Informazione
[ Non tutti i voti sono uguali:
Le diverse reazioni dell'Occidente alle elezioni in Ucraina, Macedonia
e Kosovo indicano che l'Occidente appoggia il volere del popolo se e
solo se quest'ultimo fa quello che gli viene detto... ]
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA872.htm
Article 13 January 2005
Not all votes are equal
The West's different responses to elections in Ukraine, Macedonia and
Kosovo suggests that it only supports the will of the people when the
people do as they're told.
by Tara McCormack
During the recent political crisis in Ukraine, Western politicians and
commentators celebrated opposition demonstrations in Kiev's main square
as symbols of the brave people of the Ukraine standing up for
democracy. Around the same time, a largely unreported referendum was
taking place in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in which the
highest echelons of the international community intervened forcefully
to discourage voting.
These contrasting approaches to political participation demonstrate
that the West doesn't support democratic participation in all
circumstances.
The November 2004 referendum in Macedonia concerned a law that was to
begin implementation of the Ohrid Agreement (1). The Ohrid Agreement
was signed in August 2001 between the Macedonian government and
Macedonian Albanian parties, and had been brokered by the European
Union (EU) and the USA. This came after several months of fighting
between the army and Albanian separatist groups, sparked in March 2001
when Macedonian Albanian guerrillas in alliance with Kosovo Albanian
fighters began offensives in the Macedonian areas of Tetovo and
Kumanovo. Under NATO and EU pressure, in August 2001 the Macedonian
government withdrew its heavy weaponry from the areas of conflict
(although the forces were blocked from doing so for several days by
residents of Tetovo who did not want them to go).
The Ohrid Agreement entailed a redivision of the country's internal
administrative units, creating fewer units with far greater autonomy.
The redivision also gave the Albanian minority more power in several
areas - control over education and health, for example, and ethnic
quotas for the police, judiciary and other institutions. NATO and the
EU heralded the agreement as vital for the stabilisation and peaceful
development of the country, and as a crucial step for the beginning of
Macedonia's EU accession talks. However, this agreement seems to have
only increased tensions between Macedonia's Slav and Albanian
populations, with Macedonian Slav citizens seeing it as the first step
towards secession of Albanian majority areas.
In August 2004 the Macedonian government passed a law that would
implement some of the Ohrid Agreement and begin decentralisation.
Demonstrations against the law were held in Skopje, and a campaign grew
for a referendum aiming to repeal the law. It was this referendum, held
on 7 November 2004, which precipitated a flurry of activity in the
international community.
The Presidency of the EU warned Macedonia that should the referendum be
successful in rejecting the law, Macedonia's chances of joining the EU
would be seriously threatened (2). Lawrence Butler, US ambassador to
Macedonia (3), and Michael Sahlin, the EU's special representative in
Macedonia (4), also issued warnings, while US defence secretary Donald
Rumsfeld mentioned Macedonia's application to join NATO:
'The success in becoming a NATO member will largely depend on the
success in implementing the Framework Agreement, which includes
stronger and more effective local self-government units. The
legislation passed this August will certainly help democracy strengthen
in the grassroots. The Macedonian people are facing a choice of a
future with NATO and the EU where stability and economic growth can
thrive, or a return to the past.' (5)
The Macedonian government also announced that it would resign if the
referendum was successful, and urged the population not to vote (6).
The Macedonian Constitution requires a voter turnout of at least 50 per
cent for a referendum to be valid. But the case of this referendum,
turnout was only 26 per cent, with the Albanian population almost
entirely boycotting the vote (7).
It might have been thought that the international community would be
concerned by this lack of participation, but far from it. In fact, it
was quick to praise the failure of the referendum due to low voter
turnout.
'It shows that the citizens have chosen to maintain the course towards
the European Union', said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana (8).
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) welcomed
the result, as did US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher (9).
The British minister for Europe, Denis MacShane, praised Macedonians:
'This is a clear signal that Macedonia wants to continue on its path
towards full membership of the European family of nations as well as
NATO membership. I congratulate the leaders of the Macedonian and
Albanian parties and communities who made clear that the clock should
not be turned back and that the Lake Ohrid agreement will be upheld and
must now be fully implemented. We look forward to cooperating with
Macedonia over the nation's ambitions for Euro-Atlantic integration.'
(10)
Ironically, only two weeks before, at the end of October 2004, the
international community had condemned the low level of voter
participation in the Serbian region of Kosovo. The remaining Serbs of
Kosovo, who were widely expected to boycott the elections, had been
urged to vote by the NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and
UN chief Kofi Annan (11). Soren Jessen-Petersen, the head of the UN
Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), criticised Serbian prime minister Vojislav
Kostunica's call for Kosovo's Serbs to boycott the election.
Only around one per cent of Kosovo's Serbs voted. Jessen-Petersen
complained that some Serbs had been intimidated into observing the
boycott and had 'had their democratic right to vote hijacked' (12).
However, he also said that the participation of just over 50 per cent
of Kosovo's voters did render the elections legitimate (13).
