'odio razziale-religioso di Finkielkraut raggiunge il
suo culmine oggi, con la pubblicazione sul supplemento settimanale del
18/11/2005 del quotidiano israeliano Haaretz di una lunga intervista
intitolata inequivocabilmente "Non sono cattivi, sono musulmani", nella
quale spiega il fenomeno della esplosione delle banlieues in Francia
sposando le tesi segregazioniste dello "scontro di civiltà".
(a cura di Italo Slavo)
-----
"Ils ne sont pas malheureux, ils sont musulmans"
Quand Finkelkraut, le philosophe de la république se lâche... dans la
presse israélienne
Extraits d'un reportage de 6 pages dans le supplément hebdomadaire de
Haaretz daté du 18 novembre - Pour contribution au débat : traduction
de l'hébreu - extraits - Michel Warschawski - Michèle Sibony
N.B. Tous les passages en italiques sont des traducteurs
Titre : Ils ne sont pas malheureux, ils sont musulmans
Chapeau : Le philosophe juif Alain Finkelkraut, l'un des plus célèbres
intellectuels francais et porte drapeau de la guerre contre le nouvel
antisémitisme ne peut pas entendre parler maintenant de racisme
français, de pauvreté et d'exclusion. Qu'on le laisse tranquille avec
ce discours mensonger. De son point de vue tout est clair, malgré tout
ce que la France a fait pour eux les fils d'immigrés islamiques la
haïssent. C'est comme çà dans leur culture. Et les belles âmes
bourgeoises et les écoles ramollies les encouragent. Et la France s'en
va au diable.
Les réponses de Finkelkraut ont visiblement étonné les journalistes qui
l'ont interrogé à Paris. Ils signalent que« pourtant elles n'émanent
pas du front national mais de la bouche d'un philosophe qu'on
considérait autrefois comme l'un des porte parole de la gauche
française, et l'un des philosophes qui ont mûri dans la révolte des
étudiants de mai 68 » Ils précisent d'entrée de jeu que AF lors de ses
réponses insiste et revient régulièrement sur le fait que « il ne peut
plus dire (cela ) en France », « on ne peut pas dire çà en France »
« il est peut être dangereux de dire çà en France ».
Episode 1 - sur les émeutes en France :
Question : Dans la presse française les émeutes dans les banlieues sont
perçues surtout comme un problème économique, une réaction violente à
une situation de pauvreté dure et de discrimination , alors qu'en
Israël on a plutôt tendance à penser que l'origine de cette violence
est religieuse ou du moins ethnique. C'est-à-dire à voir en elle un
élément du combat islamique. Comment vous situez vous par rapport à ces
différentes positions ?
Réponse : En France on voudrait bien réduire les émeutes à leur niveau
social. Voir en elles une révolte de jeunes de banlieues contre leur
situation, la discrimination dont ils souffrent et contre le chômage.
Le problème est que la plupart de ces jeunes sont noirs ou arabes et
s'identifient à l'Islam. Il y a en effet en France d'autres émigrants
en situation difficile, chinois, vietnamiens portugais, et ils ne
participent pas aux émeutes. Il est donc clair qu'il s'agit d'une
révolte à caractère ethnico-religieux.
Q. Et d'où vient-elle ? Est ce une réponse des Arabes et des Noirs au
racisme dont ils sont victimes ?
R. Je ne le pense pas, parce que cette violence a été précédée de
signes annonciateurs très préoccupants que l' on ne peut réduire à une
simple réaction au racisme français. Prenons par exemple les événements
qui ont accompagné il y a quelques années le match de football
France-Algérie, ce match s'est déroulé à paris au stade de France, on
nous dit que l'équipe de France est adorée par tous parce qu'elle est «
black blanc beur », en fait aujourd'hui elle est black black black ce
qui fait ricaner toute l 'Europe. Si on fait une telle remarque en
France on va en prison mais c'est quand même intéressant que l'équipe
de France de football soit composée presque uniquement de joueurs
noirs. Quoiqu'il en soit cette Equipe est perçue comme le symbole d'une
société multi ethnique, ouverte etc...Le public dans le stade, des
jeunes d'origine algérienne, ont hué pendant tout le match cette même
équipe. Ils ont même hué la Marseillaise et le match a du être
interrompu quand les jeunes ont envahi le terrain avec des drapeaux
algériens.
Et il y a aussi les paroles des chansons de rap, des paroles très
préoccupantes, de véritables appels à la révolte, je crois qu'il y en a
un qui s'appelle docteur R qui chante « je pisse sur la France je pisse
sur de Gaulle » etc... ce sont des déclarations très violentes de haine
de la France. Toute cette haine et cette violence s'expriment
maintenant dans les émeutes, y voir une réponse au racisme français
c'est être aveugle à une haine plus large : La haine de l'occident qui
est responsable de tous les crimes. La France découvre cela aujourd'hui.
Q. Cela signifie d'après vous que ces émeutes ne sont pas orientées
contre la France mais contre tout l'Occident ?
R. Non, elles sont orientées contre la France, comme ancienne puissance
coloniale, contre la France, pays européen. Contre la France avec sa
tradition chrétienne, ou judéo chrétienne.
(.../...)
Q. Est ce que vous pensez que la source de cette haine envers l
'Occident parmi les français qui participent à ces émeutes est dans la
religion , dans l'islam ?
R. sur ce sujet il faut être clair, c'est une question très difficile
et il faut essayer de garder un langage de vérité. On a tendance à
avoir peur du langage de vérité, pour des raisons « nobles ». On
préfère dire « les jeunes » que « noirs » ou « arabes ». Mais on ne
peut sacrifier la vérité quelques soient les nobles raisons. Il faut
bien entendu éviter les généralisations : Il ne s'agit pas de tous les
noirs et de tous les arabes, mais d'une partie des noirs et des arabes.
Et évidemment la religion, non pas comme religion, mais comme ancre
d'identité joue un rôle. La religion telle qu'elle apparaît sur
internet et les chaînes de télévision arabes, sert d'ancre
d'identification pour certains de ces jeunes. Contrairement à d'autres,
moi je n'ai pas parlé d'Intifada des banlieues, et je ne pense pas
qu'il faille utiliser ce terme. J'ai pourtant découvert qu'eux aussi
envoyaient en première ligne de la lutte les plus jeunes, et vous en
Israël vous connaissez çà, on envoie devant les plus jeunes parce qu'on
ne peut pas les mettre en prison lorsqu'ils sont arrêtés. Quoiqu'il en
soit ici il n'y a pas d'attentats et on se trouve à une autre étape :
je pense qu'il s'agit de l'étape du pogrom anti républicain. Il y a des
gens en France qui haïssent la France comme république.
Q. Mais alors pourquoi ? Pour quelle raison ?
R Pourquoi est ce que le monde arabo-musulman en partie du moins a
déclaré la guerre à l'occident ? La république est la version française
de l'Europe. Eux et ceux qui les justifient disent que cela provient de
la fracture coloniale. D'accord, mais il ne faut pas oublier que
l'intégration des travailleurs arabes en France à l'époque du pouvoir
colonial était beaucoup plus simple. C'est-à-dire que c'est une haine à
retardement, une haine a posteriori. Nous sommes témoins d'une
radicalisation islamique qu'il faut expliquer dans sa totalité avant
d'arriver au cas français, d'une culture qui au lieu de s'occuper de
ses propres problèmes recherche un coupable extérieur. Il est plus
simple de trouver un coupable extérieur. Il est séduisant de se dire
qu'en France tu es exclu et « donnez-moi ! donnez-moi ! »
Cà n'a jamais marché comme cela pour personne et çà ne peut pas marcher.
De l'école en France et des bienfaits du colonialisme
Aux Etats unis également nous sommes témoins de l'islamisation des
noirs. C'est Lewis Farkhan en Amérique qui le premier a dit que les
juifs ont joué un rôle central dans l'esclavagisme. Et le principal
porte parole de cette théologie en France aujourd'hui c'est Dieudonné,
c'est lui qui est aujourd'hui le vrai patron de l'antisémitisme en
France, et non le front national. Mais en France au lieu de combattre
son discours on fait précisément ce qu'il demande : on change
l'enseignement de l'histoire coloniale et de l'histoire de l'esclavage
dans les écoles. On y enseigne aujourd'hui l'histoire coloniale comme
une histoire uniquement négative. On n'enseigne plus que le projet
colonial voulait aussi éduquer, apporter la civilisation aux sauvages.
On ne parle que des tentatives d'exploitation, de domination, et de
pillage. Mais en fait qu'est ce que veut Dieudonné ? Il exige une
« shoah » et pour les arabes et pour les noirs, mais si l'on met la
shoah et l'esclavage sur le même plan alors on est obligé de mentir,
car ce n'était pas une shoah. Et ce n'était pas un crime contre
l'humanité parce que ce n'était pas seulement un crime. C'était quelque
chose d'ambivalent. Ainsi en est-il également de l'esclavage. Il a
commencé bien avant l'Occident. En fait, la spécificité de l'Occident
pour tout ce qui concerne l'esclavage c'est justement tout ce qui
concerne son abolition. L'abolition de l'esclavage est une question
européenne et américaine. Cette vérité là sur l'esclavage il est
maintenant interdit de l'enseigner dans les écoles.
C'est pourquoi tous ces événements là m'attristent beaucoup : non pas
parce qu'ils se sont produits, après tout il fallait être aveugle et
sourd pour ne pas voir qu'ils auraient lieu, mais à cause des
explications qui les accompagnent. Elles sont un coup mortel à la
France que j'ai aimée, et j'ai toujours dit que la vie deviendrait
impossible pour les juifs de France quand la francophobie vaincrait, et
c'est ce qui va se passer. Ce que j'ai dit maintenant les juifs le
comprennent. Tout d'un coup ils regardent autour d'eux et voient tous
les « bobos » qui chantent des louanges aux nouveaux « damnés de la
terre » et se disent : qu'est ce que c'est que ce pays, que lui est il
arrivé ?
Q. Puisqu'il s'agit selon vous d'une offensive islamique, comment
expliquez vous que lors des derniers événements les juifs n'ont pas été
attaqués ?
R. Premièrement on dit qu'une synagogue a été attaquée. Mais je pense
que ce qu'on a vécu c'est un pogrom anti républicain. On nous dit que
ces quartiers sont délaissés et que les gens sont dans la misère. Quel
lien y a-t-il entre la misère et le désespoir et brûler des écoles ? Je
pense qu'aucun juif ne ferait jamais çà. Ce qui unit les juifs -
laïques, religieux, de la Paix Maintenant ou partisans du grand Israël
- c'est un mot, le mot schlule(lieu d'étude)* c'est ce qui nous unit
tous comme juifs. Et j'ai été tout simplement scandalisé de ces actes
qui se sont répétés et encore plus scandalisé par la compréhension
qu'ils ont rencontré en France. On les a traités comme des révoltés
comme des révolutionnaires. C'est la pire des choses qui pouvait
arriver à mon pays et je suis très malheureux. Pourquoi ? Parce que le
seul moyen de surmonter c'est de les obliger à avoir honte. La honte
c'est le début de la morale. Mais au lieu de les pousser à avoir honte,
on leur a donné une légitimité : ils sont « intéressants ». Ils sont
« les damnés de la terre ». Imaginez un instant qu'ils soient blancs
comme à Rostock en Allemagne on dirait immédiatement : le fascisme ne
passera pas. Un arabe qui incendie une école c'est une révolte, un
blanc c'est du fascisme. Je suis daltonien : le mal est le mal, peu
importe sa couleur. Et ce mal là pour le juif que je suis est
totalement inacceptable.
Pire, il y a là une contradiction, car si effectivement ces banlieues
étaient dans une situation de délaissement total, il n'y aurait pas de
salles de sport à incendier, il n'y aurait pas d'écoles et d'autobus.
S'il y a des gymnases des écoles et des autobus, c'est que quelqu'un a
fait un effort. Peut-être insuffisant mais un effort quand même.
Q. Mais pourtant le taux de chômage dans les banlieues est
insupportable, près de 40% des jeunes entre 15 et 25 ans n'ont aucune
chance de trouver un travail ?
R. Revenons un moment à la schule. Lorsque les parents t'envoient à
l'école, est-ce que c'est pour trouver un travail ? Moi on m'a envoyé à
l'école pour apprendre. La culture et l'éducation ont une justification
en elles même. Tu vas à l'école pour apprendre, c'est çà le but de
l'école. Et ces gens qui détruisent des écoles, que disent-ils en
fait ? leur message n'est pas un appel à l'aide ou une exigence de plus
d'écoles ou de meilleures écoles, c'est la volonté de liquider les
intermédiaires entre eux et les objets de leurs désirs. Et quels sont
les objets de leurs désirs c'est simple : l'argent, les marques, et
parfois des filles. C'est pourquoi il est certain que notre société a
sa responsabilité, parce qu'ils veulent tout maintenant et ce qu'ils
veulent c'est l'idéal de la société de consommation. C'est ce qu'ils
voient à la télévision.
schule : mot yiddish qui signifie école , désigne plutôt chez les juifs
ashkénaze de France la synagogue (ndlt)
Non à l'antiracisme
..../... Mais justement le philosophe juif qui lutte contre
l'antisémitisme pour entrer en guerre contre « la guerre antiraciste ».
(fin des commentaires des journalistes)
« Je suis né à paris et suis le fils d'immigrants polonais, mon père a
été déporté de France, ses parents ont été déportés et assassinés à
Auschwitz, mon père est rentré d'Auschwitz en France. Ce pays mérite
notre haine. Ce qu'il a fait à mes parents était beaucoup plus brutal
que ce qu'il a fait aux Africains. Qu'a-t-il fait aux Africains ? Il
n'a fait que du bien. Mon père, il lui a fait vivre l'enfer pendant 5
ans. Et on ne m'a jamais enseigné la haine. Aujourd'hui la haine des
noirs est encore plus forte que celle des arabes.
Q. Mais justement vous qui combattez le racisme antijuif affirmez que
la discrimination et le racisme dont parlent ces jeunes n'existent pas
en réalité ?
R. Bien sûr qu'il y a une discrimination. Et il y a certainement des
Français racistes. Des Français qui n'aiment pas les arabes et les
noirs. Et ils les aimeront encore moins maintenant quand ils prendront
conscience de combien eux même les haïssent. C'est pourquoi cette
discrimination va s'approfondir pour tout ce qui concerne le logement
et aussi le travail.
Imaginez que vous gérez tous deux un restaurant et vous êtes
antiracistes, vous pensez que tous les hommes sont égaux et en plus
vous êtes juifs, c'est-à-dire que pour vous parler d'inégalité entre
les race pose problème, et imaginez qu'un jeune des banlieues vienne
demander un emploi de serveur, il a l'accent des banlieues, vous ne
l'engagerez pas, c'est très simple. Vous ne l'engagerez pas parce que
c'est impossible. Il doit vous représenter, et ceci exige de la
discipline de la politesse et une manière de parler. Et moi je peux
vous dire que même des Français blancs qui copient aujourd'hui les
codes de conduite des banlieues, et cela existe, se heurteront au même
problème exactement. La seule manière de lutter conte la discrimination
est de revenir aux exigences, une éducation sévère, c'est le seul
moyen. Mais cela aussi il est interdit de le dire. Je ne le peux pas.
Ce sont des choses du bon sens auxquelles on préfère le mythe du
« racisme français ». Ce n'est pas juste. Nous vivons aujourd'hui dans
un environnement de « guerre permanente contre le racisme », et il faut
étudier la nature de cet antiracisme. Tout à l'heure j'ai entendu à la
radio quelqu'un qui s'opposait à la décision du ministre de l'intérieur
Sarkozi d'expulser quiconque n'a pas la citoyenneté française a
participé aux émeutes et a été arrêté. Et qu'a-t-il dit ? Qu'il
s'agissait d'une « épuration ethnique ». J'ai combattu pendant la
guerre de Yougoslavie contre l'épuration ethnique des musulmans en
Bosnie. Aucune organisation musulmane française ne s'est jointe à nous,
ils ne se sont réveillés que pour soutenir les Palestiniens. Et
maintenant on parle d'épuration ethnique ? Il n'y a pas eu un seul mort
pendant ces émeutes, en fait si, il y en a eu deux mais c'était un
accident. On ne les poursuivait pas mais ils se sont enfuis et cachés
dans un transformateur électrique malgré les panneaux d'avertissement
qui étaient énormes.
Mais je pense que l'idée généreuse de guerre contre le racisme se
transforme petit à petit monstrueusement en une idéologie mensongère.
L'antiracisme sera au vingt et unième siècle ce qu'a été le communisme
au vingtième. Aujourd'hui les juifs sont attaqués au nom du discours
antiraciste : la barrière de séparation, « sionisme égal racisme », la
même chose en France. Il faut se garder de l'idéologie de
l'antiracisme. Bien sûr il y a un problème de discrimination, il y a un
réflexe xénophobe c'est vrai, mais présenter les événements comme une
réaction au racisme est tout à fait mensonger, tout à fait mensonger.
Q. Que pensez-vous des moyens qu'utilise le gouvernement français pour
mettre fin à la violence, l'état d'urgence, le couvre feu ?
R .Mais c'est tellement normal ! Ce que nous avons vécu est terrible.
Il faut comprendre que ceux qui ont le moins de pouvoir dans la société
sont les autorités, les gouvernants. C'est vrai ils sont responsables
du maintien de l'ordre, et c'est important parce que sans eux il y
aurait eu une autodéfense, et les gens auraient tiré. Alors ils
maintiennent l'ordre et font cela avec une prudence extraordinaire, il
faut les saluer pour cela. En mai 68, il y avait un mouvement tout à
fait innocent comparé à celui d'aujourd'hui et il y a eu une violence
policière. Ici on jette des cocktails Molotov et on tire à balles
réelles. Et il n'y a eu aucun cas de violence policière. (note des
journalistes : depuis l'interview plusieurs policiers ont été arrêtés
suspectés de violence) Il n'y a aucun précédent. Comment maintenir
l'ordre ? Par des moyens dictés par le bon sens,que soit dit en passant
73% des français soutiennent d'après une enquête du journal le
Parisien. Mais je pense qu'il est trop tard pour provoquer chez eux la
honte, parce que à la télévision, à la radio et dans les journaux, ou
du moins dans la plupart d'entre eux, on présente aux émeutiers un
miroir embellissant. Ce sont des gens « intéressants », on flatte leur
souffrance et on comprend leur désespoir. En plus il y a la grande
perversion du spectacle. On brûle des voitures pour qu'on puisse le
voir à la télévision, cela leur permet de se sentir « importants » de
sentir qu'ils vivent dans un quartier important, cette course après le
spectacle doit être analysée, elle produit des effets tout à fait
pervers. Et la perversion du spectacle est accompagnée de commentaires
tout à fait pervers.
..../....
Si cela ne leur plaît pas qu'ils rentrent chez eux :
AF. On dit que le modèle républicain s'est effondré dans ces émeutes.
Mais le modèle multiculturel ne va pas mieux. Ni en hollande ni en
Angleterre. A Bradford et à Birmingham aussi ont eu lieu des émeutes
sur fond racial. Deuxièmement l'école républicaine, le symbole du
modèle républicain n'existe plus depuis longtemps. Je connais l'école
républicaine j'y ai étudié. C'était une institution avec des exigences
sévères, austère, assez antipathique, qui avait construit de hautes
murailles pour se protéger du bruit de l'extérieur.
Trente années de réformes stupides ont changé ce paysage. L'école
républicaine a été remplacée par « la communauté éducative »,
horizontale et non verticale, on a révisé à la baisse les programmes
scolaires, le bruit de l'extérieur est entré, la société est rentrée
dans l'école. Ce qui signifie que ce que nous voyons aujourd'hui c'est
en fait l'échec du modèle post républicain « sympa ». Le problème avec
ce modèle c'est qu'il se nourrit de ses propres échecs : chaque fiasco
est une raison pour le rendre encore plus extrême. L'école sera encore
plus « sympa ». En fait, face à ce que nous voyons, le minimum de ce
que nous devons exiger c'est la sévérité et plus d'exigence. Sinon on
aura bientôt des « cours de délinquance ».
Ceci est une évolution caractéristique de la démocratie. La démocratie
comme processus ainsi que l'a bien montré Tocqueville,nesupporte pas
l'horizontalité. En démocratie il est difficile de supporter des
espaces non démocratiques. Tout doit être démocratique dans la
démocratie. Mais l'école ne peut pas être ainsi. Elle ne le peut pas.
L'asymétrie saute pourtant aux yeux : entre celui sait et celui qui ne
sait pas, entre celui qui apporte avec lui un monde, et celui qui est
nouveau dans ce monde. Le processus démocratique a provoqué une
délégitimité de cette asymétrie. C'est un phénomène général dans le
monde occidental, mais en France il prend une forme plus pathétique,
parce que l'une des caractéristiques de la France était son éducation
sévère. La France a été construite autour de son école.
Q. Beaucoup de jeunes disent que le problème est qu'ils ne se sentent
pas Français, que la France ne les traite pas comme des Français.
R. Le problème est qu'il faut qu'ils se considèrent eux même comme
Français. Si les immigrants disent : « les Français » quand ils partent
des blancs, alors on est perdu. Si leur identité se trouve ailleurs et
ils sont en France par intérêt alors on est perdu. Je dois reconnaître
que les juifs aussi commencent à utiliser cette expression, je les
entends dire « les Français » et je ne peux pas supporter çà. Je leur
dis « si pour vous la France n'est qu'une question d'intérêt et votre
identité est le judaïsme alors soyez cohérents avec vous-même vous avez
Israël ». C'est effectivement un grand problème : nous vivons dans une
société post nationale dans laquelle pour tout le monde l'Etat n'est
qu'une question d'intérêt , une grande compagnie d'assurance, il s'agit
là d'une évolution très grave.
Mais s'ils ont une carte d'identité française ils sont Français et s'il
n'en ont pas ils ont le droit de s'en aller. Ils disent « je ne suis
pas Français, je vis en France, et en plus ma situation économique est
difficile. » Personne ne les retient de force ici, et c'est précisément
là que se trouve le début du mensonge. Parce que s'ils étaient victimes
de l'exclusion et de la pauvreté ils iraient ailleurs. Mais ils savent
très bien que partout ailleurs, et en particulier dans les pays d'où
ils viennent, leur situation serait encore plus difficile pour tout ce
qui concerne leurs droits et leurs chances.
Q. Mais le problème aujourd'hui est l'intégration dans la société
française de jeunes gens et de jeunes filles de la troisième
génération, et non d'une vague de nouveaux immigrants. Ils sont nés en
France et ils n'ont nulle part ailleurs où aller.
R. Ce sentiment qu'ils ne sont pas Français ce n'est pas l'école qui le
leur donne ; Il y a ici des écoles partout. En France comme vous le
savez peut-être, on inscrit les enfants dans les écoles, même s'ils se
trouvent illégalement dans le pays. Il y a ici quelque chose de
surprenant de paradoxal. L'école pourrait très bien appeler la police
puisque l'enfant se trouve en France illégalement, et malgré tout
l'école ne prend pas en considération leur illégalité.
Il y a des écoles là-bas, et il y a des ordinateurs partout. C'est là
que vient le moment où il faut faire un effort, et ceux qui font les
émeutes ne sont pas prêts à faire cet effort. Jamais.
Prenez par exemple la langue, vous dites qu'ils sont d'une troisième
génération, alors pourquoi est-ce qu'ils parlent le français comme ils
le parlent. C'est un français égorgé, l'accent, les mots, la grammaire.
C'est à cause de l'école ? A cause des profs. ?
Q. Puisque les arabes et les noirs apparemment n'ont pas l'intention de
quitter la France, comment pensez-vous traiter le problème ?
R. Ce problème est le problème de tous les pays européens. En Hollande
on est confronté à ce problème depuis l'assassinat de Théo Van Gogh. La
question n'est pas quel est le meilleur modèle d'intégration, mais la
possibilité même d'une intégration pour des gens qui vous haïssent.
Q. Et que va-t-il se passer en France ?
R. je ne sais pas je suis désespéré. A cause des émeutes et à cause de
leur accompagnement médiatique. Ils vont se calmer, mais qu'est ce que
çà veut dire ? Ce ne sera pas un retour au calme. Ce sera un retour à
la violence habituelle. Alors ils vont arrêter parce qu'il y a tout de
même un couvre feu, et les étrangers ont peur, et les dealers veulent
reprendre les affaires. Mais ils jouiront du soutien et de
l'encouragement à leur violence antirépublicaine, par le biais du
discours repoussant de l'autocritique sur leur esclavage et le
colonialisme. C'est cela, ce n'est pas un retour au calme mais à la
violence de routine.
Q. Alors votre conception du monde n'a aucune chance ?
R. Non. J'ai perdu. Pour tout ce qui concerne la lutte sur l'école,
j'ai perdu. C'est intéressant, parce que quand je parle comme je parle
beaucoup de gens sont d'accord avec moi. Beaucoup. Mais il y a quelque
chose en France, une espèce de déni qui provient des « bobos » des
sociologues et des assistants sociaux, et personne n'a le courage de
dire autre chose. Ce combat est perdu, je suis resté en arrière.
Dror Mishani et Aurélia Samothraiz
Traduction de toutes les questions et réponses du philosophe. La
parties non traduites sont des passages de commentaires des
journalistes qui semblent plutôt surpris de ce qu'ils entendent.
Titre sur la couverture du supplément sous la photo de A.
Finkielkraut : « Vous les Israéliens, vous me comprenez. »
(ndlt)
[source: melusine @ nerim.net]
www.counterpunch.org
CounterPunch - October 12, 2005
Using War as an Excuse for More War
Srebrenica Revisited
By DIANA JOHNSTONE
Last summer, almost the entire political spectrum in the Western
world joined in a chorus of self-flagellation on the 10th
anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre. The dominant theme was
"nostra culpa": "we" let it happen, "we" didn't want to know
about it, and "we" mustn't let it happen again.
Dear reader, who are "we" in this case? How in the world could
"we" (you and I) have known or done anything about this at the time?
And in fact, how much do "we" really know about it now? We
know what we read in the newspapers or see on television. But how
precise and accurate is that information? How do we know now that
we are much better informed than we were before the event?
Such questions are virtually taboo. Srebrenica has become a
sacred symbol of collective guilt, and to raise the slightest
question is to be instantly condemned as an apologist for
frightful crimes , or as a "holocaust denier".
A left that retains any capacity for critical thinking should
regard the lavish public breast-beating over "Srebrenica" (the
quotation marks indicate the symbol rather than the actual event)
with a certain skepticism. If mainstream media commentators and
politicians are so extraordinarily moved by "Srebrenica", this is
because it has become an incantation to justify whatever future
foreign war the U.S. government and media decide to sell under
the label of "humanitarian intervention".
The Uses of a Massacre
Aside from the probable future use of "Srebrenica", there is the
way it has already been used. Indeed, it was perhaps being used
even before it happened.
From the the U.N. Secretary General's 1999 Report on Srebrenica,
it emerges that the idea of a "Srebrenica massacre" was already
in the air at a September 1993 meeting in Sarajevo between
Bosnian Muslim president Alija Izetbegovic and members of his
Muslim party from Srebrenica. On the agenda was a Serb proposal
to exchange Srebrenica and Zepa for some territories around
Sarajevo as part of a peace settlement.
"The delegation opposed the idea, and the subject was not
discussed further. Some surviving members of the Srebrenica
delegation have stated that President Izetbegovic also told them
he had learned that a NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina
was possible, but could only occur if the Serbs were to break
into Srebrenica, killing at least 5,000 of its people." (1)
Izetbegovic later denied this, but he is outnumbered by
witnesses. It is clear that Izetbegovic's constant strategy was
to portray his Muslim side in the bloody civil war as pure
helpless victims, in order to bring U.S. military power in on his
side. On his death bed, he readily admitted as much to his
ardent admirer Bernard Kouchner, in the presence of U.S. diplomat
Richard Holbrooke. Kouchner reminded Izetbegovic of a
conversation he had had with French President Mitterrand in which
he "spoke of the existence of 'extermination camps' in Bosnia."
You repeated that in front of the journalists. That provoked
considerable emotion throughout the world. [...] They were
horrible places, but people were not systematically exterminated.
Did you know that?
Yes. I thought that my revelations could precipitate bombings. I
saw the reaction of the French and the others-I was mistaken.
[...] Yes, I tried, but the assertion was false. There were no
extermination camps whatever the horror of those places. (2)
Like the Bosnian Serbs, the Muslims also herded their adversaries
into "horrible" camps at the start of the civil war, on the way
to expulsion. Unlike the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Muslims
enjoyed the services of high-powered U.S. public relations
experts in the Washington-based Ruder Finn agency who knew how to
"spin" the Bosnian conflict in order to equate the Serbs with the
Nazis-the quickest and easiest way to win public opinion over to
the Muslim side. The news media and political figures were
showered with press releases and other materials exaggerating
Serb atrocities, whereas Muslim atrocities (such as the
decapitations of Serb prisoners, fully documented) remained
confidential. To the public, this was a one-sided conflict
between a Serbian "fascist aggressor" and innocent victims, all
unarmed civilians.
The general public did not know that Srebrenica, described as a
"safe area", was not in fact simply a haven for refugees, but
also a Muslim military base. The general public did not know what
Lord Owen knew and recounted in his important 1995 book, Balkan
Odyssey (p.143), namely that in April 1993, Serbian president
Slobodan Milosevic was extremely anxious to prevent Bosnian Serb
forces from overrunning Srebrenica. "On 16 April I spoke on the
telephone to President Milosevic about my anxiety that, despite
repeated assurances from Dr. Karadzic that he had no intention of
taking Srebrenica, the Bosnian Serb army was now proceeding to do
just that. The pocket was greatly reduced in size. I had rarely
heard Milosevic so exasperated, but also so worried: he feared
that if the Bosnian Serb troops entered Srebrenica there would be
a bloodbath because of the tremendous bad blood that existed
between the two armies. The Bosnian Serbs held the young Muslim
commander in Srebrenica, Naser Oric, responsible for a massacre
near Bratunac in December 1992 in which many Serb civilians had
been killed. Milosevic believed it would be a great mistake for
the Bosnian Serbs to take Srebrenica and promised to tell
Karadzic so."
Thus, many months before the July 1995 "Srebrenica massacre",
both Izetbegovic and Milosevic were aware of the possibility and
of its potential impact-favorable to the Muslim cause, and
disastrous for the Serbs.
A few other indisputable facts should not be overlooked:
Shortly before the Bosnian Serb attack on Srebrenica, the Muslim
troops stationed in that enclave carried out murderous attacks on
nearby Serb villages. These attacks were certain to incite Serb
commanders to retaliate against the Srebrenica garrison.
Meanwhile, the Muslim high command in Sarajevo ordered the
Srebrenica commanders, Oric and his lieutenants, to withdraw from
Srebrenica, leaving thousands of his soldiers without commanders,
without orders, and in total confusion when the foreseeable Serb
attack occurred. Surviving Srebrenica Muslim officials have
bitterly accused the Izetbegovic government of deliberately
sacrificing them to the interests of his State.
According to the most thorough study of Srebrenica events, by
Cees Wiebes for the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation
report, the Bosnian Serb forces set out in July 1995 to reduce
the area held by Bosnian Muslim forces on the outskirts of
Srebrenica, and only decided to capture the town itself when they
unexpectedly found it undefended.
"The VRS [Republika Srpska Army] advance went so well that the
evening of July 9 saw an important 'turning point' [...] The
Bosnian Serbs decided that they would no longer confine
themselves to the southern part of the enclave, but would extend
the operation and take the town of Srebrenica itself. Karadzic
was informed that the results achieved now put the Drina Corps in
a position to take the town; he had expressed his satisfaction
with this and had agreed to a continuation of the operation to
disarm the 'Muslim terrorist gangs' and to achieve a full
demilitarization of the enclave. In this order, issued by Major
General Zdravko Tolimir, it was also stated that Karadzic had
determined that the safety of UNPROFOR soldiers and of the
population should be ensured. Orders to this effect were to be
provided to all participating units. [...] The orders made no
mention of a forced relocation of the population. [...] A final
instruction, also of significance, was that the population and
prisoners of war should be treated in accordance with the Geneva
Convention. On July 11 all of Srebrenica fell into the hands of
the Bosnian Serbs."
In testimony to a French parliamentary commission inquiry into
Srebrenica, General Philippe Morillon, the UNPROFOR officer who
first called international attention to the Srebrenica enclave,
stated his belief that Bosnian Serb forces had fallen into a
"trap" when they decided to capture Srebrenica.
Subsequently, on February 12, 2004, testifying at the
International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, General Morillon
stressed that the Muslim commander in Srebrenica, Naser Oric,
"engaged in attacks during Orthodox holidays and destroyed
villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree
of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region, and this
prompted the region of Bratunac in particular---that is the
entire Serb population---to rebel against the very idea that
through humanitarian aid one might help the population that was
present there."
Asked by the ICTY prosecutor how Oric treated his Serb prisoners,
General Morillon, who knew him well, replied that "Naser Oric was
a warlord who reigned by terror in his area and over the
population itself. I think that he realized that these were the
rules of this horrific war, that he could not allow himself to
take prisoners. According to my recollection, he didn't even look
for an excuse. It was simply a statement: One can't be bothered
with prisoners."
Morillon recounted how "the Serbs took me to a village to show me
the evacuation of the bodies of the inhabitants that had been
thrown into a hole, a village close to Bratunac. And this made me
understand the degree to which this infernal situation of blood
and vengeance [...] led to a situation when I personally feared
that the worst would happen if the Serbs of Bosnia managed to
enter the enclaves and Srebrenica."
"I feared that the Serbs, the local Serbs, the Serbs of Bratunac,
these militiamen, they wanted to take their revenge for
everything that they attributed to Naser Oric. It wasn't just
Naser Oric that they wanted to revenge, take their revenge on,
they wanted to revenge their dead on Orthodox Christmas."
* * *
In short, Srebrenica, whose Serb population had been chased out
by Muslim troops at the start of the civil war in 1992, was both
a gathering point for civilian Muslim refugees and a Muslim army
base. The enclave lived from international humanitarian aid. The
Muslim military did not allow civilians to leave, since their
presence was what ensured the arrival of humanitarian aid
provisions which the military controlled.
When the Bosnian Serb forces captured the town on July 11, 2005,
civilians were clamoring to leave the enclave, understandably
enough, since there was virtually no normal economic life there.
Much has been made of the fact that Serb forces separated the
population, providing buses for women, children and the infirm to
take them to Tuzla, while detaining the men. In light of all
that preceded, the reason for this separation is obvious: the
Bosnian Serbs were looking for the perpetrators of raids on Serb
villages, in order to take revenge.
However, only a relatively small number of Muslim men were
detained at that point, and some of them are known to have
survived and eventually been released in exchange for Serb
prisoners. When the Serb forces entered the town from the south,
thousands of Muslim soldiers, in disarray because of the absence
of commanding officers, fled northwards, through wild wooded
hills toward Tuzla. It is clear enough that they fled because
they feared exactly what everyone aware of the situation dreaded:
that Serb soldiers would take vengeance on the men they
considered guilty of murdering Serb civilians and prisoners.
Thousands of those men did in fact reach Tuzla, and were quietly
redeployed. This was confirmed by international observers.
However, Muslim authorities never provided information about
these men, preferring to let them be counted among the missing,
that is, among the massacred. Another large, unspecified number
of these men were ambushed and killed as they fled in scenes of
terrible panic. This was, then, a "massacre", such as occurs in
war when fleeing troops are ambushed by superior forces.
Counting the victims
So we come to the question of numbers. The question is difficult,
both because of the uncertainty that surrounds it, and because
merely pointing to this uncertainty is instantly denounced as
"revisionism" and lack of respect for the victims. This reproach
is not logical. Victims are victims, whether few or many, and
respect is not in proportion to their numbers.
The question of numbers is complex and has been dealt with in detail by
others, recently by an independent international Srebrenica
research group which will soon publish its findings in book form.
(3)
Suffice it here to note the following:
1. The sacralization of the estimated number of victims. In many
if not most disasters, initial estimates of casualties tend to be
inflated, for various reasons, such as multiple reports of the
same missing person, and are subsequently corrected downwards.
This was the case for the World Trade Center disaster, where
initial estimates of up to 10,000 victims were finally brought
down to less than 3000, and there are many other examples. In the
case of Srebrenica, the figure of 8,000 originated with September
1995 announcements by the International Committee of the Red
Cross that it was seeking information about some 3,000 men
reportedly detained as well as about some 5,000 who had fled to
central Bosnia. Neither the Bosnian Serbs nor the Muslims were
ever forthcoming with whatever information they had, and the
"8,000" figure has tended ever since to be repeated as an
established total of "Muslim men and boys executed by Serb
forces". It can be noted that this was always an estimate, the
sum of two separate groups, the smaller one of prisoners (whose
execution would be a clear war crime) and the larger one of
retreating troops (whose "massacre" as they fled would be the
usual tragic consequence of bitter civil war). Anyone familiar
with the workings of journalism knows that there is a sort of
professional inertia which leads reporters to repeat whatever
figure they find in previous reports, without verification, and
with a marked preference for big numbers. This inertia is all the
greater when no truly authoritative figures ever emerge.
The number of bodies exhumed.
Despite unprecedented efforts over the past ten years to recover
bodies from the area around Srebrenica, less than 3,000 have been
exhumed, and these include soldiers and others-Serb as well as
Muslim-who died in the vicious combats that took place during
three years of war. Only a fraction have been identified.
2. The political desire for the largest possible number. Aside
from the journalistic inertia mentioned above, the retention of
the unproven high figure of massacre victims in the case of
Srebrenica is clearly the result of political will on the part of
two governments: the Bosnian Muslim government of Alija
Izetbegovic and, more importantly, the government of the United
States. From the moment that Madeleine Albright brandished
satellite photos of what she claimed was evidence of Serb
massacres committed at Srebrenica (evidence that was both secret,
as the photos were shown in closed session to the Security
Council, and circumstantial, as they showed changes in terrain
which might indicate massacres, not the alleged massacres
themselves), the U.S. used "Srebrenica" for two clear purposes:
to draw attention away from the U.S.-backed Croatian
offensive which drove the Serb population out of the Krajina
which, as much as Srebrenica, was supposed to be protected by
the United Nations;
to implicate Bosnian Serb leaders in "genocide" in order to
disqualify them from negotiating the future of
Bosnia-Herzegovina. (The U.S. preferred to replace them at
Dayton by Milosevic, whose eagerness to end the war could be
exploited to get concessions the Bosnian Serbs might refuse.)
Exploitation of "Srebrenica" then helped set the stage for the
Kosovo war of 1999:
by blaming the United Nations (whose failure to defend
Srebrenica was in reality the inevitable result of the
unwillingness of the United States to give full support to U.N.
ground forces), NATO emerged as the only agent capable of
effective "humanitarian intervention".
by falsely identifying Milosevic with the Bosnian Serb
leadership and by exploiting the notion that Srebrenica
killings were part of a vast Serb plan of "genocide" carried
out against non-Serbs for purely racist reasons, Madeleine
Albright was able to advocate the NATO war against Yugoslavia
as necessary to prevent "another Srebrenica" in Kosovo, where
the situation was altogether different.
To use "Srebrenica" as an effective instrument in the
restructuring of former Yugoslavia, notably by replacing
recalcitrant Serb leaders by more pliable politicians, the crime
needed to be as big as possible: not a mere war crime (such as
the United States itself commits on a serial basis, from Vietnam
to Panama to Iraq), but "genocide": "the worst atrocity in Europe
since the Holocaust". That arouses the Hitler image, which is
always good for the image of the United States as saviour from
across the seas, and implies a plan decided at the highest
levels, rather than the brutal behavior of enraged soldiers (or
paramilitaries, the probable culprits in this case) out of
control.
But what plan for genocide includes offering safe passage to
women and children? And if this was all part of a Serb plot to
eliminate Muslims, what about all the Muslims living peacefully
in Serbia itself, including thousands of refugees who fled there
from Bosnia? Or the Muslims in the neighboring enclave of Zepa,
who were unharmed when the Serbs captured that town a few days
after capturing Srebrenica? To get around these common sense
obstacles, the ICTY prosecution came up with a sociologist who
provided an "expert" opinion: the Srebrenica Muslims lived in a
patriarchal society, therefore killing the men was enough to
ensure that there would be no more Muslims in Srebrenica. This
amounts to shrinking the concept of "genocide" to fit the
circumstances.
It was on basis of this definition that in August 2001 the
Tribunal found Bosnian Serb General Radislav Krstic guilty of
"complicity in genocide". Although he neither ordered,
participated in or was even aware of any executions, the judges
ruled that he took part in what the ICTY calls a "joint criminal
enterprise" simply by capturing Srebrenica, since he must have
been aware that genocide was "a natural and foreseeable
consequence". This is the ruling that established "genocide" as
the official description of events at Srebrenica.
Why such relentless determination to establish Srebrenica as
"genocide"? A December 27, 2003, Associated Press dispatch
provided an explanation by U.S. jurist Michael Scharf, one of the
designers of the ICTY who has also coached the judges for the
trial of Saddam Hussein: On a practical level, if the court
determines Srebrenica does not fit the legal definition of
genocide, it would be very difficult to make the charge stick
against Milosevic, said Michael Scharf, a professor at Case
Western Reserve University School of Law.
"And it is crucial that he be convicted of genocide," Scharf
said. If Milosevic can't be convicted, "then who can you convict
of genocide in the modern age?" he asked.
The legal definition of genocide could also come into play in an
Iraqi war-crimes tribunal, which has vowed to follow
international legal precedent.
It is striking that from the very start, the effort of the United
States and of the Tribunal in The Hague-which it mainly finances,
staffs and controls-has been to establish what it calls "command
responsibility" for Serb crimes rather than individual guilt of
actual perpetrators. The aim is not to identify and punish men
who violated the Geneva conventions by executing prisoners, but
rather to pin the supreme crime on the top Serb leadership.
The office of the ICTY prosecutor has chosen to rely heavily on a
single confessed participant in the Srebrenica massacre. This
person is one Drazen Erdemovic, a petty criminal of Croatian
nationality who was hospitalized in Serbia in March 1996 after a
near-fatal brawl in a bar in Novi Sad. Quite possibly in order
to escape further threats from his personal enemies, Erdemovic
confessed to Western news media to having taken part in mass
murder in Bosnia. He was arrested by Serb authorites who then,
at his request, turned him over to the Hague Tribunal.
From then on, the prosecution has used Erdemovic repeatedly as
its star witness, using the U.S. procedure of "plea bargaining"
by which a confessed criminal gets off lightly by incriminating
somebody else the prosecution wants to convict. He has told his
story to the judges at his own brief trial, where he was exempted
from cross examination thanks to his guilty plea, as well as at a
hearing incriminating Karadzic and Mladic (in the absence of any
legal defense) and at various trials whenever "Srebrenica" comes
up.
His story goes like this: after briefly serving in the Bosnian
Muslim army, Erdemovic joined an international mercenary militia
unit that seems to have been employed by the Bosnian Serb command
for sabotage operations on enemy territory. On July 16, 1995, his
unit of eight men executed between 1,000 and 1,200 Muslim men
near the village of Pilice, some 40 kilometers north of
Srebrenica. From around 10:30 in the morning to 3 o'clock in the
afternoon, these eight mercenaries emptied bus load after bus
load of prisoners and lined them up to be shot by groups of ten.
Now in fact, it seems that a serious crime was indeed committed
in Pilice. Subsequent forensic investigators exhumed 153 bodies.
One hundred and fifty-three executions of prisoners of war is a
serious crime, and there is material evidence that this crime was
committed. But 1,200? According to the manner of execution
described by Erdemovic, it would have taken 20 hours to murder so
many victims. Yet the judges have never questioned this
elementary arithmetical discrepancy, and Erdemovic's word has
consistently been accepted as gospel truth by the International
Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. (4)
Why this insistence on an implausibly higher number than can be
supported by material evidence? Obviously, the Tribunal wants to
keep the figures as high as possible in order to sustain the
charge of "genocide". The charge of "genocide" is what sharply
distinguishes the indictment of Serbs from indictments of Croats
or Muslims for similar crimes committed during the Yugoslav
disintegration wars.
In August 2000 after not quite four and a half years in jail, the
self-confessed mass murderer Erdemovic was freed, given a new
identity, residence in an unspecified Western country and a
"job", so to speak, as occasional paid and "protected" witness
for the ICTY.
In contrast, General Krstic was sentenced to 35 years in prison
and will be eligible for parole in 20 years.
Clearly, the purpose of the "genocide" charge is not to punish
the perpetrators but to incriminate the Bosnian Serb, and the
Yugoslav Serb, chain of command right up to the top.
Srebrenica As Myth
The transformation of Srebrenica into myth was illustrated last
July by an article in the Italian leftist daily Liberazione
(close to the "Communist Refoundation" party) reporting on a
semi-documentary film entitled "Srebrenica, luci dall'oblio"
("Srebrenica, lights from oblivion"). The title suggests that the
film-makers have rescued from oblivion a tragically neglected
event, when in fact, rarely in the history of warfare has a
massacre been the focus of so much attention.