What conclusions can be drawn from these different treatments of
Macedonia, Ukraine and Kosovo? It seems that for the international
community all votes are not equal: political participation is
understood in an instrumental way, which has little to do with the
democratic will of the electorate.
In Kosovo it was important for the international community for the
Serbs to participate in the elections, in order to present a less
disastrous image of the province after five years of international
administration. In Macedonia it was vital for the vote to fail as it
would impede the internationally imposed Ohrid Agreement. In Ukraine,
the international community encouraged citizens to protest against the
marginal defeat of its favoured candidate, Viktor Yuschenko.
While Ukrainians are urged to fight for their right to have their votes
counted, Macedonians are told in no uncertain terms that they can
forget EU/NATO membership if they make their votes count. Neither call
had anything to do with the democratic will of the citizens of the
former Yugoslavia or the Ukraine.
(1) Full text of the Agreement available on the Council of Europe
website [http://www.coe.int/%5d
(2) Press releases (CFSP), 2 November 2004, General Affairs and
External Relations, available from Democracy Monitor
[http://www.diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dm.nsf/dn/
dnAFEB75C02802257085256F40003E3BD9]
(3) U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia: Referendum Diminishes Chances for
Joining NATO and EU, Reality Macedonia, 27 September 2004
[http://www.realitymacedonia.org.mk/web/news_page.asp?nid=3708]
(4) 'Divisive' poll could spark civil war in Macedonia', The Times 6
November 2004
(5) Rumsfeld: United States to Continue Support of Macedonia on Road
to NATO, Southeast European Times, 13 October 2004
[http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/
features/2004/10/13/feature-01]
(6) 'Macedonia's government to quit if voters opt to block powers for
Albanian minority', The Irish Times, 6 November 2004
(7) 'Macedonia vote falling short', World News Digest, FT, 8 November
2004
(8) 'EU welcomes scuttling of vote by Macedonians', The Irish Times, 9
November 2004
(9) US, EU Praise Results of Macedonia Referendum, Southeast European
Times, 9 November 2004
[http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/
newsbriefs/2004/11/09/nb-01]
(10) Macshane welcomes Macedonian referendum decision, Diplomacy
Monitor, 8 November 2004
[http://www.diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dm.nsf/dn/
dn8DA154AA958E2F2685256F4600443470]
(11) 'Serb boycott likely to lessen validity of Kosovo poll', The
Irish Times, 23 October 2004
(12) 'Kosovo poll reveals failure of UN rule', Daily Telegraph, 25
October 2004
(13) 'Serbs' poll boycott leaves shadow over Kosovo peace talks', FT,
25 October 2004
Reprinted from :
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA872.htm
Le diverse reazioni dell'Occidente alle elezioni in Ucraina, Macedonia
e Kosovo indicano che l'Occidente appoggia il volere del popolo se e
solo se quest'ultimo fa quello che gli viene detto... ]
http://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/0000000CA872.htm
Article 13 January 2005
Not all votes are equal
The West's different responses to elections in Ukraine, Macedonia and
Kosovo suggests that it only supports the will of the people when the
people do as they're told.
by Tara McCormack
During the recent political crisis in Ukraine, Western politicians and
commentators celebrated opposition demonstrations in Kiev's main square
as symbols of the brave people of the Ukraine standing up for
democracy. Around the same time, a largely unreported referendum was
taking place in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, in which the
highest echelons of the international community intervened forcefully
to discourage voting.
These contrasting approaches to political participation demonstrate
that the West doesn't support democratic participation in all
circumstances.
The November 2004 referendum in Macedonia concerned a law that was to
begin implementation of the Ohrid Agreement (1). The Ohrid Agreement
was signed in August 2001 between the Macedonian government and
Macedonian Albanian parties, and had been brokered by the European
Union (EU) and the USA. This came after several months of fighting
between the army and Albanian separatist groups, sparked in March 2001
when Macedonian Albanian guerrillas in alliance with Kosovo Albanian
fighters began offensives in the Macedonian areas of Tetovo and
Kumanovo. Under NATO and EU pressure, in August 2001 the Macedonian
government withdrew its heavy weaponry from the areas of conflict
(although the forces were blocked from doing so for several days by
residents of Tetovo who did not want them to go).
The Ohrid Agreement entailed a redivision of the country's internal
administrative units, creating fewer units with far greater autonomy.
The redivision also gave the Albanian minority more power in several
areas - control over education and health, for example, and ethnic
quotas for the police, judiciary and other institutions. NATO and the
EU heralded the agreement as vital for the stabilisation and peaceful
development of the country, and as a crucial step for the beginning of
Macedonia's EU accession talks. However, this agreement seems to have
only increased tensions between Macedonia's Slav and Albanian
populations, with Macedonian Slav citizens seeing it as the first step
towards secession of Albanian majority areas.
In August 2004 the Macedonian government passed a law that would
implement some of the Ohrid Agreement and begin decentralisation.
Demonstrations against the law were held in Skopje, and a campaign grew
for a referendum aiming to repeal the law. It was this referendum, held
on 7 November 2004, which precipitated a flurry of activity in the
international community.
The Presidency of the EU warned Macedonia that should the referendum be
successful in rejecting the law, Macedonia's chances of joining the EU
would be seriously threatened (2). Lawrence Butler, US ambassador to
Macedonia (3), and Michael Sahlin, the EU's special representative in
Macedonia (4), also issued warnings, while US defence secretary Donald
Rumsfeld mentioned Macedonia's application to join NATO:
'The success in becoming a NATO member will largely depend on the
success in implementing the Framework Agreement, which includes
stronger and more effective local self-government units. The
legislation passed this August will certainly help democracy strengthen
in the grassroots. The Macedonian people are facing a choice of a
future with NATO and the EU where stability and economic growth can
thrive, or a return to the past.' (5)
The Macedonian government also announced that it would resign if the
referendum was successful, and urged the population not to vote (6).
The Macedonian Constitution requires a voter turnout of at least 50 per
cent for a referendum to be valid. But the case of this referendum,
turnout was only 26 per cent, with the Albanian population almost
entirely boycotting the vote (7).
It might have been thought that the international community would be
concerned by this lack of participation, but far from it. In fact, it
was quick to praise the failure of the referendum due to low voter
turnout.
'It shows that the citizens have chosen to maintain the course towards
the European Union', said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana (8).
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) welcomed
the result, as did US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher (9).
The British minister for Europe, Denis MacShane, praised Macedonians:
'This is a clear signal that Macedonia wants to continue on its path
towards full membership of the European family of nations as well as
NATO membership. I congratulate the leaders of the Macedonian and
Albanian parties and communities who made clear that the clock should
not be turned back and that the Lake Ohrid agreement will be upheld and
must now be fully implemented. We look forward to cooperating with
Macedonia over the nation's ambitions for Euro-Atlantic integration.'
(10)
Ironically, only two weeks before, at the end of October 2004, the
international community had condemned the low level of voter
participation in the Serbian region of Kosovo. The remaining Serbs of
Kosovo, who were widely expected to boycott the elections, had been
urged to vote by the NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and
UN chief Kofi Annan (11). Soren Jessen-Petersen, the head of the UN
Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), criticised Serbian prime minister Vojislav
Kostunica's call for Kosovo's Serbs to boycott the election.
Only around one per cent of Kosovo's Serbs voted. Jessen-Petersen
complained that some Serbs had been intimidated into observing the
boycott and had 'had their democratic right to vote hijacked' (12).
However, he also said that the participation of just over 50 per cent
of Kosovo's voters did render the elections legitimate (13).
What conclusions can be drawn from these different treatments of
Macedonia, Ukraine and Kosovo? It seems that for the international
community all votes are not equal: political participation is
understood in an instrumental way, which has little to do with the
democratic will of the electorate.
In Kosovo it was important for the international community for the
Serbs to participate in the elections, in order to present a less
disastrous image of the province after five years of international
administration. In Macedonia it was vital for the vote to fail as it
would impede the internationally imposed Ohrid Agreement. In Ukraine,
the international community encouraged citizens to protest against the
marginal defeat of its favoured candidate, Viktor Yuschenko.
While Ukrainians are urged to fight for their right to have their votes
counted, Macedonians are told in no uncertain terms that they can
forget EU/NATO membership if they make their votes count. Neither call
had anything to do with the democratic will of the citizens of the
former Yugoslavia or the Ukraine.
(1) Full text of the Agreement available on the Council of Europe
website [http://www.coe.int/%5d
(2) Press releases (CFSP), 2 November 2004, General Affairs and
External Relations, available from Democracy Monitor
[http://www.diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dm.nsf/dn/
dnAFEB75C02802257085256F40003E3BD9]
(3) U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia: Referendum Diminishes Chances for
Joining NATO and EU, Reality Macedonia, 27 September 2004
[http://www.realitymacedonia.org.mk/web/news_page.asp?nid=3708]
(4) 'Divisive' poll could spark civil war in Macedonia', The Times 6
November 2004
(5) Rumsfeld: United States to Continue Support of Macedonia on Road
to NATO, Southeast European Times, 13 October 2004
[http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/
features/2004/10/13/feature-01]
(6) 'Macedonia's government to quit if voters opt to block powers for
Albanian minority', The Irish Times, 6 November 2004
(7) 'Macedonia vote falling short', World News Digest, FT, 8 November
2004
(8) 'EU welcomes scuttling of vote by Macedonians', The Irish Times, 9
November 2004
(9) US, EU Praise Results of Macedonia Referendum, Southeast European
Times, 9 November 2004
[http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/
newsbriefs/2004/11/09/nb-01]
(10) Macshane welcomes Macedonian referendum decision, Diplomacy
Monitor, 8 November 2004
[http://www.diplomacymonitor.com/stu/dm.nsf/dn/
dn8DA154AA958E2F2685256F4600443470]
(11) 'Serb boycott likely to lessen validity of Kosovo poll', The
Irish Times, 23 October 2004
(12) 'Kosovo poll reveals failure of UN rule', Daily Telegraph, 25
October 2004
(13) 'Serbs' poll boycott leaves shadow over Kosovo peace talks', FT,
25 October 2004
Reprinted from :
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA872.htm
[ Un intervento del segretario del Nuovo Partito Comunista di
Jugoslavia Branko Kitanovic in merito ad un recente intervento di
taglio revisionista ed anticomunista apparso su Politika. Ricordiamo
che Politika, che fu un tempo il piu' prestigioso quotidiano della
Jugoslavia, e' oggi di proprieta' della societa' tedesca Westdeutsche
Allgemeine Zeitung. ]
http://komunist.free.fr/arhiva/jan2005/nkpj02.html
Arhiva : : Januar 2005.