Here we have the usual self-flagellation: "...what happened in
Srebrenica: the massacre of 9,000 civilians, in the most total
silence/absence on the part of the world institutions
[responsible for] peace..." The author accepts without question
the term "genocide" and raises the figure of victims to new
heights. "Around 9,000 men between the ages of 14 and 70 were
transported by truck to nearby centers where they were massacred
and buried in mass graves..." This was "the greatest mass
genocide committed since the days of Nazism until today"... What
is the point of this exaggeration, this dramatization? Why is
Srebrenica so much more terrible than the war that ravaged
Vietnam, with countless massacres and devastation of the countryside
by deadly chemicals, or the cold-blooded massacre of surrendering
Iraqis at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991? But that is
a genuinely forgotten massacre-not only forgotten, but never even
recognized in the first place, and the "international community"
has not sent teams of forensic scientists to find and identify
the victims of U.S. weapons.
In all probability the film-makers, aspiring artists and
"genocide experts" who consider "Srebrenica" suitable material
for touching the emotions of the public believe that they are
serving the interests of peace and humanity. But I would suggest
quite the contrary. The misrepresentation of "Bosnia" as scene of
a deliberate "genocide" against Muslims, rather than a civil war
with atrocities on all sides, contributes to a spirit of "conflict
of civilizations". It has helped recruit volunteers for
Islamic terrorist groups.
The political exploitation of Srebrenica has turned the Bosnian
war into a morality pantomimew between pure good and pure evil, a
version of events which the Serbs can never really accept and the
Muslims have no desire to give up. This stands in the way of
unbiased investigation and serious historical analysis.
Reconciliation is in fact ruled out by the moralistic insistence
that a stark distinction must be made between "aggressor" and
"victim". This stark difference exists between NATO and
Yugoslavia, or between the U.S. and Iraq, where an overwhelmingly
superior military power deliberately launched an aggressive war
against a sovereign country that neither attacked nor threatened
it.
But the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina was not of that nature. The
war there was the result of an extraordinarily complex legal
situation (an unsettled small Federal Republic constitutionally
composed of three "nationalities": Serb, Muslim and Croat, itself
part of a disintegrating larger Federal Republic) exacerbated by
myriad local power plays and the incoherent intervention of Great
Powers. Moreover, this occurred in a region where memories of
extremely bloody civil war during World War II were still very
much alive. To a large extent, the fighting that broke loose in
1992 was a resumption of the vicious cycle of massacres and
vengeance that devastated Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1941-44, when the
Nazi occupation broke up Yugoslavia and attached
Bosnia-Herzegovina to Greater Croatia, which proceeded to
eliminate Serbs.
Today it is an unquestioned dogma that recalling atrocies is a
"duty of memory" to the victims, something that must be endlessly
repeated, lest we forget. But is this really so obvious? The
insistence on past atrocities may simply prepare the next wave,
which is what has already happened in the Balkans, and more than
once. Because in reality, the dead victims cannot profit from
such memories. But the memory of victimhood is a moral and
political capital of great value for the heirs of victimhood and
especially for their self-appointed champions. And in the case of
Bosnia, it promises to bring considerable financial gain. If
Milosevic, as former president of Serbia, can be convicted of
genocide, then the Bosnian Muslims hope to win billions of
dollars in reparations that will keep Serbia on its knees for the
foreseeable future.
* * *
The obsessive reference to "Srebrenica" has a negative effect far
beyond the Balkans.
The "Srebrenica massacre" is part of a dominant culture discourse
that goes like this: We people in the advanced democracies have
reached a new moral plateau, from which we are both able and have
a duty both to judge others and to impose our "values" when
necessary. The others, on a lower moral plateau, must be watched
carefully, because unlike us, they may commit "genocide". It
is remarkable how "genocide" has become fashionable, with more
and more "genocide experts" in universities, as if studying
genocide made sense as a separate academic discipline. What
would all these people do without genocide? I wonder what is
behind the contemporary fascination with genocide and serial
killers, and I doubt that it is a sign of a healthy social psychology.
In the world today, few people, including Bosnian Muslims, are
threatened by "genocide" in the sense of a deliberate
Hitler-style project to exterminate a population-which is how
most people understand the term. But millions of people are
threatened, not by genocidal maniacs, but by genocidal conditions
of life: poverty, disease, inadequate water, global climate
change. The Srebrenica mourning cult offers nothing positive in
regard to these genocidal conditions. Worse, it is
instrumentalized openly to justify what is perhaps the worst of
all the genocidal conditions: war.
The subliminal message in the official Srebrenica discourse is
that because "we" let that happen, "we" mustn't let "it" happen
again, ergo, the United States should preventively bomb potential
perpetrators of "genocide". Whatever happened in Srebrenica
could have best been prevented, not by U.S. or NATO bombing, but
by preventing civil war from breaking out in Bosnia Herzegovina
to begin with. This prevention was possible if the "international
community", meaning the NATO powers, Europe and the United
States, had firmly insisted that the Yugoslav crisis of 1990
should be settled by negotiations. But first of all, Germany
opposed this, by bullying the European Union into immediate recognition
of the secession of Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia, without
negotiation. All informed persons knew that this threatened
the existence of Bosnia Herzegovina. The European Union proposed
a cantonization plan for Bosnia Herzegovina, not very different
from the present arrangement, which was accepted by leaders of
the Bosnian Muslim, Serb and Croat communities. But shortly
thereafter, Muslim president Alija Izetbegovic reneged, after the
U.S. ambassador encouraged him to hold out for more. Throughout
the subsequent fighting, the U.S. put obstacles in the way of
every European peace plan. [6] These years of obstruction enabled
the United States to take control of the eventual peace settlement
in Dayton, in November 1995.
This rejection of compromise, which plunged Bosnia-Herzegovina
into fratricidal war, was supported at the time by a chorus of
humanitarians- not least politicians safely ensconced in the
European Parliament who voted for "urgent resolutions" about
situations of which they were totally ignorant-claiming that
Bosnia must be a centralized State for the sake of
"multiculturalism". These were the same humanitarians who
applauded the breakup of multicultural Yugoslavia-which in fact
created the crisis in Bosnia.
Clearly, whoever executes unarmed prisoners commits a very
serious crime whether in Bosnia or anywhere else. But when all is
said and done, it is an illusion to think that condemning
perpetrators of a massacre in Bosnia will ensure that the next
civil war somewhere in the world will be carried out in a more
chivalrous manner. War is a life and death matter, and inevitably
leads people to commit acts they would never commit in peacetime.
The notion that war can be made "clean", played according to
rules, should not be the main focus of international law or of
peace movements. War first of all needs to be prevented, not
policed.
The false interpretation of "Srebrenica" as part of an ongoing
Serb project of "genocide" was used to incite the NATO war
against Yugoslavia, which devastated a country and left behind a
cauldron of hatred and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. The United
States is currently engaged in a far more murderous and
destructive war in Iraq. In this context, the Western
lamentations that inflate the Srebrenic massacre into "the
greatest mass genocide since Nazi times" are a diversion from the
real existing genocide, which is not the work of some racist
maniac, but the ongoing imposition of a radically unjust
socio-economic world order euphemistically called "globalization".
Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, Nato, and
Western Delusions [
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158367084X/counterpunchmaga ]
published by Monthly Review Press. She can be reached at:
dianajohnstone @ compuserve.com
NOTES
1. Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to General Assembly
Resolution 53/35 (1998), Section IV, paragraph C.115.
2. Bernard Kouchner, "Les Guerriers de la Paix", Grasset, Paris, 2004,
pp. 372-375.
3. "Srebrenica: The Politics of War Crimes", by George Bogdanich,
Tim Fenton, Philip Hammond, Edward S. Herman, Michael Mandel,
Jonathan Rooper and George Szamuely. See
http://www.srebrenica-report.com/politics.htm.
4. Germinal Civikov, "Kalaschnikow und Einzelfeuer: Der Fall
Drazen Erdemovic", Freitag, 16 September 2005.
5. Davide Turrini "Il genocidio jugoslavo rivive sullo schermo",
Liberazione, 12 July 2005.
6. See David Owen, Balkan Odyssey, Victor Gollancz, London, 1995.
Lord Owen, who, as co-chairman of the steering committee of the
International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, attempted from
August 1992 to June 1995 to negotiate a peace settlement in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, concludes (Indigo paperback, p.400): "From
the spring of 1993 to the summer of 1995, in my judgement, the
effect of US policy, despite its being called 'containment', was
to prolong the war of the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina."
---
www.counterpunch.org
CounterPunch - November 5 / 6, 2005
A Response to Certain Criticisms of My Recent Essay
Srebrenica: Using War as an Excuse for More War
By DIANA JOHNSTONE
Anyone foolhardy enough to write a dissenting view about former
Yugoslavia in general and Srebrenica in particular has to know
what she's in for: misinterpretation, outrage, accusations of
being an apologist for genocide. All this is to be expected, but
unpleasant nevertheless, and illustrative of the fact that the
supposed efforts by the "International Community" to foster a
spirit of multicultural reconciliation have been a dismal
failure--and that is putting it mildly.
Thus, despite NATO's war to give Kosovo over to armed rebels
with notorious criminal connections, an Albanian-American writes
indignantly that the Serbs "still stain" Kosovo -- apparently by
their drastically reduced presence in terrorized ghettos. The
symbol of "the Srebrenica massacre" helps keep such hatred
burning, hatred which still has political uses in the Balkans.
At the global level, it is shorthand for the "humanitarian
intervention" imperative, Washington's favorite excuse for
neoimperialist interventions, when "terrorism" and "weapons
of mass destruction" lose credibility.
That symbol was the subject of my essay.
Some months ago, I was invited to join a group of writers
forming a "Srebrenica research group". I declined, explaining
that I had already said all I was capable of saying on the
subject in my book Fools' Crusade.
As I pointed out: There are two sides to writing about Srebrenica.
1-The plain facts: body counts, forensic evidence, etc.
2 -Analysis of the propaganda and political significance.
The analysis is the part that actually interests me the most,
and that I emphasized in my book. In contrast, evaluating the
evidence is beyond my capabilities, nothaving the resources or
the expertise to pursue body counts or seek out survivors.
I would have let it go at that, but an Italian publication,
Giano, recently invited me to write a response to an article in
the Rifondazione comunista newspaper Liberazione, which spoke of
"the massacre of 9,000 civilians", well above even the highest
possible estimates, and dwelt heavily on the charge of
"genocide". This was only one example of an extraordinary media
campaign on the tenth anniversary of the Serb capture of
Srebrenica. Isn't it rather strange that Western media pay more
attention to events in a small town in Bosnia ten years ago than
to the destruction of cities in Iraq which is happening now? It
is clear that "Srebrenica" as a symbol has a propaganda life of
its own, apart from whatever happened there in 1995. However,
that distinction is obviously one that many people find
impossible to make.
Most attacks on my piece center on three terms:
1."Humanitarian intervention."
Although used as an argument in favor of "humanitarian
intervention", the Bosnian war may better be seen as an
illustration of what is wrong with the notion. The idea of
"humanitarian intervention" suggests that Great Powers -- and
given today's relationship of forces, this means the United
States -- can be persuaded to act decisively in the interest
of others. Not only is this an illusion, but the type of
intervention employed by the United States, based on high
altitude bombing, is by its nature totally unsuited to
"humanitarian" missions. The prospect of calling in
"humanitarian intervention" risks exacerbating conflicts in
the hope of drawing in U.S. military power on the side of one
group or another. Had Alija Izetbegovic not been led to
believe that he could obtain U.S. intervention, he might have
worked for a compromise agreement. Without unnecessary
prolongation of the Bosnian conflict, the 1995 Serb capture of
Srebrenica would not have taken place.
2."Civil war."
Despite arguments to the contrary, the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina was
most certainly a civil war, fought mainly between local Muslims,
Serbs and Croats. The fact that all three sides received help
from outside Bosnia-Herzegovina, both from other parts of
former Yugoslavia (Croatia openly sent in its army to fight
for Bosnian Croats) and from farther afield (the Muslims
received arms and fighters from Muslim countries, with
clandestine U.S. help), does not make it any less a civil war.
Foreign intervention in civil wars is not unusual. And the
argument that it was not a civil war because one party (the
Serbs) was stronger than others makes no sense.
3."Genocide."
Some Bosnian Muslims seem to think that labeling Srebrenica "genocide"
is necessary to pay sufficient respect to victims of whatever
happened there. Perhaps some day they may realize that the
charge of "genocide" has nothing to do with extra respect
for victims, and everything to do with pinning the "supreme
crime" on Milosevic for political reasons: to justify NATO's
totally unjustifiable aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999.
The real nature of the Kosovo problem, and the possibilities
for peaceful compromise, were hidden behind the myth of "Srebrenica"
as proof that the Serbs in general, and Milosevic in
particular, were out to commit "genocide" against non-Serbs.
This total fiction enabled Madeleine Albright to get the war
she wanted: the war to initiate NATO into its new mission of
"humanitarian intervention" and thereby reassert U.S. military
dominance of Europe.
Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, Nato, and
Western Delusions [
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158367084X/counterpunchmaga ]
published by Monthly Review Press. She can be reached at:
dianajohnstone @ compuserve.com
---
Get CounterPunch's Print Edition By Email!
http://www.easycarts.net/ecarts/CounterPunch/
CounterPunch_Subscriptions.html
Call Toll Free 1-800-840-3683
or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
CounterPunch - October 12, 2005
Using War as an Excuse for More War
Srebrenica Revisited
By DIANA JOHNSTONE
Last summer, almost the entire political spectrum in the Western
world joined in a chorus of self-flagellation on the 10th
anniversary of the Srebrenica massacre. The dominant theme was
"nostra culpa": "we" let it happen, "we" didn't want to know
about it, and "we" mustn't let it happen again.
Dear reader, who are "we" in this case? How in the world could
"we" (you and I) have known or done anything about this at the time?
And in fact, how much do "we" really know about it now? We
know what we read in the newspapers or see on television. But how
precise and accurate is that information? How do we know now that
we are much better informed than we were before the event?
Such questions are virtually taboo. Srebrenica has become a
sacred symbol of collective guilt, and to raise the slightest
question is to be instantly condemned as an apologist for
frightful crimes , or as a "holocaust denier".
A left that retains any capacity for critical thinking should
regard the lavish public breast-beating over "Srebrenica" (the
quotation marks indicate the symbol rather than the actual event)
with a certain skepticism. If mainstream media commentators and
politicians are so extraordinarily moved by "Srebrenica", this is
because it has become an incantation to justify whatever future
foreign war the U.S. government and media decide to sell under
the label of "humanitarian intervention".
The Uses of a Massacre
Aside from the probable future use of "Srebrenica", there is the
way it has already been used. Indeed, it was perhaps being used
even before it happened.
From the the U.N. Secretary General's 1999 Report on Srebrenica,
it emerges that the idea of a "Srebrenica massacre" was already
in the air at a September 1993 meeting in Sarajevo between
Bosnian Muslim president Alija Izetbegovic and members of his
Muslim party from Srebrenica. On the agenda was a Serb proposal
to exchange Srebrenica and Zepa for some territories around
Sarajevo as part of a peace settlement.
"The delegation opposed the idea, and the subject was not
discussed further. Some surviving members of the Srebrenica
delegation have stated that President Izetbegovic also told them
he had learned that a NATO intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina
was possible, but could only occur if the Serbs were to break
into Srebrenica, killing at least 5,000 of its people." (1)
Izetbegovic later denied this, but he is outnumbered by
witnesses. It is clear that Izetbegovic's constant strategy was
to portray his Muslim side in the bloody civil war as pure
helpless victims, in order to bring U.S. military power in on his
side. On his death bed, he readily admitted as much to his
ardent admirer Bernard Kouchner, in the presence of U.S. diplomat
Richard Holbrooke. Kouchner reminded Izetbegovic of a
conversation he had had with French President Mitterrand in which
he "spoke of the existence of 'extermination camps' in Bosnia."
You repeated that in front of the journalists. That provoked
considerable emotion throughout the world. [...] They were
horrible places, but people were not systematically exterminated.
Did you know that?
Yes. I thought that my revelations could precipitate bombings. I
saw the reaction of the French and the others-I was mistaken.
[...] Yes, I tried, but the assertion was false. There were no
extermination camps whatever the horror of those places. (2)
Like the Bosnian Serbs, the Muslims also herded their adversaries
into "horrible" camps at the start of the civil war, on the way
to expulsion. Unlike the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosnian Muslims
enjoyed the services of high-powered U.S. public relations
experts in the Washington-based Ruder Finn agency who knew how to
"spin" the Bosnian conflict in order to equate the Serbs with the
Nazis-the quickest and easiest way to win public opinion over to
the Muslim side. The news media and political figures were
showered with press releases and other materials exaggerating
Serb atrocities, whereas Muslim atrocities (such as the
decapitations of Serb prisoners, fully documented) remained
confidential. To the public, this was a one-sided conflict
between a Serbian "fascist aggressor" and innocent victims, all
unarmed civilians.
The general public did not know that Srebrenica, described as a
"safe area", was not in fact simply a haven for refugees, but
also a Muslim military base. The general public did not know what
Lord Owen knew and recounted in his important 1995 book, Balkan
Odyssey (p.143), namely that in April 1993, Serbian president
Slobodan Milosevic was extremely anxious to prevent Bosnian Serb
forces from overrunning Srebrenica. "On 16 April I spoke on the
telephone to President Milosevic about my anxiety that, despite
repeated assurances from Dr. Karadzic that he had no intention of
taking Srebrenica, the Bosnian Serb army was now proceeding to do
just that. The pocket was greatly reduced in size. I had rarely
heard Milosevic so exasperated, but also so worried: he feared
that if the Bosnian Serb troops entered Srebrenica there would be
a bloodbath because of the tremendous bad blood that existed
between the two armies. The Bosnian Serbs held the young Muslim
commander in Srebrenica, Naser Oric, responsible for a massacre
near Bratunac in December 1992 in which many Serb civilians had
been killed. Milosevic believed it would be a great mistake for
the Bosnian Serbs to take Srebrenica and promised to tell
Karadzic so."
Thus, many months before the July 1995 "Srebrenica massacre",
both Izetbegovic and Milosevic were aware of the possibility and
of its potential impact-favorable to the Muslim cause, and
disastrous for the Serbs.
A few other indisputable facts should not be overlooked:
Shortly before the Bosnian Serb attack on Srebrenica, the Muslim
troops stationed in that enclave carried out murderous attacks on
nearby Serb villages. These attacks were certain to incite Serb
commanders to retaliate against the Srebrenica garrison.
Meanwhile, the Muslim high command in Sarajevo ordered the
Srebrenica commanders, Oric and his lieutenants, to withdraw from
Srebrenica, leaving thousands of his soldiers without commanders,
without orders, and in total confusion when the foreseeable Serb
attack occurred. Surviving Srebrenica Muslim officials have
bitterly accused the Izetbegovic government of deliberately
sacrificing them to the interests of his State.
According to the most thorough study of Srebrenica events, by
Cees Wiebes for the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation
report, the Bosnian Serb forces set out in July 1995 to reduce
the area held by Bosnian Muslim forces on the outskirts of
Srebrenica, and only decided to capture the town itself when they
unexpectedly found it undefended.
"The VRS [Republika Srpska Army] advance went so well that the
evening of July 9 saw an important 'turning point' [...] The
Bosnian Serbs decided that they would no longer confine
themselves to the southern part of the enclave, but would extend
the operation and take the town of Srebrenica itself. Karadzic
was informed that the results achieved now put the Drina Corps in
a position to take the town; he had expressed his satisfaction
with this and had agreed to a continuation of the operation to
disarm the 'Muslim terrorist gangs' and to achieve a full
demilitarization of the enclave. In this order, issued by Major
General Zdravko Tolimir, it was also stated that Karadzic had
determined that the safety of UNPROFOR soldiers and of the
population should be ensured. Orders to this effect were to be
provided to all participating units. [...] The orders made no
mention of a forced relocation of the population. [...] A final
instruction, also of significance, was that the population and
prisoners of war should be treated in accordance with the Geneva
Convention. On July 11 all of Srebrenica fell into the hands of
the Bosnian Serbs."
In testimony to a French parliamentary commission inquiry into
Srebrenica, General Philippe Morillon, the UNPROFOR officer who
first called international attention to the Srebrenica enclave,
stated his belief that Bosnian Serb forces had fallen into a
"trap" when they decided to capture Srebrenica.
Subsequently, on February 12, 2004, testifying at the
International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, General Morillon
stressed that the Muslim commander in Srebrenica, Naser Oric,
"engaged in attacks during Orthodox holidays and destroyed
villages, massacring all the inhabitants. This created a degree
of hatred that was quite extraordinary in the region, and this
prompted the region of Bratunac in particular---that is the
entire Serb population---to rebel against the very idea that
through humanitarian aid one might help the population that was
present there."
Asked by the ICTY prosecutor how Oric treated his Serb prisoners,
General Morillon, who knew him well, replied that "Naser Oric was
a warlord who reigned by terror in his area and over the
population itself. I think that he realized that these were the
rules of this horrific war, that he could not allow himself to
take prisoners. According to my recollection, he didn't even look
for an excuse. It was simply a statement: One can't be bothered
with prisoners."
Morillon recounted how "the Serbs took me to a village to show me
the evacuation of the bodies of the inhabitants that had been
thrown into a hole, a village close to Bratunac. And this made me
understand the degree to which this infernal situation of blood
and vengeance [...] led to a situation when I personally feared
that the worst would happen if the Serbs of Bosnia managed to
enter the enclaves and Srebrenica."
"I feared that the Serbs, the local Serbs, the Serbs of Bratunac,
these militiamen, they wanted to take their revenge for
everything that they attributed to Naser Oric. It wasn't just
Naser Oric that they wanted to revenge, take their revenge on,
they wanted to revenge their dead on Orthodox Christmas."
* * *
In short, Srebrenica, whose Serb population had been chased out
by Muslim troops at the start of the civil war in 1992, was both
a gathering point for civilian Muslim refugees and a Muslim army
base. The enclave lived from international humanitarian aid. The
Muslim military did not allow civilians to leave, since their
presence was what ensured the arrival of humanitarian aid
provisions which the military controlled.
When the Bosnian Serb forces captured the town on July 11, 2005,
civilians were clamoring to leave the enclave, understandably
enough, since there was virtually no normal economic life there.
Much has been made of the fact that Serb forces separated the
population, providing buses for women, children and the infirm to
take them to Tuzla, while detaining the men. In light of all
that preceded, the reason for this separation is obvious: the
Bosnian Serbs were looking for the perpetrators of raids on Serb
villages, in order to take revenge.
However, only a relatively small number of Muslim men were
detained at that point, and some of them are known to have
survived and eventually been released in exchange for Serb
prisoners. When the Serb forces entered the town from the south,
thousands of Muslim soldiers, in disarray because of the absence
of commanding officers, fled northwards, through wild wooded
hills toward Tuzla. It is clear enough that they fled because
they feared exactly what everyone aware of the situation dreaded:
that Serb soldiers would take vengeance on the men they
considered guilty of murdering Serb civilians and prisoners.
Thousands of those men did in fact reach Tuzla, and were quietly
redeployed. This was confirmed by international observers.
However, Muslim authorities never provided information about
these men, preferring to let them be counted among the missing,
that is, among the massacred. Another large, unspecified number
of these men were ambushed and killed as they fled in scenes of
terrible panic. This was, then, a "massacre", such as occurs in
war when fleeing troops are ambushed by superior forces.
Counting the victims
So we come to the question of numbers. The question is difficult,
both because of the uncertainty that surrounds it, and because
merely pointing to this uncertainty is instantly denounced as
"revisionism" and lack of respect for the victims. This reproach
is not logical. Victims are victims, whether few or many, and
respect is not in proportion to their numbers.
The question of numbers is complex and has been dealt with in detail by
others, recently by an independent international Srebrenica
research group which will soon publish its findings in book form.
(3)
Suffice it here to note the following:
1. The sacralization of the estimated number of victims. In many
if not most disasters, initial estimates of casualties tend to be
inflated, for various reasons, such as multiple reports of the
same missing person, and are subsequently corrected downwards.
This was the case for the World Trade Center disaster, where
initial estimates of up to 10,000 victims were finally brought
down to less than 3000, and there are many other examples. In the
case of Srebrenica, the figure of 8,000 originated with September
1995 announcements by the International Committee of the Red
Cross that it was seeking information about some 3,000 men
reportedly detained as well as about some 5,000 who had fled to
central Bosnia. Neither the Bosnian Serbs nor the Muslims were
ever forthcoming with whatever information they had, and the
"8,000" figure has tended ever since to be repeated as an
established total of "Muslim men and boys executed by Serb
forces". It can be noted that this was always an estimate, the
sum of two separate groups, the smaller one of prisoners (whose
execution would be a clear war crime) and the larger one of
retreating troops (whose "massacre" as they fled would be the
usual tragic consequence of bitter civil war). Anyone familiar
with the workings of journalism knows that there is a sort of
professional inertia which leads reporters to repeat whatever
figure they find in previous reports, without verification, and
with a marked preference for big numbers. This inertia is all the
greater when no truly authoritative figures ever emerge.
The number of bodies exhumed.
Despite unprecedented efforts over the past ten years to recover
bodies from the area around Srebrenica, less than 3,000 have been
exhumed, and these include soldiers and others-Serb as well as
Muslim-who died in the vicious combats that took place during
three years of war. Only a fraction have been identified.
2. The political desire for the largest possible number. Aside
from the journalistic inertia mentioned above, the retention of
the unproven high figure of massacre victims in the case of
Srebrenica is clearly the result of political will on the part of
two governments: the Bosnian Muslim government of Alija
Izetbegovic and, more importantly, the government of the United
States. From the moment that Madeleine Albright brandished
satellite photos of what she claimed was evidence of Serb
massacres committed at Srebrenica (evidence that was both secret,
as the photos were shown in closed session to the Security
Council, and circumstantial, as they showed changes in terrain
which might indicate massacres, not the alleged massacres
themselves), the U.S. used "Srebrenica" for two clear purposes:
to draw attention away from the U.S.-backed Croatian
offensive which drove the Serb population out of the Krajina
which, as much as Srebrenica, was supposed to be protected by
the United Nations;
to implicate Bosnian Serb leaders in "genocide" in order to
disqualify them from negotiating the future of
Bosnia-Herzegovina. (The U.S. preferred to replace them at
Dayton by Milosevic, whose eagerness to end the war could be
exploited to get concessions the Bosnian Serbs might refuse.)
Exploitation of "Srebrenica" then helped set the stage for the
Kosovo war of 1999:
by blaming the United Nations (whose failure to defend
Srebrenica was in reality the inevitable result of the
unwillingness of the United States to give full support to U.N.
ground forces), NATO emerged as the only agent capable of
effective "humanitarian intervention".
by falsely identifying Milosevic with the Bosnian Serb
leadership and by exploiting the notion that Srebrenica
killings were part of a vast Serb plan of "genocide" carried
out against non-Serbs for purely racist reasons, Madeleine
Albright was able to advocate the NATO war against Yugoslavia
as necessary to prevent "another Srebrenica" in Kosovo, where
the situation was altogether different.
To use "Srebrenica" as an effective instrument in the
restructuring of former Yugoslavia, notably by replacing
recalcitrant Serb leaders by more pliable politicians, the crime
needed to be as big as possible: not a mere war crime (such as
the United States itself commits on a serial basis, from Vietnam
to Panama to Iraq), but "genocide": "the worst atrocity in Europe
since the Holocaust". That arouses the Hitler image, which is
always good for the image of the United States as saviour from
across the seas, and implies a plan decided at the highest
levels, rather than the brutal behavior of enraged soldiers (or
paramilitaries, the probable culprits in this case) out of
control.
But what plan for genocide includes offering safe passage to
women and children? And if this was all part of a Serb plot to
eliminate Muslims, what about all the Muslims living peacefully
in Serbia itself, including thousands of refugees who fled there
from Bosnia? Or the Muslims in the neighboring enclave of Zepa,
who were unharmed when the Serbs captured that town a few days
after capturing Srebrenica? To get around these common sense
obstacles, the ICTY prosecution came up with a sociologist who
provided an "expert" opinion: the Srebrenica Muslims lived in a
patriarchal society, therefore killing the men was enough to
ensure that there would be no more Muslims in Srebrenica. This
amounts to shrinking the concept of "genocide" to fit the
circumstances.
It was on basis of this definition that in August 2001 the
Tribunal found Bosnian Serb General Radislav Krstic guilty of
"complicity in genocide". Although he neither ordered,
participated in or was even aware of any executions, the judges
ruled that he took part in what the ICTY calls a "joint criminal
enterprise" simply by capturing Srebrenica, since he must have
been aware that genocide was "a natural and foreseeable
consequence". This is the ruling that established "genocide" as
the official description of events at Srebrenica.
Why such relentless determination to establish Srebrenica as
"genocide"? A December 27, 2003, Associated Press dispatch
provided an explanation by U.S. jurist Michael Scharf, one of the
designers of the ICTY who has also coached the judges for the
trial of Saddam Hussein: On a practical level, if the court
determines Srebrenica does not fit the legal definition of
genocide, it would be very difficult to make the charge stick
against Milosevic, said Michael Scharf, a professor at Case
Western Reserve University School of Law.
"And it is crucial that he be convicted of genocide," Scharf
said. If Milosevic can't be convicted, "then who can you convict
of genocide in the modern age?" he asked.
The legal definition of genocide could also come into play in an
Iraqi war-crimes tribunal, which has vowed to follow
international legal precedent.
It is striking that from the very start, the effort of the United
States and of the Tribunal in The Hague-which it mainly finances,
staffs and controls-has been to establish what it calls "command
responsibility" for Serb crimes rather than individual guilt of
actual perpetrators. The aim is not to identify and punish men
who violated the Geneva conventions by executing prisoners, but
rather to pin the supreme crime on the top Serb leadership.
The office of the ICTY prosecutor has chosen to rely heavily on a
single confessed participant in the Srebrenica massacre. This
person is one Drazen Erdemovic, a petty criminal of Croatian
nationality who was hospitalized in Serbia in March 1996 after a
near-fatal brawl in a bar in Novi Sad. Quite possibly in order
to escape further threats from his personal enemies, Erdemovic
confessed to Western news media to having taken part in mass
murder in Bosnia. He was arrested by Serb authorites who then,
at his request, turned him over to the Hague Tribunal.
From then on, the prosecution has used Erdemovic repeatedly as
its star witness, using the U.S. procedure of "plea bargaining"
by which a confessed criminal gets off lightly by incriminating
somebody else the prosecution wants to convict. He has told his
story to the judges at his own brief trial, where he was exempted
from cross examination thanks to his guilty plea, as well as at a
hearing incriminating Karadzic and Mladic (in the absence of any
legal defense) and at various trials whenever "Srebrenica" comes
up.
His story goes like this: after briefly serving in the Bosnian
Muslim army, Erdemovic joined an international mercenary militia
unit that seems to have been employed by the Bosnian Serb command
for sabotage operations on enemy territory. On July 16, 1995, his
unit of eight men executed between 1,000 and 1,200 Muslim men
near the village of Pilice, some 40 kilometers north of
Srebrenica. From around 10:30 in the morning to 3 o'clock in the
afternoon, these eight mercenaries emptied bus load after bus
load of prisoners and lined them up to be shot by groups of ten.
Now in fact, it seems that a serious crime was indeed committed
in Pilice. Subsequent forensic investigators exhumed 153 bodies.
One hundred and fifty-three executions of prisoners of war is a
serious crime, and there is material evidence that this crime was
committed. But 1,200? According to the manner of execution
described by Erdemovic, it would have taken 20 hours to murder so
many victims. Yet the judges have never questioned this
elementary arithmetical discrepancy, and Erdemovic's word has
consistently been accepted as gospel truth by the International
Criminal Tribunal in The Hague. (4)
Why this insistence on an implausibly higher number than can be
supported by material evidence? Obviously, the Tribunal wants to
keep the figures as high as possible in order to sustain the
charge of "genocide". The charge of "genocide" is what sharply
distinguishes the indictment of Serbs from indictments of Croats
or Muslims for similar crimes committed during the Yugoslav
disintegration wars.
In August 2000 after not quite four and a half years in jail, the
self-confessed mass murderer Erdemovic was freed, given a new
identity, residence in an unspecified Western country and a
"job", so to speak, as occasional paid and "protected" witness
for the ICTY.
In contrast, General Krstic was sentenced to 35 years in prison
and will be eligible for parole in 20 years.
Clearly, the purpose of the "genocide" charge is not to punish
the perpetrators but to incriminate the Bosnian Serb, and the
Yugoslav Serb, chain of command right up to the top.
Srebrenica As Myth
The transformation of Srebrenica into myth was illustrated last
July by an article in the Italian leftist daily Liberazione
(close to the "Communist Refoundation" party) reporting on a
semi-documentary film entitled "Srebrenica, luci dall'oblio"
("Srebrenica, lights from oblivion"). The title suggests that the
film-makers have rescued from oblivion a tragically neglected
event, when in fact, rarely in the history of warfare has a
massacre been the focus of so much attention.
Here we have the usual self-flagellation: "...what happened in
Srebrenica: the massacre of 9,000 civilians, in the most total
silence/absence on the part of the world institutions
[responsible for] peace..." The author accepts without question
the term "genocide" and raises the figure of victims to new
heights. "Around 9,000 men between the ages of 14 and 70 were
transported by truck to nearby centers where they were massacred
and buried in mass graves..." This was "the greatest mass
genocide committed since the days of Nazism until today"... What
is the point of this exaggeration, this dramatization? Why is
Srebrenica so much more terrible than the war that ravaged
Vietnam, with countless massacres and devastation of the countryside
by deadly chemicals, or the cold-blooded massacre of surrendering
Iraqis at the end of the first Gulf War in 1991? But that is
a genuinely forgotten massacre-not only forgotten, but never even
recognized in the first place, and the "international community"
has not sent teams of forensic scientists to find and identify
the victims of U.S. weapons.
In all probability the film-makers, aspiring artists and
"genocide experts" who consider "Srebrenica" suitable material
for touching the emotions of the public believe that they are
serving the interests of peace and humanity. But I would suggest
quite the contrary. The misrepresentation of "Bosnia" as scene of
a deliberate "genocide" against Muslims, rather than a civil war
with atrocities on all sides, contributes to a spirit of "conflict
of civilizations". It has helped recruit volunteers for
Islamic terrorist groups.
The political exploitation of Srebrenica has turned the Bosnian
war into a morality pantomimew between pure good and pure evil, a
version of events which the Serbs can never really accept and the
Muslims have no desire to give up. This stands in the way of
unbiased investigation and serious historical analysis.
Reconciliation is in fact ruled out by the moralistic insistence
that a stark distinction must be made between "aggressor" and
"victim". This stark difference exists between NATO and
Yugoslavia, or between the U.S. and Iraq, where an overwhelmingly
superior military power deliberately launched an aggressive war
against a sovereign country that neither attacked nor threatened
it.
But the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina was not of that nature. The
war there was the result of an extraordinarily complex legal
situation (an unsettled small Federal Republic constitutionally
composed of three "nationalities": Serb, Muslim and Croat, itself
part of a disintegrating larger Federal Republic) exacerbated by
myriad local power plays and the incoherent intervention of Great
Powers. Moreover, this occurred in a region where memories of
extremely bloody civil war during World War II were still very
much alive. To a large extent, the fighting that broke loose in
1992 was a resumption of the vicious cycle of massacres and
vengeance that devastated Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1941-44, when the
Nazi occupation broke up Yugoslavia and attached
Bosnia-Herzegovina to Greater Croatia, which proceeded to
eliminate Serbs.
Today it is an unquestioned dogma that recalling atrocies is a
"duty of memory" to the victims, something that must be endlessly
repeated, lest we forget. But is this really so obvious? The
insistence on past atrocities may simply prepare the next wave,
which is what has already happened in the Balkans, and more than
once. Because in reality, the dead victims cannot profit from
such memories. But the memory of victimhood is a moral and
political capital of great value for the heirs of victimhood and
especially for their self-appointed champions. And in the case of
Bosnia, it promises to bring considerable financial gain. If
Milosevic, as former president of Serbia, can be convicted of
genocide, then the Bosnian Muslims hope to win billions of
dollars in reparations that will keep Serbia on its knees for the
foreseeable future.
* * *
The obsessive reference to "Srebrenica" has a negative effect far
beyond the Balkans.
The "Srebrenica massacre" is part of a dominant culture discourse
that goes like this: We people in the advanced democracies have
reached a new moral plateau, from which we are both able and have
a duty both to judge others and to impose our "values" when
necessary. The others, on a lower moral plateau, must be watched
carefully, because unlike us, they may commit "genocide". It
is remarkable how "genocide" has become fashionable, with more
and more "genocide experts" in universities, as if studying
genocide made sense as a separate academic discipline. What
would all these people do without genocide? I wonder what is
behind the contemporary fascination with genocide and serial
killers, and I doubt that it is a sign of a healthy social psychology.
In the world today, few people, including Bosnian Muslims, are
threatened by "genocide" in the sense of a deliberate
Hitler-style project to exterminate a population-which is how
most people understand the term. But millions of people are
threatened, not by genocidal maniacs, but by genocidal conditions
of life: poverty, disease, inadequate water, global climate
change. The Srebrenica mourning cult offers nothing positive in
regard to these genocidal conditions. Worse, it is
instrumentalized openly to justify what is perhaps the worst of
all the genocidal conditions: war.
The subliminal message in the official Srebrenica discourse is
that because "we" let that happen, "we" mustn't let "it" happen
again, ergo, the United States should preventively bomb potential
perpetrators of "genocide". Whatever happened in Srebrenica
could have best been prevented, not by U.S. or NATO bombing, but
by preventing civil war from breaking out in Bosnia Herzegovina
to begin with. This prevention was possible if the "international
community", meaning the NATO powers, Europe and the United
States, had firmly insisted that the Yugoslav crisis of 1990
should be settled by negotiations. But first of all, Germany
opposed this, by bullying the European Union into immediate recognition
of the secession of Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia, without
negotiation. All informed persons knew that this threatened
the existence of Bosnia Herzegovina. The European Union proposed
a cantonization plan for Bosnia Herzegovina, not very different
from the present arrangement, which was accepted by leaders of
the Bosnian Muslim, Serb and Croat communities. But shortly
thereafter, Muslim president Alija Izetbegovic reneged, after the
U.S. ambassador encouraged him to hold out for more. Throughout
the subsequent fighting, the U.S. put obstacles in the way of
every European peace plan. [6] These years of obstruction enabled
the United States to take control of the eventual peace settlement
in Dayton, in November 1995.
This rejection of compromise, which plunged Bosnia-Herzegovina
into fratricidal war, was supported at the time by a chorus of
humanitarians- not least politicians safely ensconced in the
European Parliament who voted for "urgent resolutions" about
situations of which they were totally ignorant-claiming that
Bosnia must be a centralized State for the sake of
"multiculturalism". These were the same humanitarians who
applauded the breakup of multicultural Yugoslavia-which in fact
created the crisis in Bosnia.
Clearly, whoever executes unarmed prisoners commits a very
serious crime whether in Bosnia or anywhere else. But when all is
said and done, it is an illusion to think that condemning
perpetrators of a massacre in Bosnia will ensure that the next
civil war somewhere in the world will be carried out in a more
chivalrous manner. War is a life and death matter, and inevitably
leads people to commit acts they would never commit in peacetime.
The notion that war can be made "clean", played according to
rules, should not be the main focus of international law or of
peace movements. War first of all needs to be prevented, not
policed.
The false interpretation of "Srebrenica" as part of an ongoing
Serb project of "genocide" was used to incite the NATO war
against Yugoslavia, which devastated a country and left behind a
cauldron of hatred and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. The United
States is currently engaged in a far more murderous and
destructive war in Iraq. In this context, the Western
lamentations that inflate the Srebrenic massacre into "the
greatest mass genocide since Nazi times" are a diversion from the
real existing genocide, which is not the work of some racist
maniac, but the ongoing imposition of a radically unjust
socio-economic world order euphemistically called "globalization".
Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, Nato, and
Western Delusions [
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158367084X/counterpunchmaga ]
published by Monthly Review Press. She can be reached at:
dianajohnstone @ compuserve.com
NOTES
1. Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to General Assembly
Resolution 53/35 (1998), Section IV, paragraph C.115.
2. Bernard Kouchner, "Les Guerriers de la Paix", Grasset, Paris, 2004,
pp. 372-375.
3. "Srebrenica: The Politics of War Crimes", by George Bogdanich,
Tim Fenton, Philip Hammond, Edward S. Herman, Michael Mandel,
Jonathan Rooper and George Szamuely. See
http://www.srebrenica-report.com/politics.htm.
4. Germinal Civikov, "Kalaschnikow und Einzelfeuer: Der Fall
Drazen Erdemovic", Freitag, 16 September 2005.
5. Davide Turrini "Il genocidio jugoslavo rivive sullo schermo",
Liberazione, 12 July 2005.
6. See David Owen, Balkan Odyssey, Victor Gollancz, London, 1995.
Lord Owen, who, as co-chairman of the steering committee of the
International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, attempted from
August 1992 to June 1995 to negotiate a peace settlement in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, concludes (Indigo paperback, p.400): "From
the spring of 1993 to the summer of 1995, in my judgement, the
effect of US policy, despite its being called 'containment', was
to prolong the war of the Bosnian Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina."
---
www.counterpunch.org
CounterPunch - November 5 / 6, 2005
A Response to Certain Criticisms of My Recent Essay
Srebrenica: Using War as an Excuse for More War
By DIANA JOHNSTONE
Anyone foolhardy enough to write a dissenting view about former
Yugoslavia in general and Srebrenica in particular has to know
what she's in for: misinterpretation, outrage, accusations of
being an apologist for genocide. All this is to be expected, but
unpleasant nevertheless, and illustrative of the fact that the
supposed efforts by the "International Community" to foster a
spirit of multicultural reconciliation have been a dismal
failure--and that is putting it mildly.
Thus, despite NATO's war to give Kosovo over to armed rebels
with notorious criminal connections, an Albanian-American writes
indignantly that the Serbs "still stain" Kosovo -- apparently by
their drastically reduced presence in terrorized ghettos. The
symbol of "the Srebrenica massacre" helps keep such hatred
burning, hatred which still has political uses in the Balkans.
At the global level, it is shorthand for the "humanitarian
intervention" imperative, Washington's favorite excuse for
neoimperialist interventions, when "terrorism" and "weapons
of mass destruction" lose credibility.
That symbol was the subject of my essay.
Some months ago, I was invited to join a group of writers
forming a "Srebrenica research group". I declined, explaining
that I had already said all I was capable of saying on the
subject in my book Fools' Crusade.
As I pointed out: There are two sides to writing about Srebrenica.
1-The plain facts: body counts, forensic evidence, etc.
2 -Analysis of the propaganda and political significance.
The analysis is the part that actually interests me the most,
and that I emphasized in my book. In contrast, evaluating the
evidence is beyond my capabilities, nothaving the resources or
the expertise to pursue body counts or seek out survivors.
I would have let it go at that, but an Italian publication,
Giano, recently invited me to write a response to an article in
the Rifondazione comunista newspaper Liberazione, which spoke of
"the massacre of 9,000 civilians", well above even the highest
possible estimates, and dwelt heavily on the charge of
"genocide". This was only one example of an extraordinary media
campaign on the tenth anniversary of the Serb capture of
Srebrenica. Isn't it rather strange that Western media pay more
attention to events in a small town in Bosnia ten years ago than
to the destruction of cities in Iraq which is happening now? It
is clear that "Srebrenica" as a symbol has a propaganda life of
its own, apart from whatever happened there in 1995. However,
that distinction is obviously one that many people find
impossible to make.
Most attacks on my piece center on three terms:
1."Humanitarian intervention."
Although used as an argument in favor of "humanitarian
intervention", the Bosnian war may better be seen as an
illustration of what is wrong with the notion. The idea of
"humanitarian intervention" suggests that Great Powers -- and
given today's relationship of forces, this means the United
States -- can be persuaded to act decisively in the interest
of others. Not only is this an illusion, but the type of
intervention employed by the United States, based on high
altitude bombing, is by its nature totally unsuited to
"humanitarian" missions. The prospect of calling in
"humanitarian intervention" risks exacerbating conflicts in
the hope of drawing in U.S. military power on the side of one
group or another. Had Alija Izetbegovic not been led to
believe that he could obtain U.S. intervention, he might have
worked for a compromise agreement. Without unnecessary
prolongation of the Bosnian conflict, the 1995 Serb capture of
Srebrenica would not have taken place.
2."Civil war."
Despite arguments to the contrary, the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina was
most certainly a civil war, fought mainly between local Muslims,
Serbs and Croats. The fact that all three sides received help
from outside Bosnia-Herzegovina, both from other parts of
former Yugoslavia (Croatia openly sent in its army to fight
for Bosnian Croats) and from farther afield (the Muslims
received arms and fighters from Muslim countries, with
clandestine U.S. help), does not make it any less a civil war.