Čerčil, Ruzvelt, De Gol - mislili su drugačije
Saopštenje NKPJ povodom teksta "Akademija posvećena velikom zločincu"
objavljenom u "Politici" 5.1.2005.g.
Petar Simić nebiranim rečima, neznanjem i neistinama napada rukovodstvo
Nove komunističke partije Jugoslavije zbog organizovanje Akademije u
čast 125. rođendana J.V. Staljina.
Biću veoma koncizan, jer mi Zakon o štampi ne dozvoljava duži odgovor
od njegovog članka.
1. Na Savetovanju kompartija sveta u Atini, oktobra 2004. godine
odlučeno je da sve komunističke partije svečano obeleže Staljinov
jubilej.
2. Četiri meseca posle agresije na SSSR, slomljen je fašistički
blickrig. Gotovo 75 odsto ukupnih fašističkih snaga poraženo je na
Istočnom frontu. Na čelu Crvene armije bio je J.V. Staljin.
3. Mnogi najistaknutiji državnici, vojskovođe, naučnici, filozofi,
pisci XX veka smatrali su Staljina najvećom ili jednom od najvećih
ličnosti u istoriji: Čerčil, Ruzvelt, De Gol, Mao Cetung, Nehru,
Hariman, Bernard Šo, Rasel, Žolio Kiri, Ajnštajn, Ajzenhauer,
Montgomeri, Idn, M. Gorki, P. Neruda, Šolohov, A. Frans, Aragon, Žukov,
Vasiljevski, Rokosovski, Konjev...
Povodom 80. Staljinovog rođendana (28.12.1959.) Britanski parlament
održao je svečanu akademiju na kojoj je V. Čerčil, pored ostalog,
izjavio: "Velika sreća za Rusiju bila je to, što je u godinama najtežih
iskušenja na njenom čelu bio genije i nepokolebljivi vojskovođa J.V.
Staljin". Ceo Čerčilov govor unet je u Britansku enciklopediju.
NKPJ je u svom listu objavila ovaj govor i mišljenja mnogih od gore
pomenutih ličnosti.
4. Ruska Duma, sadašnja vlast i niz ruskih instituta i komisija
izučavali su godinama represije u SSSR-u i utvrdili sledeće. Počev od
1920. pa do 1953. godine kada je umro Staljin, u SSSR je ukupno
streljano 642 (šestotina četrdeset dve) hiljade ljudi zbog učešća u
kontrarevoluciji, raznim pobunama, zbog špijunaže, razbojništva,
kriminala, pripadništva vlasovljevim kvinslinškim jedinicama, u vreme
kolektivizacije i partijskih čistki.
U atmosferi velikih spoljnih pritisaka i klasne borbe bio je među njima
i znatan broj nevinih ljudi. Ali su buržoaska propaganda i izdajnici
tipa Hruščova, Gorbačova, Jakovljeva... izmislili stostruko veće
represalije nego što su one bile. Fabrikovanje takvih laži i
falsifikata se i danas nastavlja i jedna od njihovih žrtava ili
apologeta je i P. Simić, čiji glas u antikomunističkom horu ne znači
mnogo.
5. Nikada u SSSR nije bilo toliko zatvorenika koliko godišnje prođe
kroz zatvore SAD.
6. Petar Simić iz neznanja tvrdi da je Prva proleterska brigada
formirana 22.12.1941. godine. A ona je formirana u čast Staljinovog
rođendana 21.12.1941. (Vojna enciklopedija, t.7, str.570).
6.1.2005. godine
Za NKPJ:
Branko Kitanović
Jugoslavia Branko Kitanovic in merito ad un recente intervento di
taglio revisionista ed anticomunista apparso su Politika. Ricordiamo
che Politika, che fu un tempo il piu' prestigioso quotidiano della
Jugoslavia, e' oggi di proprieta' della societa' tedesca Westdeutsche
Allgemeine Zeitung. ]
http://komunist.free.fr/arhiva/jan2005/nkpj02.html
Arhiva : : Januar 2005.
Čerčil, Ruzvelt, De Gol - mislili su drugačije
Saopštenje NKPJ povodom teksta "Akademija posvećena velikom zločincu"
objavljenom u "Politici" 5.1.2005.g.
Petar Simić nebiranim rečima, neznanjem i neistinama napada rukovodstvo
Nove komunističke partije Jugoslavije zbog organizovanje Akademije u
čast 125. rođendana J.V. Staljina.