Foreign intervention in civil wars is not unusual. And the
argument that it was not a civil war because one party (the
Serbs) was stronger than others makes no sense.
3."Genocide."
Some Bosnian Muslims seem to think that labeling Srebrenica "genocide"
is necessary to pay sufficient respect to victims of whatever
happened there. Perhaps some day they may realize that the
charge of "genocide" has nothing to do with extra respect
for victims, and everything to do with pinning the "supreme
crime" on Milosevic for political reasons: to justify NATO's
totally unjustifiable aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999.
The real nature of the Kosovo problem, and the possibilities
for peaceful compromise, were hidden behind the myth of "Srebrenica"
as proof that the Serbs in general, and Milosevic in
particular, were out to commit "genocide" against non-Serbs.
This total fiction enabled Madeleine Albright to get the war
she wanted: the war to initiate NATO into its new mission of
"humanitarian intervention" and thereby reassert U.S. military
dominance of Europe.
Diana Johnstone is the author of Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, Nato, and
Western Delusions [
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/158367084X/counterpunchmaga ]
published by Monthly Review Press. She can be reached at:
dianajohnstone @ compuserve.com
---
Get CounterPunch's Print Edition By Email!
http://www.easycarts.net/ecarts/CounterPunch/
CounterPunch_Subscriptions.html
Call Toll Free 1-800-840-3683
or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
Verso la III Guerra Mondiale
1. Gli Stati Uniti contro la Cina. Strategie, pericoli e alleanze
nello scontro dei giganti del XXI secolo (R.D. Kaplan)
2. A. Burgio, M. Dinucci, V. Giacché:
ESCALATION - Anatomia della guerra infinita
=== 1 ===
Corriere della Sera, 19/11/2005
Storia della III guerra mondiale
di Robert D. Kaplan *
Gli Stati Uniti contro la Cina. Strategie, pericoli e alleanze nello
scontro dei giganti del XXI secolo
Geopolitica Bush in missione in Asia. Il Vietnam chiede intese
militari a Washington. Lo stato maggiore cinese studia la «guerra
senza limiti». La competizione economica tra Pechino e gli Usa è già
in corso. L'attrito militare è oggi pressione, domani possibile
conflitto nucleare
Fino a oggi non v'è stato esercito di mare o di terra che costituisse
una minaccia per gli Stati Uniti. La situazione è destinata a cambiare
rapidamente. Nei decenni a venire la Cina giocherà un'estenuante
partita con gli Usa nel Pacifico, favorita non solo dalle sue coste
sterminate ma anche da un sistema di basi che si estende fin dentro
l'Asia centrale.Come possono gli Stati Uniti prepararsi ad affrontare
la sfida?Il sistema di alleanze della seconda metà del XX secolo è
finito. La guerra del Kosovo del 1999 ha messo in luce drammatiche
spaccature all'interno della Nato. L'Alleanza è definitivamente
crollata con l'invasione americana dell'Afghanistan, in seguito alla
quale gli eserciti europei hanno fatto poco più che pattugliare zone
già pacificate da soldati e marines statunitensi. Oggi la Nato è uno
strumento per espandere le missioni di addestramento bilaterali tra
Stati Uniti ed ex repubbliche comuniste: con i marines in Bulgaria e
Romania, la marina in Albania, l'esercito in Polonia e Repubblica
Ceca, le Forze Speciali in Georgia. Un suo equivalente nell'Oceano
Pacifico esiste già: è il Comando Usa per il Pacifico, noto come Pacom.
I suoi capi si rendono conto di ciò che sfugge a molti politici e
professionisti dell'informazione: il centro di gravità delle
preoccupazioni strategiche americane è già il Pacifico, non il Medio
Oriente. Il raggio di influenza del Pacom include metà della
superficie e più di metà delle economie mondiali. I sei maggiori
eserciti del mondo, due dei quali (quello americano e quello cinese)
si stanno modernizzando più rapidamente di tutti gli altri, operano
all'interno della sua sfera di controllo. «Imbarcarsi in una guerra
con la Cina è semplice —dice Michael Vickers, del Center for Strategic
and Budgetari Assessments di Washington —.
Il dilemma è: come uscirne?». Un analista interno al Pentagono mi ha
risposto: «Per porre termine a un conflitto con i cinesi dovremo
ridurre in maniera radicale la loro capacità militare, minacciando le
loro fonti di energia e la presa sul potere del Partito Comunista.
Dopo, il mondo non sarà più lo stesso. È una strada molto pericolosa».
Nei prossimi decenni la Cina destinerà all'esercito risorse sempre
maggiori. L'unico realistico obiettivo degli Stati Uniti potrebbe
essere incoraggiarla a investire in misure difensive e non offensive.
Impegno che richiederà particolare cura perché, a differenza della
vecchia Unione Sovietica, la Cina detiene tanto il potere morbido
quanto quello duro. Il mix cinese di autoritarismo tradizionale ed
economia di mercato esercita un esteso fascino culturale in tutta
l'Asia e non solo. La democrazia risulta attraente laddove la tirannia
sia stata un'esperienza odiosa e fallimentare, come in Ucraina e
Zimbabwe. Il mondo, però, è pieno di aree grigie, come la Giordania e
la Malaysia, dove la tirannia ha garantito stabilità e crescita.
Prendiamo Singapore.
La mescolanza di democrazia e autoritarismo l'hanno resa invisa agli
idealisti di Washington ma nel Pacifico Singapore offre la sola base
non americana dove i mezzi nucleari Usa possano essere revisionati; il
suo contributo alla caccia ai terroristi islamici nell'arcipelago
indonesiano è stato pari se non superiore a quello offerto altrove dai
maggiori alleati occidentali dell'America. Anche la politica richiede
un riposizionamento in favore del Pacifico: le attuali tensioni tra
Stati Uniti ed Europa impediscono l'integrazione militare, mentre gli
alleati del Pacifico, notoriamente Giappone e Australia, auspicano un
maggiore coinvolgimento militare al fianco degli Usa, per contrastare
l'avanzata della marina cinese. Al momento le sfide poste
dall'emergere della Cina possono apparire esigue. Gli Stati Uniti
dispiegano 24 delle 34 portaerei di tutto il mondo; i cinesi non ne
hanno neanche una.
Eppure, all'inizio della guerra del Peloponneso, che durò ventisette
anni, Atene disponeva di un notevole vantaggio rispetto a Sparta, che
non aveva una flotta. Alla fine fu Sparta a vincere. La Cina si è
lanciata in ingenti spese militari ma ancora per qualche decennio la
sua marina e la sua aviazione non raggiungeranno i livelli
statunitensi. Ecco perché i cinesi non hanno intenzione di fare agli
americani il favore di impegnarsi in battaglie convenzionali, come
quelle combattute nell'Oceano Pacifico durante la Seconda Guerra
Mondiale. I cinesi useranno piuttosto un approccio asimmetrico, come
fanno oggi i terroristi. Con un avanzato sistema missilistico i cinesi
potrebbero lanciare centinaia di missili su Taiwan prima che gli
americani riescano a raggiungere l'isola per difenderla. Una tale
capacità, unita a una nuova flotta di sottomarini (destinata a
superare presto quella Usa, se non in qualità, almeno in dimensioni),
potrebbe bastare ai cinesi per costringere altri Paesi a negare alle
navi americane l'accesso ai propri porti. C'è poi la coercizione
ambigua: pensiamo a una serie di ciber-attacchi anonimi alla rete
elettrica di Taiwan finalizzati a ridurre gradualmente la popolazione
allo stremo. Non è fantascienza; i cinesi hanno investito molto
nell'addestramento e nelle tecnologie da guerra cibernetica. Il fatto
che la Cina non sia una democrazia non significa che i cinesi non
siano padroni nella manipolazione psicologica di elettorati
democratici.Quale dovrebbe essere la risposta militare degli Stati
Uniti a sviluppi di questo tipo?
La «non convenzionalità».La Base aerea Andersen, sulla punta
settentrionale di Guam, rappresenta il futuro della strategia Usa nel
Pacifico. È la piattaforma di lancio più potente del mondo. Guam, che
ospita anche una divisione sottomarina e una base navale in
espansione, è importante per la posizione che occupa. Dall'isola è
possibile coprire quasi tutta l'area di responsabilità del Pacom.
Volare in Corea del Nord dalla costa occidentale degli Stati Uniti
richiede tredici ore; da Guam ne occorrono quattro. «Non è come
Okinawa — spiega il Generale Tennis Larsen —. Questo è suolo americano
in mezzo al Pacifico. Guam è territorio Usa». Durante la Guerra Fredda
la marina aveva una specifica infrastruttura pensata per contrastare
una specifica minaccia: la guerra con l'Unione Sovietica. Oggi la
minaccia è multipla e incerta: dobbiamo essere in qualsiasi momento
pronti a combattere una guerra convenzionale contro la Corea del Nord
o una controguerriglia non convenzionale contro un'isola-Stato
canaglia spalleggiata dalla Cina.
Secondo l'esperto di Asia Mark Helprin, mentre gli Usa si impegnano a
democratizzare il Medio Oriente, sostenendo solo gli Stati i cui
sistemi interni siano simili al loro, la Cina si prepara a mietere i
frutti di una politica che bada, amoralmente, ai propri interessi —
come fecero gli Stati Uniti durante la Guerra Fredda. Dobbiamo anche
renderci conto che nei prossimi anni e decenni la distanza morale tra
Europa e Cina è destinata a ridursi in maniera considerevole,
soprattutto nel caso in cui l'autoritarismo cinese accetti delle
limitazioni e l'Unione Europea in continua espansione diventi un
superstato «imperfettamente democratico», governato dai funzionari di
Bruxelles. Anche la Russia sta procedendo in una direzione decisamente
non democratica: il presidente Vladimir Putin ha risposto al sostegno
Usa alla democrazia in Ucraina, con l'assenso a «massicce»
esercitazioni aeree e navali congiunte con i cinesi senza precedenti.
La situazione potrebbe portare a una Nato sostanzialmente nuova, con
un'«armada » globale schierata sui Sette Mari. A un'Europa che tenta
di evitare i conflitti e ridurre la geopolitica a una serie di
negoziati e appianamenti, ben si adatterebbe questa rivalutazione del
potere sul mare. Un potere costitutivamente meno minaccioso di quello
terrestre, da sempre strumento privilegiato della Realpolitik. Man
mano che l'influenza economica dell'Ue si espanderà nel globo,
l'Europa comprenderà, al pari degli Usa nel XIX secolo e della Cina
oggi, di dover andare per mare per proteggere i propri interessi.
La Nato è debole. Per riconquistare il suo significato politico, dovrà
trasformarsi in un'alleanza militare della cui capacità di attacco
immediato nessuno possa dubitare. Questa era la sua reputazione ai
tempi della Guerra Fredda, così rinomata che i sovietici non vollero
mai testarla. La sfida posta dall'esercito cinese è già una realtà per
ufficiali e marinai Usa. La guerra sui mari è cerebrale. La minaccia,
all'orizzonte; il nemico è invisibile e tutto si riduce a un calcolo
matematico. L'obiettivo diventa ingannare più che attaccare, lasciare
la prima mossa all'avversario. Il Pacifico nasconde minacce di ogni
tipo. Benvenuti nel futuro. Parlando del Golfo Persico e dell'Oceano
Pacifico, un alto ufficiale ha detto: «La marina dovrebbe dedicarsi
meno a quella piccola pozzanghera di fango salato e pensare di più al
mare».
=== 2 ===
http://www.deriveapprodi.org/estesa.php?id=145&stato=novita
A. Burgio, M. Dinucci, V. Giacché
Escalation
Anatomia della guerra infinita
pagg. 288
€ 13.5
ISBN 88-88738-65-7
Il libro
Dagli anni Novanta la guerra è ricomparsa nelle nostre vite. Gli anni
che avrebbero dovuto celebrare il trionfo della pace sotto le insegne
della democrazia e del libero mercato hanno visto i bombardieri in
azione anche in Europa. Oggi siamo a una tremenda accelerazione:
Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003. E domani? Iran, Siria, Corea del Nord?
Quali sono i motivi di questa escalation? E quali le conseguenze?
Questo libro cerca di dire come stanno realmente le cose, fornendo un
quadro dei presupposti geopolitici ed economici della «guerra
infinita» e mettendo in risalto le sue devastanti ricadute sui sistemi
democratici degli stessi paesi che la propagano, a cominciare dagli
Stati Uniti d'America. Ne viene fuori un quadro molto distante dalle
«verità» dell'informazione ufficiale. Come più volte accadde nel
secolo scorso, anche in questo la crisi del capitalismo riporta la
guerra all'ordine del giorno. Sempre, in tempo di guerra, i margini
della critica si assottigliano. Il dominio delle armi porta con sé
quello sulle menti e sui discorsi. In un clima in cui è difficile
discostarsi dal coro, questo libro vuole essere un atto di resistenza
contro le mistificazioni.
A. Burgio, M. Dinucci, V. Giacché
Alberto Burgio insegna Storia della filosofia a Bologna. Con
DeriveApprodi ha pubblicato Modernità del conflitto. Saggio sulla
critica marxiana del socialismo (1999) e Guerra. Scenari della nuova
«grande trasformazione» (2004).
Manlio Dinucci, giornalista e geografo, è autore de Il sistema globale
(2004), Geostoria dell'Africa (2000) e altri testi editi dalla
Zanichelli. Tra i suoi ultimi libri Il potere nucleare (Fazi, 2003). È
stato direttore esecutivo per l'Italia della International Physicians
for the Prevention of Nuclear War, che ha vinto nel 1985 il premio
Nobel per la pace.
Vladimiro Giacché si è laureato e perfezionato in Filosofia alla
Scuola Normale di Pisa. È autore di opere e saggi di argomento
filosofico ed economico. Fa parte della redazione de «la
Contraddizione» e del comitato editoriale e di programmazione
scientifica di «Proteo».
un assaggio...
«L'effetto collaterale peggiore, la guerra che uccide la
comunicazione, mi precipita addosso. A me che ho rischiato tutto,
sfidando il governo italiano che non voleva che i giornalisti
potessero raggiungere l'Iraq, e gli americani che non vogliono che il
nostro lavoro testimoni che cosa è diventato quel paese davvero con la
guerra e nonostante quelle che chiamano elezioni». Così ha scritto
l'inviata del «manifesto» Giuliana Sgrena dopo la sua drammatica
esperienza in Iraq. Questo è l'Iraq «restituito alla democrazia». Un
inferno: decine di migliaia di civili trucidati, bambini mutilati,
donne stuprate. Un paese distrutto. Stragi quotidiane, soldati
terrorizzati che esorcizzano la paura sparando all'impazzata tra la
folla nei mercati e per strada. Soldati incaricati di search and
destroy, che irrompono armati nelle scuole e negli ospedali a caccia
di «terroristi» e massacrano chi càpita, anziani, donne, bambini. È
l'«esportazione della democrazia», nel nome della quale Bush e i suoi
consiglieri neo-conservatori hanno messo a ferro e fuoco il Medio
Oriente e fatto strame del diritto internazionale. Rientrano in tale
quadro le «elezioni» irachene, attorno alle quali si è levato, anche
in Italia, un coro di elogi. Pochi hanno mostrato, non diciamo
l'onestà intellettuale, ma almeno la ragionevolezza di rimarcare che
queste «elezioni» si sono tenute in un paese sotto occupazione
militare e secondo le regole dettate da Washington. In Italia si sono
uniti al coro non soltanto (com'è naturale) gli esponenti della
destra, ma anche autorevoli esponenti della sinistra, dichiarandosi
addirittura «affascinati» dall'ideologia neoconservatrice. Di questa
guerra tutto il mondo parla, da quando Baghdad fu sommersa da una
pioggia di bombe, il 19 marzo del 2003. Parla, ma per dire che cosa?
Le persone di buona volontà chiedono pace. Altri giustificano, nel
nome della propria civiltà superiore. Altri ancora sospendono il
giudizio, distribuendo ragioni e torti con una equidistanza degna di
miglior causa. Questo libro non è equidistante. Parte da una premessa
ben chiara, che a noi pare fondamentale. Questa guerra l'ha voluta
l'amministrazione Bush, senza alcuna giustificazione. La menzogna
delle «armi di distruzione di massa» è stata una messinscena a
beneficio dei creduloni. La storia del «terrorismo internazionale» e
dello «scontro di civiltà» è una diceria che strumentalizza misteri
(chi volle l'11 settembre?) per legittimare nuove crociate. Questa è
una guerra statunitense, combattuta nell'epicentro della crisi
mondiale (il «grande Medio Oriente»), ma scatenata per la posta più
alta, la leadership nei confronti degli altri poli di potenza: l'oggi
«alleata» Unione europea, quindi i nemici di sempre, a cominciare da
Cina e Russia. Quando la si dice «infinita», non si impiegano
iperboli: si dà conto di un preciso programma.
---
Ancora una recensione del libro di Burgio, Dinucci, Giacchè.
NB. Una recensione è apparsa anche sull'ultimo numero de L'Ernesto.
---
Guantanamo e industria bellica. Escalation, un libro sulla politica di
potenza Usa
Dalla recessione all'intervento militare in Afghanistan e in Iraq c'è
un filo rosso che unisce politica economica interna e politica estera
degli Usa. La guerra diventa così lo strumento per uscire dalla crisi
economica e per affermare l'egemonia mondiale di Washington. E' questa
la tesi che attraversa i tre saggi che compongono il volume
ENZO MODUGNO
Il manifesto, 7/6/2005
Piers Brendon (Gli Anni Trenta, Carocci, euro 18,60), storico a
Cambridge e responsabile dei Churchill Archives, interpreta come
conseguenza diretta della crisi del `29 i principali avvenimenti del
decennio che si concluse con la seconda guerra mondiale, e mostra cosa
avvenne quando le difficoltà materiali della crisi capitalistica si
combinarono con il "fanatismo ideologico di leader disposti a tutto".
Se usassimo lo stesso criterio oggi, dovremmo considerare gli
avvenimenti recenti come la conseguenza diretta della crisi economica
Usa del 2000-01, la più grave dopo il `29, che torna a combinarsi con
nuovi fanatismi ideologici di leader - così sembra - disposti a tutto.
Quali siano queste leggi del capitalismo che spingono alla guerra, e
perché si combinino con questi leader, è appunto l'argomento del libro
di Piers Brendon. In un paio di capitoli si ricostruisce la trama
della micidiale politica economica che permise alla Germania nazista
di superare per prima la grande depressione seguita al `29. Nel 1934
il ministro delle Finanze Schacht diede impulso al rilancio
dell'economia finanziando il riarmo con le cambiali ?Mefo?, note di
credito accettate dalle banche e dai fornitori del governo, che
garantivano un interesse del 4% ed erano rimborsabili nel 1939. Ma nel
1938 Hitler diede il via alla seconda guerra mondiale evitando i
rimborsi che avrebbero fatto crollare l'economia tedesca. La guerra di
rapina avrebbe pareggiato i conti.
Dalla vicenda esposta da Brendon emergono due temi da riconsiderare.
Il nesso tra debito e guerra, perché la guerra ancora oggi costituisce
un mezzo per rimandare il pagamento del debito che gli Usa non hanno
intenzione di pagare. E, soprattutto, il nesso tra militarismo e
ripresa economica. L'economia della Germania nazista infatti si era
ripresa col riarmo, cioè prima che la guerra di rapina assicurasse le
risorse, i mercati e i campi di investimento.
Lo stimolo militare
Dopo sessant'anni questo uso della leva militare è ormai pratica
costante delle amministrazioni Usa. Non più semplicemente a sostegno
delle dinamiche economiche dell'espansione imperialistica, ma in
sostituzione di esse: è questo il tema rilevante del saggio
"L'economia della guerra infinita" di Vladimiro Giacché, nel volume
collettivo Escalation (DeriveApprodi, pp. 288, ?13,50), che contiene
anche i contributi di Manlio Dinucci e Alberto Burgio.
Il saggio di Giacché può essere accostato al libro di Brendon perché
anche in questo testo si interpreta la guerra come conseguenza diretta
di una grave crisi economica, quella manifestatasi negli Stati uniti
con lo scoppio della bolla speculativa del marzo 2000 e con la
recessione iniziata nel marzo 2001, dunque ben prima dell'11
settembre. La guerra - si sostiene - è stata usata consapevolmente
come la "continuazione dell'economia con altri mezzi". Clamoroso
a questo proposito il report caricato sul sito di Morgan Stanley alle
8 dell'11 settembre dall'ufficio delle Twin Towers: "Solo un atto di
guerra può salvare l'economia degli Stati uniti e il dollaro". Appena
un'ora prima che "l'atto di guerra" si verificasse realmente.
Giacché ritiene che si stia compiendo una "delicata transizione" verso
un sempre più esplicito uso economico del militarismo. Superando
dunque le diffuse interpretazioni della guerra o solo politica o solo
come "guerra di rapina", l'autore recupera la complessità dell'analisi
elaborata nei momenti alti dal movimento operaio. La "formula" della
sopravvivenza del capitalismo individuava due momenti: 1) il riarmo
continuo, giustificato da apocalittiche minacce di nemici esterni, per
attutire la tendenza permanente alla crisi economica col sostegno al
settore privato mediante la spesa pubblica militare e 2) con le armi
così prodotte, la guerra di rapina e il dominio su risorse, mercati,
campi d'investimento.
Ogni semplificazione di questa micidiale sinergia ha sempre prodotto
fraintendimenti. La guerra dunque non solo per aprire mercati, per il
controllo delle materie prime, per l'egemonia del dollaro, per imporre
il non pagamento del proprio deficit, ma anche e ormai soprattutto
come strumento per rimettere in moto l'economia: l'escalation militare
Usa ha questa impronta inconfondibile di "stimolo della congiuntura".
"La guerra fa bene al Pil", ha titolato "il Sole 24 Ore" (20 febbraio
2002).
Il saggio contiene un'accurata documentazione della stretta relazione
tra interventi militari e ripresa dell'economia Usa a partire dalla
seconda guerra mondiale. Ai dati forniti da Giuseppe Guarino (I soldi
della guerra) e da Mario Pianta su questo giornale, che ha annunciato
l'edizione italiana di War Inc di Seymour Melman, si aggiungono ora i
dati di questo volume: 750 miliardi di dollari calcolando tutte le
voci della spesa militare Usa. Più i recentissimi 82 miliardi votati
all'unanimità dal Congresso. Quindi col moltiplicatore al 2,5 la spesa
militare assicurerebbe un quinto del Pil degli Stati uniti. Livelli da
guerra fredda: ma l'Unione Sovietica non c'è più e gli Stati uniti
stanno ora cercando, provocando, costruendo nuovi nemici per
giustificare l'ininterrotto riarmo. E siccome anche Giacché ritiene,
con Augusto Graziani, che "i conflitti prolungati esercitano un
influsso sull'attività economica di tutti i paesi che, direttamente o
indirettamente, vi sono coinvolti", ritiene anche che il prolungamento
del conflitto in Iraq vada interpretato "non soltanto come un
infortunio, ma come una scelta strategica precisa" delle classi
dirigenti Usa. Anzi, hanno già deciso che la "guerra al terrorismo"
durerà trent'anni e questo è solo il suo inizio: sostituirà la guerra
fredda proprio per assicurare un altrettanto prolungato,
provvidenziale "influsso sull'attività economica" statunitense. Si
spiegherebbero così il "millenarismo" dei neoconservatori e le
dichiarazioni di Rumsfeld: "Non abbiamo un metro per stabilire se
stiamo vincendo o perdendo la guerra al terrorismo". E di Bush:
"Questa guerra non può essere vinta". Secondo Giacché la "verità" di
queste affermazioni sta nello slogan con cui il presidente Usa ha
vinto le elezioni: "Difenderò il nostro tenore di vita ad ogni costo".
Nel saggio di apertura dello stesso volume, intitolato "Geopolitica di
una `guerra globale'", Manlio Dinucci ripercorre l'escalation militare
Usa dopo il biennio 1989-91, rintracciando le strategie
espansionistiche degli Stati uniti tanto nei documenti di
pianificazione strategica resi pubblici, quanto nella ricostruzione
delle guerre Usa e nella crescita delle spese militari, con la
documentazione probabilmente più completa disponibile in Italia su
questo argomento. Così come è puntuale il resoconto di quanto avvenne
l'11 settembre, delle incongruenze nel comportamento del governo Usa e
nella ricostruzione ufficiale degli eventi.
Nel terzo saggio, "La guerra contro i diritti", Alberto Burgio
individua un altro aspetto dell'escalation nella sempre più sfuggente
distinzione tra "dentro" e "fuori": il ripudio del diritto
internazionale ha il suo inevitabile doppio nella soppressione dei
diritti civili all'interno.
Burgio ravvisa nell'uso della tortura, da Mazar i Sharif a Guantanamo
e ad Abu Ghraib, non soltanto lo smascheramento della retorica della
"guerra per la democrazia e per i diritti", ma una pratica che gli Usa
sperimentano da tempo anche nei propri istituti penitenziari.
Più in generale, in parallelo alla transizione - indicata da Giacché -
da "impero informale" attuato mediante il dominio economico, ad
"impero formale" fondato sul dominio militare, c'è nel saggio di
Burgio la descrizione dei principali mutamenti giuridici che hanno
determinato il passaggio da "stato sociale" a "stato penale".
Militarismo ed economia di guerra si riflettono quindi, sul piano
interno, in regressione costituzionale e accentramento patologico del
comando. Insomma un volume che, nelle sue tre parti, affronta la
complessità dell'"impero formale".
Ritorno agli albori
E' da segnalare quanto importante sia l'analisi della funzione
economica del militarismo, così spesso trascurata, per interpretare le
dinamiche profonde del capitalismo Usa e della politica estera al
servizio della sua sopravvivenza. Dopo oltre mezzo secolo di
sospensione dello scontro armato tra imperialismi ormai sappiamo che i
profitti esterni, indispensabili per superare le crisi economiche, non
vengono soltanto dalle guerre di rapina - non è rimasto molto - ma
sempre più spesso "artificialmente" dall'indebitamento dello stato
verso il settore privato con la spesa pubblica, che col neoliberismo è
diventata sempre più militare.
D'altra parte già agli albori del capitalismo le combattive
città-stato italiane del Rinascimento riuscirono a trasformare le
spese militari in entrate sperimentando la possibilità di
commercializzare la guerra. Se i cittadini si tassavano per pagare i
mercenari, questi spendendo le paghe incrementavano gli scambi di
mercato e quindi gli introiti fiscali che permettevano nuova spesa
militare in un sistema che, secondo Giovanni Arrighi, almeno in parte
si autoalimentava.
Il militarismo dunque è servito alla sopravvivenza del capitalismo fin
dagli inizi e lo accompagnerà "fino alla sua morte beata" in una
spirale di crisi economiche, debito - spese militari e guerra -
maggior debito. La storia continua a mostrarci le tragedie che si
producono in questi casi.
1. Gli Stati Uniti contro la Cina. Strategie, pericoli e alleanze
nello scontro dei giganti del XXI secolo (R.D. Kaplan)
2. A. Burgio, M. Dinucci, V. Giacché:
ESCALATION - Anatomia della guerra infinita
=== 1 ===
Corriere della Sera, 19/11/2005
Storia della III guerra mondiale
di Robert D. Kaplan *
Gli Stati Uniti contro la Cina. Strategie, pericoli e alleanze nello
scontro dei giganti del XXI secolo
Geopolitica Bush in missione in Asia. Il Vietnam chiede intese
militari a Washington. Lo stato maggiore cinese studia la «guerra
senza limiti». La competizione economica tra Pechino e gli Usa è già
in corso. L'attrito militare è oggi pressione, domani possibile
conflitto nucleare
Fino a oggi non v'è stato esercito di mare o di terra che costituisse
una minaccia per gli Stati Uniti. La situazione è destinata a cambiare
rapidamente. Nei decenni a venire la Cina giocherà un'estenuante
partita con gli Usa nel Pacifico, favorita non solo dalle sue coste
sterminate ma anche da un sistema di basi che si estende fin dentro
l'Asia centrale.Come possono gli Stati Uniti prepararsi ad affrontare
la sfida?Il sistema di alleanze della seconda metà del XX secolo è
finito. La guerra del Kosovo del 1999 ha messo in luce drammatiche
spaccature all'interno della Nato. L'Alleanza è definitivamente
crollata con l'invasione americana dell'Afghanistan, in seguito alla
quale gli eserciti europei hanno fatto poco più che pattugliare zone
già pacificate da soldati e marines statunitensi. Oggi la Nato è uno
strumento per espandere le missioni di addestramento bilaterali tra
Stati Uniti ed ex repubbliche comuniste: con i marines in Bulgaria e
Romania, la marina in Albania, l'esercito in Polonia e Repubblica
Ceca, le Forze Speciali in Georgia. Un suo equivalente nell'Oceano
Pacifico esiste già: è il Comando Usa per il Pacifico, noto come Pacom.
I suoi capi si rendono conto di ciò che sfugge a molti politici e
professionisti dell'informazione: il centro di gravità delle
preoccupazioni strategiche americane è già il Pacifico, non il Medio
Oriente. Il raggio di influenza del Pacom include metà della
superficie e più di metà delle economie mondiali. I sei maggiori
eserciti del mondo, due dei quali (quello americano e quello cinese)
si stanno modernizzando più rapidamente di tutti gli altri, operano
all'interno della sua sfera di controllo. «Imbarcarsi in una guerra
con la Cina è semplice —dice Michael Vickers, del Center for Strategic
and Budgetari Assessments di Washington —.
Il dilemma è: come uscirne?». Un analista interno al Pentagono mi ha
risposto: «Per porre termine a un conflitto con i cinesi dovremo
ridurre in maniera radicale la loro capacità militare, minacciando le
loro fonti di energia e la presa sul potere del Partito Comunista.
Dopo, il mondo non sarà più lo stesso. È una strada molto pericolosa».
Nei prossimi decenni la Cina destinerà all'esercito risorse sempre
maggiori. L'unico realistico obiettivo degli Stati Uniti potrebbe
essere incoraggiarla a investire in misure difensive e non offensive.
Impegno che richiederà particolare cura perché, a differenza della
vecchia Unione Sovietica, la Cina detiene tanto il potere morbido
quanto quello duro. Il mix cinese di autoritarismo tradizionale ed
economia di mercato esercita un esteso fascino culturale in tutta
l'Asia e non solo. La democrazia risulta attraente laddove la tirannia
sia stata un'esperienza odiosa e fallimentare, come in Ucraina e
Zimbabwe. Il mondo, però, è pieno di aree grigie, come la Giordania e
la Malaysia, dove la tirannia ha garantito stabilità e crescita.
Prendiamo Singapore.
La mescolanza di democrazia e autoritarismo l'hanno resa invisa agli
idealisti di Washington ma nel Pacifico Singapore offre la sola base
non americana dove i mezzi nucleari Usa possano essere revisionati; il
suo contributo alla caccia ai terroristi islamici nell'arcipelago
indonesiano è stato pari se non superiore a quello offerto altrove dai
maggiori alleati occidentali dell'America. Anche la politica richiede
un riposizionamento in favore del Pacifico: le attuali tensioni tra
Stati Uniti ed Europa impediscono l'integrazione militare, mentre gli
alleati del Pacifico, notoriamente Giappone e Australia, auspicano un
maggiore coinvolgimento militare al fianco degli Usa, per contrastare
l'avanzata della marina cinese. Al momento le sfide poste
dall'emergere della Cina possono apparire esigue. Gli Stati Uniti
dispiegano 24 delle 34 portaerei di tutto il mondo; i cinesi non ne
hanno neanche una.
Eppure, all'inizio della guerra del Peloponneso, che durò ventisette
anni, Atene disponeva di un notevole vantaggio rispetto a Sparta, che
non aveva una flotta. Alla fine fu Sparta a vincere. La Cina si è
lanciata in ingenti spese militari ma ancora per qualche decennio la
sua marina e la sua aviazione non raggiungeranno i livelli
statunitensi. Ecco perché i cinesi non hanno intenzione di fare agli
americani il favore di impegnarsi in battaglie convenzionali, come
quelle combattute nell'Oceano Pacifico durante la Seconda Guerra
Mondiale. I cinesi useranno piuttosto un approccio asimmetrico, come
fanno oggi i terroristi. Con un avanzato sistema missilistico i cinesi
potrebbero lanciare centinaia di missili su Taiwan prima che gli
americani riescano a raggiungere l'isola per difenderla. Una tale
capacità, unita a una nuova flotta di sottomarini (destinata a
superare presto quella Usa, se non in qualità, almeno in dimensioni),
potrebbe bastare ai cinesi per costringere altri Paesi a negare alle
navi americane l'accesso ai propri porti. C'è poi la coercizione
ambigua: pensiamo a una serie di ciber-attacchi anonimi alla rete
elettrica di Taiwan finalizzati a ridurre gradualmente la popolazione
allo stremo. Non è fantascienza; i cinesi hanno investito molto
nell'addestramento e nelle tecnologie da guerra cibernetica. Il fatto
che la Cina non sia una democrazia non significa che i cinesi non
siano padroni nella manipolazione psicologica di elettorati
democratici.Quale dovrebbe essere la risposta militare degli Stati
Uniti a sviluppi di questo tipo?
La «non convenzionalità».La Base aerea Andersen, sulla punta
settentrionale di Guam, rappresenta il futuro della strategia Usa nel
Pacifico. È la piattaforma di lancio più potente del mondo. Guam, che
ospita anche una divisione sottomarina e una base navale in
espansione, è importante per la posizione che occupa. Dall'isola è
possibile coprire quasi tutta l'area di responsabilità del Pacom.
Volare in Corea del Nord dalla costa occidentale degli Stati Uniti
richiede tredici ore; da Guam ne occorrono quattro. «Non è come
Okinawa — spiega il Generale Tennis Larsen —. Questo è suolo americano
in mezzo al Pacifico. Guam è territorio Usa». Durante la Guerra Fredda
la marina aveva una specifica infrastruttura pensata per contrastare
una specifica minaccia: la guerra con l'Unione Sovietica. Oggi la
minaccia è multipla e incerta: dobbiamo essere in qualsiasi momento
pronti a combattere una guerra convenzionale contro la Corea del Nord
o una controguerriglia non convenzionale contro un'isola-Stato
canaglia spalleggiata dalla Cina.
Secondo l'esperto di Asia Mark Helprin, mentre gli Usa si impegnano a
democratizzare il Medio Oriente, sostenendo solo gli Stati i cui
sistemi interni siano simili al loro, la Cina si prepara a mietere i
frutti di una politica che bada, amoralmente, ai propri interessi —
come fecero gli Stati Uniti durante la Guerra Fredda. Dobbiamo anche
renderci conto che nei prossimi anni e decenni la distanza morale tra
Europa e Cina è destinata a ridursi in maniera considerevole,
soprattutto nel caso in cui l'autoritarismo cinese accetti delle
limitazioni e l'Unione Europea in continua espansione diventi un
superstato «imperfettamente democratico», governato dai funzionari di
Bruxelles. Anche la Russia sta procedendo in una direzione decisamente
non democratica: il presidente Vladimir Putin ha risposto al sostegno
Usa alla democrazia in Ucraina, con l'assenso a «massicce»
esercitazioni aeree e navali congiunte con i cinesi senza precedenti.
La situazione potrebbe portare a una Nato sostanzialmente nuova, con
un'«armada » globale schierata sui Sette Mari. A un'Europa che tenta
di evitare i conflitti e ridurre la geopolitica a una serie di
negoziati e appianamenti, ben si adatterebbe questa rivalutazione del
potere sul mare. Un potere costitutivamente meno minaccioso di quello
terrestre, da sempre strumento privilegiato della Realpolitik. Man
mano che l'influenza economica dell'Ue si espanderà nel globo,
l'Europa comprenderà, al pari degli Usa nel XIX secolo e della Cina
oggi, di dover andare per mare per proteggere i propri interessi.
La Nato è debole. Per riconquistare il suo significato politico, dovrà
trasformarsi in un'alleanza militare della cui capacità di attacco
immediato nessuno possa dubitare. Questa era la sua reputazione ai
tempi della Guerra Fredda, così rinomata che i sovietici non vollero
mai testarla. La sfida posta dall'esercito cinese è già una realtà per
ufficiali e marinai Usa. La guerra sui mari è cerebrale. La minaccia,
all'orizzonte; il nemico è invisibile e tutto si riduce a un calcolo
matematico. L'obiettivo diventa ingannare più che attaccare, lasciare
la prima mossa all'avversario. Il Pacifico nasconde minacce di ogni
tipo. Benvenuti nel futuro. Parlando del Golfo Persico e dell'Oceano
Pacifico, un alto ufficiale ha detto: «La marina dovrebbe dedicarsi
meno a quella piccola pozzanghera di fango salato e pensare di più al
mare».
=== 2 ===
http://www.deriveapprodi.org/estesa.php?id=145&stato=novita
A. Burgio, M. Dinucci, V. Giacché
Escalation
Anatomia della guerra infinita
pagg. 288
€ 13.5
ISBN 88-88738-65-7
Il libro
Dagli anni Novanta la guerra è ricomparsa nelle nostre vite. Gli anni
che avrebbero dovuto celebrare il trionfo della pace sotto le insegne
della democrazia e del libero mercato hanno visto i bombardieri in
azione anche in Europa. Oggi siamo a una tremenda accelerazione:
Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003. E domani? Iran, Siria, Corea del Nord?
Quali sono i motivi di questa escalation? E quali le conseguenze?
Questo libro cerca di dire come stanno realmente le cose, fornendo un
quadro dei presupposti geopolitici ed economici della «guerra
infinita» e mettendo in risalto le sue devastanti ricadute sui sistemi
democratici degli stessi paesi che la propagano, a cominciare dagli
Stati Uniti d'America. Ne viene fuori un quadro molto distante dalle
«verità» dell'informazione ufficiale. Come più volte accadde nel
secolo scorso, anche in questo la crisi del capitalismo riporta la
guerra all'ordine del giorno. Sempre, in tempo di guerra, i margini
della critica si assottigliano. Il dominio delle armi porta con sé
quello sulle menti e sui discorsi. In un clima in cui è difficile
discostarsi dal coro, questo libro vuole essere un atto di resistenza
contro le mistificazioni.
A. Burgio, M. Dinucci, V. Giacché
Alberto Burgio insegna Storia della filosofia a Bologna. Con
DeriveApprodi ha pubblicato Modernità del conflitto. Saggio sulla
critica marxiana del socialismo (1999) e Guerra. Scenari della nuova
«grande trasformazione» (2004).
Manlio Dinucci, giornalista e geografo, è autore de Il sistema globale
(2004), Geostoria dell'Africa (2000) e altri testi editi dalla
Zanichelli. Tra i suoi ultimi libri Il potere nucleare (Fazi, 2003). È
stato direttore esecutivo per l'Italia della International Physicians
for the Prevention of Nuclear War, che ha vinto nel 1985 il premio
Nobel per la pace.
Vladimiro Giacché si è laureato e perfezionato in Filosofia alla
Scuola Normale di Pisa. È autore di opere e saggi di argomento
filosofico ed economico. Fa parte della redazione de «la
Contraddizione» e del comitato editoriale e di programmazione
scientifica di «Proteo».
un assaggio...
«L'effetto collaterale peggiore, la guerra che uccide la
comunicazione, mi precipita addosso. A me che ho rischiato tutto,
sfidando il governo italiano che non voleva che i giornalisti
potessero raggiungere l'Iraq, e gli americani che non vogliono che il
nostro lavoro testimoni che cosa è diventato quel paese davvero con la
guerra e nonostante quelle che chiamano elezioni». Così ha scritto
l'inviata del «manifesto» Giuliana Sgrena dopo la sua drammatica
esperienza in Iraq. Questo è l'Iraq «restituito alla democrazia». Un
inferno: decine di migliaia di civili trucidati, bambini mutilati,
donne stuprate. Un paese distrutto. Stragi quotidiane, soldati
terrorizzati che esorcizzano la paura sparando all'impazzata tra la
folla nei mercati e per strada. Soldati incaricati di search and
destroy, che irrompono armati nelle scuole e negli ospedali a caccia
di «terroristi» e massacrano chi càpita, anziani, donne, bambini. È
l'«esportazione della democrazia», nel nome della quale Bush e i suoi
consiglieri neo-conservatori hanno messo a ferro e fuoco il Medio
Oriente e fatto strame del diritto internazionale. Rientrano in tale
quadro le «elezioni» irachene, attorno alle quali si è levato, anche
in Italia, un coro di elogi. Pochi hanno mostrato, non diciamo
l'onestà intellettuale, ma almeno la ragionevolezza di rimarcare che
queste «elezioni» si sono tenute in un paese sotto occupazione
militare e secondo le regole dettate da Washington. In Italia si sono
uniti al coro non soltanto (com'è naturale) gli esponenti della
destra, ma anche autorevoli esponenti della sinistra, dichiarandosi
addirittura «affascinati» dall'ideologia neoconservatrice. Di questa
guerra tutto il mondo parla, da quando Baghdad fu sommersa da una
pioggia di bombe, il 19 marzo del 2003. Parla, ma per dire che cosa?
Le persone di buona volontà chiedono pace. Altri giustificano, nel
nome della propria civiltà superiore. Altri ancora sospendono il
giudizio, distribuendo ragioni e torti con una equidistanza degna di
miglior causa. Questo libro non è equidistante. Parte da una premessa
ben chiara, che a noi pare fondamentale. Questa guerra l'ha voluta
l'amministrazione Bush, senza alcuna giustificazione. La menzogna
delle «armi di distruzione di massa» è stata una messinscena a
beneficio dei creduloni. La storia del «terrorismo internazionale» e
dello «scontro di civiltà» è una diceria che strumentalizza misteri
(chi volle l'11 settembre?) per legittimare nuove crociate. Questa è
una guerra statunitense, combattuta nell'epicentro della crisi
mondiale (il «grande Medio Oriente»), ma scatenata per la posta più
alta, la leadership nei confronti degli altri poli di potenza: l'oggi
«alleata» Unione europea, quindi i nemici di sempre, a cominciare da
Cina e Russia. Quando la si dice «infinita», non si impiegano
iperboli: si dà conto di un preciso programma.
---
Ancora una recensione del libro di Burgio, Dinucci, Giacchè.
NB. Una recensione è apparsa anche sull'ultimo numero de L'Ernesto.
---
Guantanamo e industria bellica. Escalation, un libro sulla politica di
potenza Usa
Dalla recessione all'intervento militare in Afghanistan e in Iraq c'è
un filo rosso che unisce politica economica interna e politica estera
degli Usa. La guerra diventa così lo strumento per uscire dalla crisi
economica e per affermare l'egemonia mondiale di Washington. E' questa
la tesi che attraversa i tre saggi che compongono il volume
ENZO MODUGNO
Il manifesto, 7/6/2005
Piers Brendon (Gli Anni Trenta, Carocci, euro 18,60), storico a
Cambridge e responsabile dei Churchill Archives, interpreta come
conseguenza diretta della crisi del `29 i principali avvenimenti del
decennio che si concluse con la seconda guerra mondiale, e mostra cosa
avvenne quando le difficoltà materiali della crisi capitalistica si
combinarono con il "fanatismo ideologico di leader disposti a tutto".
Se usassimo lo stesso criterio oggi, dovremmo considerare gli
avvenimenti recenti come la conseguenza diretta della crisi economica
Usa del 2000-01, la più grave dopo il `29, che torna a combinarsi con
nuovi fanatismi ideologici di leader - così sembra - disposti a tutto.
Quali siano queste leggi del capitalismo che spingono alla guerra, e
perché si combinino con questi leader, è appunto l'argomento del libro
di Piers Brendon. In un paio di capitoli si ricostruisce la trama
della micidiale politica economica che permise alla Germania nazista
di superare per prima la grande depressione seguita al `29. Nel 1934
il ministro delle Finanze Schacht diede impulso al rilancio
dell'economia finanziando il riarmo con le cambiali ?Mefo?, note di
credito accettate dalle banche e dai fornitori del governo, che
garantivano un interesse del 4% ed erano rimborsabili nel 1939. Ma nel
1938 Hitler diede il via alla seconda guerra mondiale evitando i
rimborsi che avrebbero fatto crollare l'economia tedesca. La guerra di
rapina avrebbe pareggiato i conti.
Dalla vicenda esposta da Brendon emergono due temi da riconsiderare.
Il nesso tra debito e guerra, perché la guerra ancora oggi costituisce
un mezzo per rimandare il pagamento del debito che gli Usa non hanno
intenzione di pagare. E, soprattutto, il nesso tra militarismo e
ripresa economica. L'economia della Germania nazista infatti si era
ripresa col riarmo, cioè prima che la guerra di rapina assicurasse le
risorse, i mercati e i campi di investimento.