Biću veoma koncizan, jer mi Zakon o štampi ne dozvoljava duži odgovor
od njegovog članka.
1. Na Savetovanju kompartija sveta u Atini, oktobra 2004. godine
odlučeno je da sve komunističke partije svečano obeleže Staljinov
jubilej.
2. Četiri meseca posle agresije na SSSR, slomljen je fašistički
blickrig. Gotovo 75 odsto ukupnih fašističkih snaga poraženo je na
Istočnom frontu. Na čelu Crvene armije bio je J.V. Staljin.
3. Mnogi najistaknutiji državnici, vojskovođe, naučnici, filozofi,
pisci XX veka smatrali su Staljina najvećom ili jednom od najvećih
ličnosti u istoriji: Čerčil, Ruzvelt, De Gol, Mao Cetung, Nehru,
Hariman, Bernard Šo, Rasel, Žolio Kiri, Ajnštajn, Ajzenhauer,
Montgomeri, Idn, M. Gorki, P. Neruda, Šolohov, A. Frans, Aragon, Žukov,
Vasiljevski, Rokosovski, Konjev...
Povodom 80. Staljinovog rođendana (28.12.1959.) Britanski parlament
održao je svečanu akademiju na kojoj je V. Čerčil, pored ostalog,
izjavio: "Velika sreća za Rusiju bila je to, što je u godinama najtežih
iskušenja na njenom čelu bio genije i nepokolebljivi vojskovođa J.V.
Staljin". Ceo Čerčilov govor unet je u Britansku enciklopediju.
NKPJ je u svom listu objavila ovaj govor i mišljenja mnogih od gore
pomenutih ličnosti.
4. Ruska Duma, sadašnja vlast i niz ruskih instituta i komisija
izučavali su godinama represije u SSSR-u i utvrdili sledeće. Počev od
1920. pa do 1953. godine kada je umro Staljin, u SSSR je ukupno
streljano 642 (šestotina četrdeset dve) hiljade ljudi zbog učešća u
kontrarevoluciji, raznim pobunama, zbog špijunaže, razbojništva,
kriminala, pripadništva vlasovljevim kvinslinškim jedinicama, u vreme
kolektivizacije i partijskih čistki.
U atmosferi velikih spoljnih pritisaka i klasne borbe bio je među njima
i znatan broj nevinih ljudi. Ali su buržoaska propaganda i izdajnici
tipa Hruščova, Gorbačova, Jakovljeva... izmislili stostruko veće
represalije nego što su one bile. Fabrikovanje takvih laži i
falsifikata se i danas nastavlja i jedna od njihovih žrtava ili
apologeta je i P. Simić, čiji glas u antikomunističkom horu ne znači
mnogo.
5. Nikada u SSSR nije bilo toliko zatvorenika koliko godišnje prođe
kroz zatvore SAD.
6. Petar Simić iz neznanja tvrdi da je Prva proleterska brigada
formirana 22.12.1941. godine. A ona je formirana u čast Staljinovog
rođendana 21.12.1941. (Vojna enciklopedija, t.7, str.570).
6.1.2005. godine
Za NKPJ:
Branko Kitanović
[ Un intervento del NPKJ sulla legge, recentemente approvata dalle
destre al potere in Serbia con la sola opposizione del Partito
Socialista e di pochi altri, che equipara i reduci cetnici ai
partigiani. Sulla questione vedi anche:
Serbia 2004: i cetnici al potere
JUGOINFO Mer 22 Dic 2004 23:07:32
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages ]
http://komunist.free.fr/arhiva/jan2005/nkpj.html
Arhiva : : Januar 2005.
Nagrada za izdaju
Saopštenje NKPJ povodom usvajanja zakona u Skupštini Srbije o
izjednačavanju prava četnika i partizana u II. svetskom ratu.
Usvajanje zakona u Skupštini Srbije o izjednačavanju prava četnika i
partizana u II. svetskom ratu je apsurdan, antiistorijski i sraman čin
kojim se odobrava, izdaja dražićevaca.
Postoje stotine neoborivih dokaza iz jugoslovenskih, sovjetskih,
američkih, britanskih i nemačkih izvora o saradnji četnika sa
hitlerovskim i italijanskim okupatorom, sa kvislinškim bandama Nedića i
Ljotića.
Postoje na hiljade potvrđenih dokaza o stravičnim i grozomornim
masovnim i pojedinačnim zločinima četnika protiv golorukog naroda,
patriota, partizana i njihovih simpatizera.
Sačuvani su dokumenti o sastancima, sporazumima i zajedničkim akcijama
protiv partizana, o pomoći u oružju, municiji, odeći, obući i hrani, o
finansiranju četničkog pokreta od strane Nemaca, Italijana, nedićevaca
i Ijotićevaca.
Još po sporazumu iz avgusta 1941. godine, Nemci kompletno snabdevaju i
plaćaju 72 četnička oficira i 7.963 redova četničkog vojvode Koste
Pećanca i 3 hiljade pripadnika formacije pod direktnom komandom Draže
Mihailovića.