Lo stimolo militare
Dopo sessant'anni questo uso della leva militare è ormai pratica
costante delle amministrazioni Usa. Non più semplicemente a sostegno
delle dinamiche economiche dell'espansione imperialistica, ma in
sostituzione di esse: è questo il tema rilevante del saggio
"L'economia della guerra infinita" di Vladimiro Giacché, nel volume
collettivo Escalation (DeriveApprodi, pp. 288, ?13,50), che contiene
anche i contributi di Manlio Dinucci e Alberto Burgio.
Il saggio di Giacché può essere accostato al libro di Brendon perché
anche in questo testo si interpreta la guerra come conseguenza diretta
di una grave crisi economica, quella manifestatasi negli Stati uniti
con lo scoppio della bolla speculativa del marzo 2000 e con la
recessione iniziata nel marzo 2001, dunque ben prima dell'11
settembre. La guerra - si sostiene - è stata usata consapevolmente
come la "continuazione dell'economia con altri mezzi". Clamoroso
a questo proposito il report caricato sul sito di Morgan Stanley alle
8 dell'11 settembre dall'ufficio delle Twin Towers: "Solo un atto di
guerra può salvare l'economia degli Stati uniti e il dollaro". Appena
un'ora prima che "l'atto di guerra" si verificasse realmente.
Giacché ritiene che si stia compiendo una "delicata transizione" verso
un sempre più esplicito uso economico del militarismo. Superando
dunque le diffuse interpretazioni della guerra o solo politica o solo
come "guerra di rapina", l'autore recupera la complessità dell'analisi
elaborata nei momenti alti dal movimento operaio. La "formula" della
sopravvivenza del capitalismo individuava due momenti: 1) il riarmo
continuo, giustificato da apocalittiche minacce di nemici esterni, per
attutire la tendenza permanente alla crisi economica col sostegno al
settore privato mediante la spesa pubblica militare e 2) con le armi
così prodotte, la guerra di rapina e il dominio su risorse, mercati,
campi d'investimento.
Ogni semplificazione di questa micidiale sinergia ha sempre prodotto
fraintendimenti. La guerra dunque non solo per aprire mercati, per il
controllo delle materie prime, per l'egemonia del dollaro, per imporre
il non pagamento del proprio deficit, ma anche e ormai soprattutto
come strumento per rimettere in moto l'economia: l'escalation militare
Usa ha questa impronta inconfondibile di "stimolo della congiuntura".
"La guerra fa bene al Pil", ha titolato "il Sole 24 Ore" (20 febbraio
2002).
Il saggio contiene un'accurata documentazione della stretta relazione
tra interventi militari e ripresa dell'economia Usa a partire dalla
seconda guerra mondiale. Ai dati forniti da Giuseppe Guarino (I soldi
della guerra) e da Mario Pianta su questo giornale, che ha annunciato
l'edizione italiana di War Inc di Seymour Melman, si aggiungono ora i
dati di questo volume: 750 miliardi di dollari calcolando tutte le
voci della spesa militare Usa. Più i recentissimi 82 miliardi votati
all'unanimità dal Congresso. Quindi col moltiplicatore al 2,5 la spesa
militare assicurerebbe un quinto del Pil degli Stati uniti. Livelli da
guerra fredda: ma l'Unione Sovietica non c'è più e gli Stati uniti
stanno ora cercando, provocando, costruendo nuovi nemici per
giustificare l'ininterrotto riarmo. E siccome anche Giacché ritiene,
con Augusto Graziani, che "i conflitti prolungati esercitano un
influsso sull'attività economica di tutti i paesi che, direttamente o
indirettamente, vi sono coinvolti", ritiene anche che il prolungamento
del conflitto in Iraq vada interpretato "non soltanto come un
infortunio, ma come una scelta strategica precisa" delle classi
dirigenti Usa. Anzi, hanno già deciso che la "guerra al terrorismo"
durerà trent'anni e questo è solo il suo inizio: sostituirà la guerra
fredda proprio per assicurare un altrettanto prolungato,
provvidenziale "influsso sull'attività economica" statunitense. Si
spiegherebbero così il "millenarismo" dei neoconservatori e le
dichiarazioni di Rumsfeld: "Non abbiamo un metro per stabilire se
stiamo vincendo o perdendo la guerra al terrorismo". E di Bush:
"Questa guerra non può essere vinta". Secondo Giacché la "verità" di
queste affermazioni sta nello slogan con cui il presidente Usa ha
vinto le elezioni: "Difenderò il nostro tenore di vita ad ogni costo".
Nel saggio di apertura dello stesso volume, intitolato "Geopolitica di
una `guerra globale'", Manlio Dinucci ripercorre l'escalation militare
Usa dopo il biennio 1989-91, rintracciando le strategie
espansionistiche degli Stati uniti tanto nei documenti di
pianificazione strategica resi pubblici, quanto nella ricostruzione
delle guerre Usa e nella crescita delle spese militari, con la
documentazione probabilmente più completa disponibile in Italia su
questo argomento. Così come è puntuale il resoconto di quanto avvenne
l'11 settembre, delle incongruenze nel comportamento del governo Usa e
nella ricostruzione ufficiale degli eventi.
Nel terzo saggio, "La guerra contro i diritti", Alberto Burgio
individua un altro aspetto dell'escalation nella sempre più sfuggente
distinzione tra "dentro" e "fuori": il ripudio del diritto
internazionale ha il suo inevitabile doppio nella soppressione dei
diritti civili all'interno.
Burgio ravvisa nell'uso della tortura, da Mazar i Sharif a Guantanamo
e ad Abu Ghraib, non soltanto lo smascheramento della retorica della
"guerra per la democrazia e per i diritti", ma una pratica che gli Usa
sperimentano da tempo anche nei propri istituti penitenziari.
Più in generale, in parallelo alla transizione - indicata da Giacché -
da "impero informale" attuato mediante il dominio economico, ad
"impero formale" fondato sul dominio militare, c'è nel saggio di
Burgio la descrizione dei principali mutamenti giuridici che hanno
determinato il passaggio da "stato sociale" a "stato penale".
Militarismo ed economia di guerra si riflettono quindi, sul piano
interno, in regressione costituzionale e accentramento patologico del
comando. Insomma un volume che, nelle sue tre parti, affronta la
complessità dell'"impero formale".
Ritorno agli albori
E' da segnalare quanto importante sia l'analisi della funzione
economica del militarismo, così spesso trascurata, per interpretare le
dinamiche profonde del capitalismo Usa e della politica estera al
servizio della sua sopravvivenza. Dopo oltre mezzo secolo di
sospensione dello scontro armato tra imperialismi ormai sappiamo che i
profitti esterni, indispensabili per superare le crisi economiche, non
vengono soltanto dalle guerre di rapina - non è rimasto molto - ma
sempre più spesso "artificialmente" dall'indebitamento dello stato
verso il settore privato con la spesa pubblica, che col neoliberismo è
diventata sempre più militare.
D'altra parte già agli albori del capitalismo le combattive
città-stato italiane del Rinascimento riuscirono a trasformare le
spese militari in entrate sperimentando la possibilità di
commercializzare la guerra. Se i cittadini si tassavano per pagare i
mercenari, questi spendendo le paghe incrementavano gli scambi di
mercato e quindi gli introiti fiscali che permettevano nuova spesa
militare in un sistema che, secondo Giovanni Arrighi, almeno in parte
si autoalimentava.
Il militarismo dunque è servito alla sopravvivenza del capitalismo fin
dagli inizi e lo accompagnerà "fino alla sua morte beata" in una
spirale di crisi economiche, debito - spese militari e guerra -
maggior debito. La storia continua a mostrarci le tragedie che si
producono in questi casi.
--- In icdsm-italia @yahoogroups.com, "icdsm-italia" ha scritto:
(francais / english)
[Di seguito i materiali prodotti nella recente riunione congiunta
dell'ICDSM e dell'Associazione SLOBODA, a Belgrado il 12 novembre
u.s.; essi riguardano in particolare la richiesta di una sospensione
del "processo" per almeno 6 settimane viste le preoccupanti condizioni
di stress cui è sottoposto Milosevic (bollettino medico allegato, in
lingua francese); si veda anche l'accluso elenco delle violazioni dei
diritti elementari ai danni di Milosevic e dei suoi famigliari.]
---------- Initial Header -----------
From : "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Date : Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:46:33 +0100
Subject : ICDSM and Sloboda: Milosevic has to be freed for medical
treatment!
**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
**************************************************************
Velko Valkanov, Ramsey Clark, Alexander Zinoviev (Co-Chairmen),
Klaus Hartmann (Chairman of the Board), Vladimir Krsljanin
(Secretary), Christopher Black (Chair, Legal Committee), Tiphaine
Dickson (Legal Spokesperson)
**************************************************************
18 November 2005 Special Circular
**************************************************************
In this issue:
1. Signatures for People's Initiative are being collected in Serbia
2. Press Release of Sloboda/Freedom Association
3. Letter to the UN Security Council
4. Urgent Conclusion of the ICDSM and Sloboda
5. Conclusion of the international team of medical experts
6. Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic! - Declaration of ICDSM adopted at
12 November session in Belgrade
********************************************************
Belgrade, 18 November. Sloboda/Freedom Association started collecting
signatures for Peoples Initiative in order to put on agenda of the
Serbian Parliament a demand for provisional release of President
Milosevic due to his ill health and appropriate state guarantees for
that. According to the Serbian Constitution, for such an initiative,
15 thousand signatures are needed.
**************************************************************
P R E S S R E L E A S E
Behavior of the Hague "tribunal" puts at stake the life of
President Milosevic. An immediate reaction of the authorities in
charge in Serbia and in the State Community, as well as of the UN
Security Council is needed in order to change this behavior.
An international team of medical experts from France,
Russia and Serbia, that examined President Milosevic on 4 November,
has concluded that he has to have at least six weeks of total rest,
with no physical or mental activities. It is clear that for such a
worsening of President Milosevic's health it is only the "tribunal" to
be blamed.
However, the "tribunal" has made these days a dangerous
and insolent challenge to human rights, UN Organization, medical and
legal profession, by neglecting the findings and the conclusions of
the medical experts and by bringing ill President Milosevic into the
court room - an act that endangered his life.
We call upon all medical doctors, lawyers, institutions
for protection of human rights and all honest people at home and
abroad to join the appeal of the International Committee to Defend
Slobodan Milosevic and of the Freedom Association and to act now to
stop the crime in its final phase.
The Hague proceedings must be suspended and President
Milosevic has to be provided with a medical treatment in freedom, so
that he would be able, after recuperation, to continue taking part in
the proceedings.
FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR LIBERATION OF PRESIDENT
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
Belgrade, 18 November 2005
************************************************
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL
TO THE UN SECRETARY GENERAL
TO THE UN HIGH COMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Belgrade, 15 November 2005
Sloboda/Freedom Association from Belgrade has honor to propose to your
kind attention and urgent consideration the three below documents
concerning the human rights of the long term President of Serbia and
Yugoslavia, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic - the urgent Joint Conclusion of
the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic and Sloboda
/Freedom Association, the Conclusion of the medical experts from
France, Russia and Serbia who recently examined President Milosevic
and the Declaration of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan
Milosevic.
We believe that you would act without delay in accordance with your
competence and universally recognized human rights in order to protect
the life and health of President Milosevic and to prevent the
possibility of his trial in absentia.
Respectfully,
Chairman of the Board of Sloboda/Freedom Association
Bogoljub Bjelica
*********************************************************
JOINT CONCLUSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR THE DEFENSE OF
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC AND THE "SLOBODA" ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL COMMITTEE
FOR LIBERATION OF PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC FROM THE MEETING HELD
IN BELGRADE ON 12 NOVEMBER 2005
The International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan
Milosevic and the "Sloboda" Association - National Committee for
Liberation of Slobodan Milosevic have received a medical report of the
health condition of President Slobodan Milosevic dated 4 November
2005, which raised a deep concern on the part of the International
Committee members. His health is seriously endangered, which is
largely due to his extraordinary human efforts in the struggle for
presenting truth, and the prison conditions in which he is living. He
is investing additional efforts so as to definitely win his struggle
for the truth, and he is doing that to the detriment of his own health
in the light of the threat that the Defense Counsel imposed by the
ICTY whom he does not accept will be activated.
Our view is that the price of his defense must not be his
health and his life.
We are demanding immediate suspension of the trial at
least for a 6-week period as proposed by medical doctors, in order to
allow him the indispensable rest and medical treatment. Any attempt to
try him in absentia, and thus abuse the fact of his deteriorated
health condition, would destroy any illusion of these proceedings.
"The Tribunal" has to observe the medical advice that was provided,
and show respect for the fact that human life and health are above all
other values.
Once the health condition of President Milosevic has
improved, he will continue with all his strength the struggle for
truth and justice he is carrying out in The Hague for the benefit and
welfare of the Serb people and the entire mankind.
In Belgrade, on 12 November 2005
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FR THE DEFENSE F SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
/signed/
Ramsey Clark Sergei Baburin Velko Vlkanov
"SLOBODA" ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR LIBERATION
OF PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
/signed/
Bogoljub Bjelica
**********************************************************
CONCLUSION COLLECTIVE DE L'EXAMINATION MEDICALE CONSILIAIRE
DE MONSIEUR SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC, EFFECTUEE LE 04.11.2005
Compte tenu des résultats des examens médicaux consultés
dans le dossier et réalisés lors de la visite du 4 novembre 05 on peut
conclure que l`état de santé du patient n'est pas stabilisé et que des
complications sont possibles. Cet état nécessite de poursuivre les
explorations avec pour objectifs de préciser la ou les origines des
troubles présentés.
Il est ainsi nécessaire de proposer au patient une période
de repos, c'est à dire la cessation de toutes les activités physiques
et psychiques au cours d'une période de 6 semaines au minimum, ce qui
permettra probablement de diminuer les troubles ou tout au moins de
les stabiliser, puis autorisera la réalisation des procédures
diagnostiques supplémentaires nécessaires pou adapter au mieux la
thérapeutique.
La rapport définitif et détaillé de chaque expert sera
rédigé et soumis ultérieurement.
CONSILIUM DES DOCTEURS
Margarita Shumilina, Ph.D, angiologue
Professeur Florence Leclercq, Ph.D, cardiologue
Professeur Vukasin Andric, Ph.D, otorinolaringologiste
*******************************************************
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic
Declaration of the International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan
Milosevic
Belgrade, 12 November 2005
I.
We, the representatives of the International Committee for the Defense
of Slobodan Milosevic, having met on 12 November 2005 in Belgrade
under the auspices of the Sloboda (Freedom) Association, express our
deepest indignation with respect to the continued proceedings against
President Slobodan Milosevic conducted before the so-called
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
During its twelve and a half years of operation, the ICTY has
demonstrated to the world that rather than functioning as an
institution of justice, it employs force and blackmail, and is
subjected to flagrant pressure by the very powers who contributed the
most to the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia and the civil wars
waged within it. The ICTY has demonstrated that it is an institution
of arbitrariness and absence of law, not of reconciliation.
The ICTY's activities, and in particular the treatment of and
proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic, demonstrate that the ICTY is a
means of retaliation against Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY)
citizens in general, and the Serbs in particular, because of their
resistance to the breakup of the former Yugoslavia and their heroic
defense against the NATO aggression in 1999.
The indictment of Slobodan Milosevic shifted the responsibility for
the aggression and acts of terrorism committed by the Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA) onto its victims[1].
The ICTY has thus shown to the whole world that its main role is to
legitimize and legalize the most flagrant violations of international
law, as well as the most serious crimes committed during the breakup
of the former Yugoslavia and the NATO aggression against the FR of
Yugoslavia. Therefore, the ICTY is not an institution of justice.
Instead, it is a means for the accomplishment of specific political
objectives, a symbol of discrimination and legal violence.
The indictment against the former President of Serbia and the FR of
Yugoslavia for alleged crimes in Kosovo and Metohija was brought on 24
May 1999 in the midst of NATO's aggression against the FR of
Yugoslavia. That illegal war was a direct breach of the NATO Charter,
the UN Charter, and international law. That aggression represents a
crime against peace, the supreme international crime.
During the 78-day long criminal bombing of the FR of Yugoslavia, the
aggressors killed and wounded thousands of civilians, destroyed the
economic and transport infrastructure, tried to kill president
Milosevic by bombing his residence, used cluster bombs and depleted
uranium, and caused destruction amounting to more than $100 billion.
In order for the irony to be complete, charges against Slobodan
Milosevic were also brought for alleged crimes in Croatia and Bosnia
and Herzegovina.
However, the ICTY has not indicted any leader of the NATO member
countries or any pilot for the crimes committed during the aggression.
Instead, the indictment was raised by the ICTY, and sponsored by
Clinton Administration, against Slobodan Milosevic, a democratically
elected head of state who was leading his country in the defense
against the aggression.
President Milosevic, who was obliged to combat foreign-backed
terrorism in his country, is in the wake of the "War on Terrorism",
being tried by those who were igniting ethnic conflicts and who
created terrorist organizations in the territory of the former FRY. We
do not accept that President Milosevic be tried by those who were
supporting terrorism while it suited them and who claim to be fighting
it today.
By arresting Slobodan Milosevic illegally and by surrendering him to
the ICTY both the Constitution of the FR of Yugoslavia and the
Constitution of Serbia were breached. Therefore, the kidnapping and
delivery of President Milosevic to the ICTY represent violence to the
democratic constitution and a precedent in modern history. The
perpetrators of that shameful act bear the responsibility before the
citizens of Serbia, and before history.
II
Currently, after only a portion of the defense witnesses have
testified on President Milosevic's behalf before the ICTY, one can
note with certainty that the indictment that the so-called Hague
Prosecution raised against him has suffered a debacle!
Worldwide public opinion and experts have established, after the
witnesses for the Prosecution were heard, that the indictment against
Slobodan Milosevic for the crime of genocide is fully without grounds
and is not corroborated by a single piece of objective evidence. It is
not only that there is no evidence for the charge for genocide. There
is no evidence for any of the counts of the indictment.
Through the strength of arguing the truth, President Milosevic has
completely destroyed all the lies alleged against him in the so-called
Indictment.
There is, naturally, no evidence against Slobodan Milosevic. However,
there is a procedure in place. The machinery of the ICTY has tried, by
enacting its own rules for the trial procedure, by shaping and
adapting them to own political needs, to stop him in his presentation
of the truth. This is the reason why the tribunal is now trying to
limit the time needed for the witnesses he has invited to testify.
This must be prevented!
Presumption of guilt, unlimited duration of detention, retroactive
responsibility, secret charges and secret witnesses, as well as the
use of secret services for gathering evidence - these are only some of
the more evident proofs that there is no justification for the
existence of the ICTY as a legal institution, and even less as an
institution operating under the auspices of the United Nations.
We do not believe that the proceedings against President Milosevic are
just. However, any acceleration of the tempo of the proceedings
represents a boost for the enemies of truth and the establishment of
facts.
All of the above facts point to clear indications of a mistrial. That
is why we demand that this mockery of a trial be suspended, and for
President Milosevic to be released.
III
The following list details the most common types of abuse inflicted on
President Milosevic.
A.
1. On 28 June 2001, President Milosevic was forcefully,
unlawfully, and without the knowledge of his family and relevant legal
institutions of the FRY, transported to The Hague penitentiary in
violation of existing constitutional and FRY and international legal
provisions. The appeal for Habeas Corpus to Dutch Courts was not
sustained despite the evident facts, which proved that this was a case
of abduction.
B. President Milosevic's rights and privileges in The Hague
penitentiary are thoroughly neglected.
1. Many times his inalienable rights to self-representation and
defense have been questioned. Long periods of time were allocated to
formal discussion, thus making the preparations for the defense more
tedious and time consuming. The amount of material submitted by the
Prosecution is not only irrelevant but enormous, and this has
negatively affected the process itself as well as the health of
President Milosevic.
2. Despite a gigantic struggle, supported by international public
opinion, the improvement of President Milosevic's health has not been
obtained, due to the ICTY's repeated obstructions. A satisfactory
medical solution is not apparent, although the proceedings against
President Milosevic have gone on four years. The ICTY, in the name of
efficiency, imposed a strenuous schedule for the presentation of the
defense, which has had harmful consequences on President Milosevic's
health. The Prosecution case was not subject to such constraints.
3. Restrictions put on visitation rights and phone contacts are
inhuman and are basically devised to augment the psychological,
physical and emotional stress of President Milosevic. These and other
forms of harassment are applied to diminish President Milosevic's
capacities for his defense, and to achieve the further deterioration
of his health.
4. Numerous and amply supported demands that president Milosevic
should be temporarily released for medical treatment, supported by
medical and legal experts and the public at large, have been until now
repeatedly rejected owing to pressure from the Prosecution.
C. Abuses against and harassment of President Milosevic's family
1. Matching the pressure placed on President Milosevic since his
detention in The Hague Penitentiary, this persecution is augmented by
the ill treatment and abuses inflicted on the members of his immediate
family.
2. We would like to reiterate the unspeakable shame that his wife
has for almost three years been forbidden to visit him. His son and
daughter have not been able to visit him at all.
3. It is astonishing but true that all of the adult members of
his immediate family have been charged with absurd accusations. None
of these has been proven, and those against his son have been dropped.
These ridiculous allegations and special decisions on restricted
entrance to the EU that have been invoked against President
Milosevic's family make it impossible for his family to visit at the
present time. These restrictions on entrance are enforced by the
decisions of the Prosecution.
4. His wife is being charged without proof of illegal influence
on a decision making body to allocate a flat to another person.
5. The charge against President Milosevic's son that was in
effect for almost four years, stating that he allegedly beat and
intimidated a young member of an opposition political group, was
revoked a month ago. Old untruthful accusations against him are
repeated, and fresh ones are newly produced.
6. His daughter had to move to Montenegro to live unmolested. She
has been persecuted by ongoing proceedings since 2002, with the aim of
convicting her for her behavior during the night of President
Milosevic's abduction.
7. All of these accusations are viciously and purposely aired in
different media trying to augment the manifold pressures put on
President Milosevic.
8. To our knowledge, this is the first time that an indicted
person has had members of his immediate family prosecuted as well, and
for a series of invented crimes. These accusations stand as collateral
pressure on President Milosevic. This is done with the intent of
shattering his defense abilities.
IV.
In view of all of the above, we, members of the International
Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic are demanding:
Of the UN Security Council:
That for the purpose of permitting President Milosevic to complete his
defense, and in light of the facts that have been unambiguously proven:
1. discontinue the proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic.
2. the health and life of President Milosevic be protected.
3. all forms of pressure on President Milosevic and his family
members be suspended.
4. the proceedings against President Milosevic be suspended so
as to allow the stabilization of his health condition.
5. The International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan
Milosevic notes the disastrous consequences of the breakup of the FRY,
and the fact that the arrest and political trial of President
Milosevic has provided further encouragement for the commission of
acts of terrorism - including full-blown pogroms-- in Kosovo and
Metohija .
6. The Security Council must terminate the operations of the
ICTY, as it has not contributed to the process of reconciliation.
Instead, it has only worsened inter-ethnic relations in the territory
of the former SFRY.
7. To immediately issue a decision granting additional time to
President Milosevic so that the witnesses he has planned will have the
opportunity to testify.
8. President Milosevic sought the unity of the Yugoslav
Federation, and did so against foreign aggression and terror. Those
who were spurring and supporting terrorism in the territory of the
former SFRY, and particularly in the FRY - in Kosovo and Metohija -
should be brought to justice regardless of their nationality and
social position.
9. To immediately undertake any measure necessary in order to
allow an adequate diagnosis of President Milosevic's health condition,
by allowing different medical teams to examine him.
10. To undertake any step necessary, including provisional release of
President Milosevic, in order for his health to stabilize.
11. To immediately, without any delay, abolish all limitations on
visits from President Milosevic's family members.
12. All of the above are necessary for ensuring normal conditions for
the resumption and finalization of the process being illegally
conducted against President Milosevic before the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
[1] "Terrorism" is here defined as designating acts of violence
carried out against, and targeting, the civilian population of a
sovereign state against which that state has the right (and the
obligation) to protect its citizens, as well as acts of violence
perpetrated against those state agents mandated to protect the
civilian population (and constitution). The definition we propose is
not that which continues to be used by the same powers that waged a
war of aggression against Yugoslavia: that is, the exercise of lawful
resistance of peoples to aggression and occupation.
******************************************************
URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL
******************************
President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use
that advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally
discredited tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted
actions which would involve the Bar Associations, the European Court,
the UN organs in charge and the media.
Our practice has shown that ad hoc voluntary work is not enough to
deal properly with these tasks. The funds secured in Serbia are still
enough only to cover the expenses of the stay and work of President
Milosevic's legal associates at The Hague (one at the time). The funds
secured by the German section of the ICDSM (still the only one with
regular contributions) are enough only to cover minimal additional
work at The Hague connected with contacts and preparations of foreign
witnesses. Everything else is lacking.
Recently, the fundraising activity of the German section was a target
of a groundless attack of the customs police in Germany. This makes
the need for your extraordinary effort dramaticaly urgent! Even the
basic defence activities at The Hague are at stake!
As a most practical way to send your donations, we are able to offer
now the account of a friendly organization in Austria (see below).
Please send your donations to that account now, to fill the gap made
after the German account was frozen. Have in mind that all bank
transfers within the EU are now at the same price like within any of
its countries.
***********************************************************
3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.
Our history and our people oblige us to go on with this necessary
action. But without these funds it will not be possible.
Please organize urgently the fundraising activity
and send the donations to the following account:
Jugoslawisch-Österreichische
Solidaritäts-Bewegung. (JÖSB)
Bank Austria
IBAN AT49 1200 0503 8030 5200
BIC BKAUATWW
************************************************************
All of your donations will be used for legal and other necessary
accompanying activities, on instruction or with the consent of
President Milosevic. To obtain additional information on the use of
your donations or to obtain additional advice on the most efficient
way to submit your donations or to make bank
transfers, please do not hesitate to contact us:
Peter Betscher (ICDSM Treasurer) E-mail: peter_betscher @...
Phone: +49 172 7566 014
Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail: slobodavk @...
Phone: +381 63 8862 301
***************************************************************
For truth and human rights against aggression!
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
Freedom and equality for people!
On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,
Vladimir Krsljanin,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic
*************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.free-slobo-uk.org/ (CDSM UK)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
--- Fine messaggio inoltrato ---
(francais / english)
[Di seguito i materiali prodotti nella recente riunione congiunta
dell'ICDSM e dell'Associazione SLOBODA, a Belgrado il 12 novembre
u.s.; essi riguardano in particolare la richiesta di una sospensione
del "processo" per almeno 6 settimane viste le preoccupanti condizioni
di stress cui è sottoposto Milosevic (bollettino medico allegato, in
lingua francese); si veda anche l'accluso elenco delle violazioni dei
diritti elementari ai danni di Milosevic e dei suoi famigliari.]
---------- Initial Header -----------
From : "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Date : Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:46:33 +0100
Subject : ICDSM and Sloboda: Milosevic has to be freed for medical
treatment!
**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
**************************************************************
Velko Valkanov, Ramsey Clark, Alexander Zinoviev (Co-Chairmen),
Klaus Hartmann (Chairman of the Board), Vladimir Krsljanin
(Secretary), Christopher Black (Chair, Legal Committee), Tiphaine
Dickson (Legal Spokesperson)
**************************************************************
18 November 2005 Special Circular
**************************************************************
In this issue:
1. Signatures for People's Initiative are being collected in Serbia
2. Press Release of Sloboda/Freedom Association
3. Letter to the UN Security Council
4. Urgent Conclusion of the ICDSM and Sloboda
5. Conclusion of the international team of medical experts
6. Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic! - Declaration of ICDSM adopted at
12 November session in Belgrade
********************************************************
Belgrade, 18 November. Sloboda/Freedom Association started collecting
signatures for Peoples Initiative in order to put on agenda of the
Serbian Parliament a demand for provisional release of President
Milosevic due to his ill health and appropriate state guarantees for
that. According to the Serbian Constitution, for such an initiative,
15 thousand signatures are needed.
**************************************************************
P R E S S R E L E A S E
Behavior of the Hague "tribunal" puts at stake the life of
President Milosevic. An immediate reaction of the authorities in
charge in Serbia and in the State Community, as well as of the UN
Security Council is needed in order to change this behavior.
An international team of medical experts from France,
Russia and Serbia, that examined President Milosevic on 4 November,
has concluded that he has to have at least six weeks of total rest,
with no physical or mental activities. It is clear that for such a
worsening of President Milosevic's health it is only the "tribunal" to
be blamed.
However, the "tribunal" has made these days a dangerous
and insolent challenge to human rights, UN Organization, medical and
legal profession, by neglecting the findings and the conclusions of
the medical experts and by bringing ill President Milosevic into the
court room - an act that endangered his life.
We call upon all medical doctors, lawyers, institutions
for protection of human rights and all honest people at home and
abroad to join the appeal of the International Committee to Defend
Slobodan Milosevic and of the Freedom Association and to act now to
stop the crime in its final phase.
The Hague proceedings must be suspended and President
Milosevic has to be provided with a medical treatment in freedom, so
that he would be able, after recuperation, to continue taking part in
the proceedings.
FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR LIBERATION OF PRESIDENT
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
Belgrade, 18 November 2005
************************************************
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL
TO THE UN SECRETARY GENERAL
TO THE UN HIGH COMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Belgrade, 15 November 2005
Sloboda/Freedom Association from Belgrade has honor to propose to your
kind attention and urgent consideration the three below documents
concerning the human rights of the long term President of Serbia and
Yugoslavia, Mr. Slobodan Milosevic - the urgent Joint Conclusion of
the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic and Sloboda
/Freedom Association, the Conclusion of the medical experts from
France, Russia and Serbia who recently examined President Milosevic
and the Declaration of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan
Milosevic.
We believe that you would act without delay in accordance with your
competence and universally recognized human rights in order to protect
the life and health of President Milosevic and to prevent the
possibility of his trial in absentia.
Respectfully,
Chairman of the Board of Sloboda/Freedom Association
Bogoljub Bjelica
*********************************************************
JOINT CONCLUSION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR THE DEFENSE OF
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC AND THE "SLOBODA" ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL COMMITTEE
FOR LIBERATION OF PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC FROM THE MEETING HELD
IN BELGRADE ON 12 NOVEMBER 2005
The International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan
Milosevic and the "Sloboda" Association - National Committee for
Liberation of Slobodan Milosevic have received a medical report of the
health condition of President Slobodan Milosevic dated 4 November
2005, which raised a deep concern on the part of the International
Committee members. His health is seriously endangered, which is
largely due to his extraordinary human efforts in the struggle for
presenting truth, and the prison conditions in which he is living. He
is investing additional efforts so as to definitely win his struggle
for the truth, and he is doing that to the detriment of his own health
in the light of the threat that the Defense Counsel imposed by the
ICTY whom he does not accept will be activated.
Our view is that the price of his defense must not be his
health and his life.
We are demanding immediate suspension of the trial at
least for a 6-week period as proposed by medical doctors, in order to
allow him the indispensable rest and medical treatment. Any attempt to
try him in absentia, and thus abuse the fact of his deteriorated
health condition, would destroy any illusion of these proceedings.
"The Tribunal" has to observe the medical advice that was provided,
and show respect for the fact that human life and health are above all
other values.
Once the health condition of President Milosevic has
improved, he will continue with all his strength the struggle for
truth and justice he is carrying out in The Hague for the benefit and
welfare of the Serb people and the entire mankind.
In Belgrade, on 12 November 2005
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FR THE DEFENSE F SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
/signed/
Ramsey Clark Sergei Baburin Velko Vlkanov
"SLOBODA" ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR LIBERATION
OF PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
/signed/
Bogoljub Bjelica
**********************************************************
CONCLUSION COLLECTIVE DE L'EXAMINATION MEDICALE CONSILIAIRE
DE MONSIEUR SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC, EFFECTUEE LE 04.11.2005
Compte tenu des résultats des examens médicaux consultés
dans le dossier et réalisés lors de la visite du 4 novembre 05 on peut
conclure que l`état de santé du patient n'est pas stabilisé et que des
complications sont possibles. Cet état nécessite de poursuivre les
explorations avec pour objectifs de préciser la ou les origines des
troubles présentés.
Il est ainsi nécessaire de proposer au patient une période
de repos, c'est à dire la cessation de toutes les activités physiques
et psychiques au cours d'une période de 6 semaines au minimum, ce qui
permettra probablement de diminuer les troubles ou tout au moins de
les stabiliser, puis autorisera la réalisation des procédures
diagnostiques supplémentaires nécessaires pou adapter au mieux la
thérapeutique.
La rapport définitif et détaillé de chaque expert sera
rédigé et soumis ultérieurement.
CONSILIUM DES DOCTEURS
Margarita Shumilina, Ph.D, angiologue
Professeur Florence Leclercq, Ph.D, cardiologue
Professeur Vukasin Andric, Ph.D, otorinolaringologiste
*******************************************************
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic
Declaration of the International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan
Milosevic
Belgrade, 12 November 2005
I.
We, the representatives of the International Committee for the Defense
of Slobodan Milosevic, having met on 12 November 2005 in Belgrade
under the auspices of the Sloboda (Freedom) Association, express our
deepest indignation with respect to the continued proceedings against
President Slobodan Milosevic conducted before the so-called
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
During its twelve and a half years of operation, the ICTY has
demonstrated to the world that rather than functioning as an
institution of justice, it employs force and blackmail, and is
subjected to flagrant pressure by the very powers who contributed the
most to the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia and the civil wars
waged within it. The ICTY has demonstrated that it is an institution
of arbitrariness and absence of law, not of reconciliation.
The ICTY's activities, and in particular the treatment of and
proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic, demonstrate that the ICTY is a
means of retaliation against Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY)
citizens in general, and the Serbs in particular, because of their
resistance to the breakup of the former Yugoslavia and their heroic
defense against the NATO aggression in 1999.
The indictment of Slobodan Milosevic shifted the responsibility for
the aggression and acts of terrorism committed by the Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA) onto its victims[1].
The ICTY has thus shown to the whole world that its main role is to
legitimize and legalize the most flagrant violations of international
law, as well as the most serious crimes committed during the breakup
of the former Yugoslavia and the NATO aggression against the FR of
Yugoslavia. Therefore, the ICTY is not an institution of justice.
Instead, it is a means for the accomplishment of specific political
objectives, a symbol of discrimination and legal violence.
The indictment against the former President of Serbia and the FR of
Yugoslavia for alleged crimes in Kosovo and Metohija was brought on 24
May 1999 in the midst of NATO's aggression against the FR of
Yugoslavia. That illegal war was a direct breach of the NATO Charter,
the UN Charter, and international law. That aggression represents a
crime against peace, the supreme international crime.
During the 78-day long criminal bombing of the FR of Yugoslavia, the
aggressors killed and wounded thousands of civilians, destroyed the
economic and transport infrastructure, tried to kill president
Milosevic by bombing his residence, used cluster bombs and depleted
uranium, and caused destruction amounting to more than $100 billion.
In order for the irony to be complete, charges against Slobodan
Milosevic were also brought for alleged crimes in Croatia and Bosnia
and Herzegovina.
However, the ICTY has not indicted any leader of the NATO member
countries or any pilot for the crimes committed during the aggression.
Instead, the indictment was raised by the ICTY, and sponsored by
Clinton Administration, against Slobodan Milosevic, a democratically
elected head of state who was leading his country in the defense
against the aggression.
President Milosevic, who was obliged to combat foreign-backed
terrorism in his country, is in the wake of the "War on Terrorism",
being tried by those who were igniting ethnic conflicts and who
created terrorist organizations in the territory of the former FRY. We
do not accept that President Milosevic be tried by those who were
supporting terrorism while it suited them and who claim to be fighting
it today.
By arresting Slobodan Milosevic illegally and by surrendering him to
the ICTY both the Constitution of the FR of Yugoslavia and the
Constitution of Serbia were breached. Therefore, the kidnapping and
delivery of President Milosevic to the ICTY represent violence to the
democratic constitution and a precedent in modern history. The
perpetrators of that shameful act bear the responsibility before the
citizens of Serbia, and before history.
II
Currently, after only a portion of the defense witnesses have
testified on President Milosevic's behalf before the ICTY, one can
note with certainty that the indictment that the so-called Hague
Prosecution raised against him has suffered a debacle!
Worldwide public opinion and experts have established, after the
witnesses for the Prosecution were heard, that the indictment against
Slobodan Milosevic for the crime of genocide is fully without grounds
and is not corroborated by a single piece of objective evidence. It is
not only that there is no evidence for the charge for genocide. There
is no evidence for any of the counts of the indictment.
Through the strength of arguing the truth, President Milosevic has
completely destroyed all the lies alleged against him in the so-called
Indictment.
There is, naturally, no evidence against Slobodan Milosevic. However,
there is a procedure in place. The machinery of the ICTY has tried, by
enacting its own rules for the trial procedure, by shaping and
adapting them to own political needs, to stop him in his presentation
of the truth. This is the reason why the tribunal is now trying to
limit the time needed for the witnesses he has invited to testify.
This must be prevented!
Presumption of guilt, unlimited duration of detention, retroactive
responsibility, secret charges and secret witnesses, as well as the
use of secret services for gathering evidence - these are only some of
the more evident proofs that there is no justification for the
existence of the ICTY as a legal institution, and even less as an
institution operating under the auspices of the United Nations.
We do not believe that the proceedings against President Milosevic are
just. However, any acceleration of the tempo of the proceedings
represents a boost for the enemies of truth and the establishment of
facts.
All of the above facts point to clear indications of a mistrial. That
is why we demand that this mockery of a trial be suspended, and for
President Milosevic to be released.
III
The following list details the most common types of abuse inflicted on
President Milosevic.
A.
1. On 28 June 2001, President Milosevic was forcefully,
unlawfully, and without the knowledge of his family and relevant legal
institutions of the FRY, transported to The Hague penitentiary in
violation of existing constitutional and FRY and international legal
provisions. The appeal for Habeas Corpus to Dutch Courts was not
sustained despite the evident facts, which proved that this was a case
of abduction.
B. President Milosevic's rights and privileges in The Hague
penitentiary are thoroughly neglected.
1. Many times his inalienable rights to self-representation and
defense have been questioned. Long periods of time were allocated to
formal discussion, thus making the preparations for the defense more
tedious and time consuming. The amount of material submitted by the
Prosecution is not only irrelevant but enormous, and this has
negatively affected the process itself as well as the health of
President Milosevic.
2. Despite a gigantic struggle, supported by international public
opinion, the improvement of President Milosevic's health has not been
obtained, due to the ICTY's repeated obstructions. A satisfactory
medical solution is not apparent, although the proceedings against
President Milosevic have gone on four years. The ICTY, in the name of
efficiency, imposed a strenuous schedule for the presentation of the
defense, which has had harmful consequences on President Milosevic's
health. The Prosecution case was not subject to such constraints.
3. Restrictions put on visitation rights and phone contacts are
inhuman and are basically devised to augment the psychological,
physical and emotional stress of President Milosevic. These and other
forms of harassment are applied to diminish President Milosevic's
capacities for his defense, and to achieve the further deterioration
of his health.
4. Numerous and amply supported demands that president Milosevic
should be temporarily released for medical treatment, supported by
medical and legal experts and the public at large, have been until now
repeatedly rejected owing to pressure from the Prosecution.
C. Abuses against and harassment of President Milosevic's family
1. Matching the pressure placed on President Milosevic since his
detention in The Hague Penitentiary, this persecution is augmented by
the ill treatment and abuses inflicted on the members of his immediate
family.
2. We would like to reiterate the unspeakable shame that his wife
has for almost three years been forbidden to visit him. His son and
daughter have not been able to visit him at all.
3. It is astonishing but true that all of the adult members of
his immediate family have been charged with absurd accusations. None
of these has been proven, and those against his son have been dropped.
These ridiculous allegations and special decisions on restricted
entrance to the EU that have been invoked against President
Milosevic's family make it impossible for his family to visit at the
present time. These restrictions on entrance are enforced by the
decisions of the Prosecution.
4. His wife is being charged without proof of illegal influence
on a decision making body to allocate a flat to another person.
5. The charge against President Milosevic's son that was in
effect for almost four years, stating that he allegedly beat and
intimidated a young member of an opposition political group, was
revoked a month ago. Old untruthful accusations against him are
repeated, and fresh ones are newly produced.
6. His daughter had to move to Montenegro to live unmolested. She
has been persecuted by ongoing proceedings since 2002, with the aim of
convicting her for her behavior during the night of President
Milosevic's abduction.
7. All of these accusations are viciously and purposely aired in
different media trying to augment the manifold pressures put on
President Milosevic.
8. To our knowledge, this is the first time that an indicted
person has had members of his immediate family prosecuted as well, and
for a series of invented crimes. These accusations stand as collateral
pressure on President Milosevic. This is done with the intent of
shattering his defense abilities.
IV.
In view of all of the above, we, members of the International
Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic are demanding:
Of the UN Security Council:
That for the purpose of permitting President Milosevic to complete his
defense, and in light of the facts that have been unambiguously proven:
1. discontinue the proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic.
2. the health and life of President Milosevic be protected.
3. all forms of pressure on President Milosevic and his family
members be suspended.
4. the proceedings against President Milosevic be suspended so
as to allow the stabilization of his health condition.
5. The International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan
Milosevic notes the disastrous consequences of the breakup of the FRY,
and the fact that the arrest and political trial of President
Milosevic has provided further encouragement for the commission of
acts of terrorism - including full-blown pogroms-- in Kosovo and
Metohija .
6. The Security Council must terminate the operations of the
ICTY, as it has not contributed to the process of reconciliation.
Instead, it has only worsened inter-ethnic relations in the territory
of the former SFRY.
7. To immediately issue a decision granting additional time to
President Milosevic so that the witnesses he has planned will have the
opportunity to testify.
8. President Milosevic sought the unity of the Yugoslav
Federation, and did so against foreign aggression and terror. Those
who were spurring and supporting terrorism in the territory of the
former SFRY, and particularly in the FRY - in Kosovo and Metohija -
should be brought to justice regardless of their nationality and
social position.
9. To immediately undertake any measure necessary in order to
allow an adequate diagnosis of President Milosevic's health condition,
by allowing different medical teams to examine him.
10. To undertake any step necessary, including provisional release of
President Milosevic, in order for his health to stabilize.
11. To immediately, without any delay, abolish all limitations on
visits from President Milosevic's family members.
12. All of the above are necessary for ensuring normal conditions for
the resumption and finalization of the process being illegally
conducted against President Milosevic before the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
[1] "Terrorism" is here defined as designating acts of violence
carried out against, and targeting, the civilian population of a
sovereign state against which that state has the right (and the
obligation) to protect its citizens, as well as acts of violence
perpetrated against those state agents mandated to protect the
civilian population (and constitution). The definition we propose is
not that which continues to be used by the same powers that waged a
war of aggression against Yugoslavia: that is, the exercise of lawful
resistance of peoples to aggression and occupation.
******************************************************
URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL
******************************
President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use
that advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally
discredited tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted
actions which would involve the Bar Associations, the European Court,
the UN organs in charge and the media.
Our practice has shown that ad hoc voluntary work is not enough to
deal properly with these tasks. The funds secured in Serbia are still
enough only to cover the expenses of the stay and work of President
Milosevic's legal associates at The Hague (one at the time). The funds
secured by the German section of the ICDSM (still the only one with
regular contributions) are enough only to cover minimal additional
work at The Hague connected with contacts and preparations of foreign
witnesses. Everything else is lacking.
Recently, the fundraising activity of the German section was a target
of a groundless attack of the customs police in Germany. This makes
the need for your extraordinary effort dramaticaly urgent! Even the
basic defence activities at The Hague are at stake!
As a most practical way to send your donations, we are able to offer
now the account of a friendly organization in Austria (see below).
Please send your donations to that account now, to fill the gap made
after the German account was frozen. Have in mind that all bank
transfers within the EU are now at the same price like within any of
its countries.
***********************************************************
3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.
Our history and our people oblige us to go on with this necessary
action. But without these funds it will not be possible.
Please organize urgently the fundraising activity
and send the donations to the following account:
Jugoslawisch-Österreichische
Solidaritäts-Bewegung. (JÖSB)
Bank Austria
IBAN AT49 1200 0503 8030 5200
BIC BKAUATWW
************************************************************
All of your donations will be used for legal and other necessary
accompanying activities, on instruction or with the consent of
President Milosevic. To obtain additional information on the use of
your donations or to obtain additional advice on the most efficient
way to submit your donations or to make bank
transfers, please do not hesitate to contact us:
Peter Betscher (ICDSM Treasurer) E-mail: peter_betscher @...
Phone: +49 172 7566 014
Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail: slobodavk @...
Phone: +381 63 8862 301
***************************************************************
For truth and human rights against aggression!
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
Freedom and equality for people!
On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,
Vladimir Krsljanin,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic
*************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.free-slobo-uk.org/ (CDSM UK)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
--- Fine messaggio inoltrato ---