Predstavnici D. Mihailovića i komandanti njegovih korpusa, štabova i
drugih jedinica: Predrag Raković, Nikola Kalabić, Pavle Đurišić, Bajo
Stanišić, Blažo Đukanović, Dragoslav Račić, Neško Nedić, Momčilo Đujić,
Gojko Borota, Lukačević, Raković, Ocokoljić, Jevđević i na desetine
drugih pregovaraju, postižu i potpisuju sporazume sa okupatorom u selu
Divcu, Čačku, Požegi, Toplici, Istočnoj Srbiji, Dalmaciji, Topoli,
Sarajevu, Podgorici, Lici i u drugim mestima i krajevima o međusobnom
nenapadanju, o pomoći četnicima, i o zajedničkoj borbi protiv partizana.
U okupiranoj zoni u Dalmaciji četnici formiraju antikomunističku
policiju, čiji su instruktori italijanski oficiri.
Za saradnju sa Vermahtom u borbi protiv NOB-a Hitler odlikuje Gvozdenim
krstom četničkog vojvodu Pavla Đurišića.
Četnička kama i najsvirepiji zločini, posebno "crnih trojki", protiv
antifašista usmrtile su na desetine hiljada patriota. Mnogi zarobljeni
partizani isporučivani su Nedićevim kvislinzima ili direktno okupatoru.
Britanska vlada zatražila je u januaru 1943. godine od jugoslovenske
izbegličke vlade u Londonu da četnici D. Mihailovića prekinu saradnju
sa okupatorom i obustave borbu protiv NOB-a i POJ-a. Ali četnici su do
kraja rata kolaborirali sa fašistima i kvislinzima. U Topoli su se 11.
avgusta 1944. godine sastali četnički prvaci major Dragoslav Račić i
kapetani Neško Nedić i Nikola Kalabić sa predstavnikom nemačke komande
za Jugoistok Princom fon Vredeom, uz posredništvo Milana Nedića.
Dogovorili su se o detaljima zajedničke borbe protiv
Narodnooslobodilačke vojske Jugoslavije.
Dvanaestog septembra 1944. godine kralj Petar II. preko Radio Londona
pozvao je četnike da "pristupe Narodnooslobodilačkoj borbi pod maršalom
Titom". Pod pritiskom saveznika, koji su raspolagali mnogobrojnim
dokazima o saradnji četnika sa okupatorom, Kralj Petar II. u toj poruci
kaže: "Svi oni koji se oslanjaju na neprijatelja protiv interesa svog
vlastitog naroda i njegove budućnosti, i koji se ne bi odazvali ovom
pozivu, neće uspeti da se oslobode izdajničkog žiga ni pred narodom ni
pred istorijom." Petar II. dalje odlučno osuđuje "pokušaje da se
opravda saradnja sa neprijateljem i izazove razdor unutar naroda u
najtežim časovima njegove istorije."
Tu i tamo bilo je pojedinaca i pojedinih manjih četničkih formacija
koji su se na sopstvenu inicijativu suprostavljali okupatoru i
kvislinzima, ali takvi postupci su bili u suprotnosti sa politikom i
kolaboracijom rukovodstva četničkog pokreta na čelu sa Dražom
Mihailovićem.
Ni na jednoj konferenciji savezničkih zemalja - SSSR, SAD, Engleska -
održanim u Teheranu, Moskvi, na Jalti, četnici se ne pominju kao
antifašistička snaga. Istovremeno, na svim savezničkim konferencijama
donošene su odluke o saradnji i pružanju pomoći Narodnooslobodilačkoj
borbi, kao jedinoj antifašističkoj snazi u Jugoslaviji.
Istorija će strpati u sramnu grobnicu prošlosti odluku Skupštine Srbije
kojom se izdaja pretvara u antifašizam i nagrađuje.
Sekretarijat NKPJ
destre al potere in Serbia con la sola opposizione del Partito
Socialista e di pochi altri, che equipara i reduci cetnici ai
partigiani. Sulla questione vedi anche:
Serbia 2004: i cetnici al potere
JUGOINFO Mer 22 Dic 2004 23:07:32
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages ]
http://komunist.free.fr/arhiva/jan2005/nkpj.html
Arhiva : : Januar 2005.
Nagrada za izdaju
Saopštenje NKPJ povodom usvajanja zakona u Skupštini Srbije o
izjednačavanju prava četnika i partizana u II. svetskom ratu.
Usvajanje zakona u Skupštini Srbije o izjednačavanju prava četnika i
partizana u II. svetskom ratu je apsurdan, antiistorijski i sraman čin
kojim se odobrava, izdaja dražićevaca.
Postoje stotine neoborivih dokaza iz jugoslovenskih, sovjetskih,
američkih, britanskih i nemačkih izvora o saradnji četnika sa
hitlerovskim i italijanskim okupatorom, sa kvislinškim bandama Nedića i
Ljotića.
Postoje na hiljade potvrđenih dokaza o stravičnim i grozomornim
masovnim i pojedinačnim zločinima četnika protiv golorukog naroda,
patriota, partizana i njihovih simpatizera.
Sačuvani su dokumenti o sastancima, sporazumima i zajedničkim akcijama
protiv partizana, o pomoći u oružju, municiji, odeći, obući i hrani, o
finansiranju četničkog pokreta od strane Nemaca, Italijana, nedićevaca
i Ijotićevaca.
Još po sporazumu iz avgusta 1941. godine, Nemci kompletno snabdevaju i
plaćaju 72 četnička oficira i 7.963 redova četničkog vojvode Koste
Pećanca i 3 hiljade pripadnika formacije pod direktnom komandom Draže
Mihailovića.
Predstavnici D. Mihailovića i komandanti njegovih korpusa, štabova i
drugih jedinica: Predrag Raković, Nikola Kalabić, Pavle Đurišić, Bajo
Stanišić, Blažo Đukanović, Dragoslav Račić, Neško Nedić, Momčilo Đujić,
Gojko Borota, Lukačević, Raković, Ocokoljić, Jevđević i na desetine
drugih pregovaraju, postižu i potpisuju sporazume sa okupatorom u selu
Divcu, Čačku, Požegi, Toplici, Istočnoj Srbiji, Dalmaciji, Topoli,
Sarajevu, Podgorici, Lici i u drugim mestima i krajevima o međusobnom
nenapadanju, o pomoći četnicima, i o zajedničkoj borbi protiv partizana.
U okupiranoj zoni u Dalmaciji četnici formiraju antikomunističku
policiju, čiji su instruktori italijanski oficiri.
Za saradnju sa Vermahtom u borbi protiv NOB-a Hitler odlikuje Gvozdenim
krstom četničkog vojvodu Pavla Đurišića.
Četnička kama i najsvirepiji zločini, posebno "crnih trojki", protiv
antifašista usmrtile su na desetine hiljada patriota. Mnogi zarobljeni
partizani isporučivani su Nedićevim kvislinzima ili direktno okupatoru.
Britanska vlada zatražila je u januaru 1943. godine od jugoslovenske
izbegličke vlade u Londonu da četnici D. Mihailovića prekinu saradnju
sa okupatorom i obustave borbu protiv NOB-a i POJ-a. Ali četnici su do
kraja rata kolaborirali sa fašistima i kvislinzima. U Topoli su se 11.
avgusta 1944. godine sastali četnički prvaci major Dragoslav Račić i
kapetani Neško Nedić i Nikola Kalabić sa predstavnikom nemačke komande
za Jugoistok Princom fon Vredeom, uz posredništvo Milana Nedića.
Dogovorili su se o detaljima zajedničke borbe protiv
Narodnooslobodilačke vojske Jugoslavije.
Dvanaestog septembra 1944. godine kralj Petar II. preko Radio Londona
pozvao je četnike da "pristupe Narodnooslobodilačkoj borbi pod maršalom
Titom". Pod pritiskom saveznika, koji su raspolagali mnogobrojnim
dokazima o saradnji četnika sa okupatorom, Kralj Petar II. u toj poruci
kaže: "Svi oni koji se oslanjaju na neprijatelja protiv interesa svog
vlastitog naroda i njegove budućnosti, i koji se ne bi odazvali ovom
pozivu, neće uspeti da se oslobode izdajničkog žiga ni pred narodom ni
pred istorijom." Petar II. dalje odlučno osuđuje "pokušaje da se
opravda saradnja sa neprijateljem i izazove razdor unutar naroda u
najtežim časovima njegove istorije."
Tu i tamo bilo je pojedinaca i pojedinih manjih četničkih formacija
koji su se na sopstvenu inicijativu suprostavljali okupatoru i
kvislinzima, ali takvi postupci su bili u suprotnosti sa politikom i
kolaboracijom rukovodstva četničkog pokreta na čelu sa Dražom
Mihailovićem.
Ni na jednoj konferenciji savezničkih zemalja - SSSR, SAD, Engleska -
održanim u Teheranu, Moskvi, na Jalti, četnici se ne pominju kao
antifašistička snaga. Istovremeno, na svim savezničkim konferencijama
donošene su odluke o saradnji i pružanju pomoći Narodnooslobodilačkoj
borbi, kao jedinoj antifašističkoj snazi u Jugoslaviji.
Istorija će strpati u sramnu grobnicu prošlosti odluku Skupštine Srbije
kojom se izdaja pretvara u antifašizam i nagrađuje.
Sekretarijat NKPJ
(english / italiano)
Markale
Secondo il settimanale croato Globus, il Ministero dell'Interno ed il
controspionaggio della Croazia sarebbero in possesso di un rapporto di
12 pagine, compilato dall'ex capo dei servizi Franjo Turek il 15 Aprile
2003, in base al quale Ivica Rajic, gia' comandante della zona di
operazioni di Kiseljak per le milizie croato-bosniache ed attualmente
in carcere all'Aia per altri crimini, sarebbe stato coinvolto nella
strage al mercato di Markale a Sarajevo.
Ricordiamo che la strage fu utilizzata dai paesi della NATO come
pretesto per scatenare i bombardamenti all'uranio impoverito sul suolo
della Repubblica Serba di Bosnia, nell'agosto-settembre 1995.
Sa la notizia fosse vera, essa dovrebbe (dovrebbe) essere presa in
esame dalla stampa internazionale e dal "tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia, e
scagionerebbe una volta per tutte i serbi di Bosnia dalla infamante
accusa di avere causato quella strage. Tuttavia, e' anche possibile che
si tratti di una "patacca" messa in circolazione allo scopo di creare
un capro espiatorio per quella strage (Rajic appunto, che e' adesso in
una posizione indifendibile), coprendo allo stesso tempo
responsabilita' ben piu' gravi ed imbarazzanti quali quelle delle
milizie di Izetbegovic e/o direttamente di settori della NATO
specializzati nelle tecniche di "guerra sporca" (cioe' psicologica e/o
contro la popolazione civile). (a cura di Italo Slavo)
http://news.serbianunity.net/bydate/2005/January_14/29.html?w=p
Bosnian Croat indictee responsible for Sarajevo market
shelling-Croatian weekly
BBC Monitoring - January 14, 2005
The Zagreb-based weekly Globus has reported that it possesses secret
reports by the Croatian Interior Ministry and the Counter-Intelligence
Agency from 2003 stating that Hague indictee Ivica Rajic, as commander
of the Kiseljak zone of operation, was responsible for the shelling of
the Sarajevo market Markale.
"The sources point to Rajic's unclear responsibility for the shelling
of the Sarajevo market Markale," says the secret report compiled on 12
pages by the former acting director of the Counter-Intelligence Agency,
Franjo Turek, on 15 April 2003 - ten days after Rajic's arrest.
Globus reported that more than 70 people suffered in the Markale
shelling and that Turek said in the secret report that Rajic was
responsible for the shelling, and not the Serbs as it has been believed
so far.
Globus has possesses key reports from the Croatian Interior Ministry
and the Counter-Intelligence Agency from 2003 about a support network
which was hiding Ivica Rajic for eight years and which the Croatian
government did not forward to Hague chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte.
Source: SRNA news agency, Bijeljina, in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian 1145
gmt 13 Jan 05
Markale
Secondo il settimanale croato Globus, il Ministero dell'Interno ed il
controspionaggio della Croazia sarebbero in possesso di un rapporto di
12 pagine, compilato dall'ex capo dei servizi Franjo Turek il 15 Aprile
2003, in base al quale Ivica Rajic, gia' comandante della zona di
operazioni di Kiseljak per le milizie croato-bosniache ed attualmente
in carcere all'Aia per altri crimini, sarebbe stato coinvolto nella
strage al mercato di Markale a Sarajevo.
Ricordiamo che la strage fu utilizzata dai paesi della NATO come
pretesto per scatenare i bombardamenti all'uranio impoverito sul suolo
della Repubblica Serba di Bosnia, nell'agosto-settembre 1995.
Sa la notizia fosse vera, essa dovrebbe (dovrebbe) essere presa in
esame dalla stampa internazionale e dal "tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia, e
scagionerebbe una volta per tutte i serbi di Bosnia dalla infamante
accusa di avere causato quella strage. Tuttavia, e' anche possibile che
si tratti di una "patacca" messa in circolazione allo scopo di creare
un capro espiatorio per quella strage (Rajic appunto, che e' adesso in
una posizione indifendibile), coprendo allo stesso tempo
responsabilita' ben piu' gravi ed imbarazzanti quali quelle delle
milizie di Izetbegovic e/o direttamente di settori della NATO
specializzati nelle tecniche di "guerra sporca" (cioe' psicologica e/o
contro la popolazione civile). (a cura di Italo Slavo)
http://news.serbianunity.net/bydate/2005/January_14/29.html?w=p
Bosnian Croat indictee responsible for Sarajevo market
shelling-Croatian weekly
BBC Monitoring - January 14, 2005
The Zagreb-based weekly Globus has reported that it possesses secret
reports by the Croatian Interior Ministry and the Counter-Intelligence
Agency from 2003 stating that Hague indictee Ivica Rajic, as commander
of the Kiseljak zone of operation, was responsible for the shelling of
the Sarajevo market Markale.
"The sources point to Rajic's unclear responsibility for the shelling
of the Sarajevo market Markale," says the secret report compiled on 12
pages by the former acting director of the Counter-Intelligence Agency,
Franjo Turek, on 15 April 2003 - ten days after Rajic's arrest.
Globus reported that more than 70 people suffered in the Markale
shelling and that Turek said in the secret report that Rajic was
responsible for the shelling, and not the Serbs as it has been believed
so far.
Globus has possesses key reports from the Croatian Interior Ministry
and the Counter-Intelligence Agency from 2003 about a support network
which was hiding Ivica Rajic for eight years and which the Croatian
government did not forward to Hague chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte.
Source: SRNA news agency, Bijeljina, in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian 1145
gmt 13 Jan 05
