Informazione
Nineteen Years Ago: NATO’s War of Aggression against Yugoslavia: Who are the War Criminals?
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Nineteen years ago in the early hours of March 24, 1999, NATO began the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. “The operation was code-named “Allied Force ” – a cold, uninspired and perfectly descriptive moniker” according to Nebosja Malic.
This article was first written in May 1999 at the height of the bombing of Yugoslavia.
The causes and consequences of this war have been the object of a vast media disinformation campaign, which has sought to camouflage NATO and US war crimes.
It is important to note that a large segment of the “Progressive Left” in Western Europe and North America were part of this disinformation campaign, presenting NATO military intervention as a necessary humanitarian operation geared towards protecting the rights of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo.
The intervention was in violation of international law. President Milosevic at the Rambouillet talks had refused the stationing of NATO troops inside Yugoslavia.
The demonization of Slobodan Milsovic by so-called “Progressives” has served over the years to uphold the legitimacy of the NATO bombings. It has also provided credibility to “a war crimes tribunal” under the jurisidiction of those who committed extensive war crimes in the name of social justice.
The Just War thesis was also upheld by several prominent intellectuals who viewed the Kosovo war as: “a Just War”.
In turn the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) was upheld by several “Leftists” as a bona fide liberation movement rooted in Marxism.
The KLA –whose leader Hachim Thaci is now president of Kosovo– was a paramilitary army supported by Western intelligence, financed and trained by the US and NATO. It had ties to organised crime. It also had links to Al Qaeda, which is supported by US intelligence.
Michel Chossudovsky, March 2006, updated March 2018
* * *
NATO’s War of Aggression against Yugoslavia: Who are the War Criminals?
by Michel Chossudovsky, 15 May 1999
Low Intensity Nuclear War
With NATO air-strikes entering their third month, a new stage of the War has unfolded. NATO’s “humanitarian bombings” have been stepped up leading to mounting civilian casualties and human suffering. Thirty percent of those killed in the bombings are children.1 In addition to the use of cluster bombs, the Alliance is waging a “low intensity nuclear war” using toxic radioactive shells and missiles containing depleted uranium. Amply documented, the radioactive fall-out causes cancer potentially affecting millions of people for generations to come. According to a recent scientific report, “the first signs of radiation on children including herpes on the mouth and skin rashes on the back and ankles” have been observed in Yugoslavia since the beginning of the bombings.2
In addition to the radioactive fall-out which has contaminated the environment and the food chain, the Alliance has also bombed Yugoslavia’s major chemical and pharmaceutical plants. The bombing of Galenika, the largest medicine factory in Yugoslavia has contributed to releasing dangerous, highly toxic fumes. When NATO forces bombed plants of the Pancevo petrochemical complex in mid-April “fire broke out and huge quantities of chlorine, ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride monomer flowed out. Workers at Pancevo, fearing further bombing attacks that would blow up dangerous materials, released tons of ethylene dichloride, a carcinogen, into the Danube.”3
Nato to the “Rescue of Ethnic Albanians”
Ethnic Albanians have not been spared by NATO air raids. Killing ethnic Albanians in Kosovo is said to be “inevitable” in carrying out a “humanitarian operation on behalf of ethnic Albanians”. In addition to the impacts of the ground war between the KLA and the Yugoslav Armed Forces, the bombings and the resulting radioactive fall-out in Kosovo have been more devastating than in the rest of Yugoslavia.
Presented as a humanitarian mission, the evidence amply confirms that NATO’s brutal air raids of towns and villages in Kosovo have triggered the exodus of refugees. Those who have fled their homes to refugee camps in Macedonia and Albania have nothing to return to, nothing to look forward to… An entire country has been destroyed, its civilian industry and public infrastructure transformed into rubble. Bridges, power plants, schools and hospitals are displayed as “legitimate military targets” selected by NATO’s Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC) in Vicenza, Italy and carefully “validated prior to the pilot launching his strike.”
With the “diplomatic shuttle” still ongoing, the Alliance is intent on inflicting as much damage on the Yugoslav economy (including Kosovo) as possible prior to reaching a G8 brokered “peace initiative” which will empower them to send in ground troops. “Allied commanders have steadily widened their list of economic targets… Increasingly, the impact of NATO air strikes has put people out of work… causing water shortages in Belgrade, Novi Sad and other Serbian cities. … [T]he effect was to shut down businesses, strain hospitals’ ability to function and cut off water…”4. Some 115 medical institutions have been damaged of which several have been totally demolished. And hospital patients –including children and the elderly– are dying due to the lack of water and electricity…5
General Wesley Clark, NATO’s Supreme commander in Europe, confirmed in late May that “NATO’S air campaign has not reached its peak yet and the alliance should be prepared for more civilian casualties.”6. General Clark also confirmed that “he would be seeking to increase the number of air strikes in Kosovo and expand the range of targets.7 As the bombings entered their third month, there was also a noticeable change in “NATO rhetoric”. The Alliance had become increasingly unrepentant, NATO officials were no longer apologising for civilian casualties, claiming that the latter were contributing to “helping Milosevic’s propaganda machine.”
Extending the Conflict Beyond the Balkans
Drowned in the barrage of media images and self-serving analyses, the broader strategic interests and economic causes of the War go unmentioned. The late Sean Gervasi writing in 1995 had anticipated an impending War. According to Gervasi, Washington’s strategic goals stretched well beyond the Balkans. They largely consisted in “installing a Western-style regime in Yugoslavia and reducing the geographic area, power and influence of Serbia to a minimum….”8
In this context, the installation of American power in Southern Europe and the Mediterranean also constitutes a step towards the extension of Washington’s geopolitical sphere of influence beyond the Balkans into the area of the Caspian Sea, Central Asia and West Asia.
In this regard, NATO’s military intervention in Yugoslavia (in violation of international law) also sets a dangerous precedent. It provides “legitimacy” to future military interventions. To achieve its strategic objectives, national economies are destabilised, regional conflicts are financed through the provision of covert support to armed insurgencies… In other words, the conflict in Yugoslavia creates conditions which provide legitmacy to future interventions of the Alliance into the “internal affairs of sovereign nations”.
The consolidation of American strategic interests in Eastern Europe, the Balkans (and beyond) was not only marked by the enlargement of NATO (with the accession of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic as NATO members) barely two weeks before the beginning of the bombings, the War in Yugoslavia also coincided with a critical split in geopolitical alignments within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).
In late April, Georgia, the Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldava signed a pact in Washington, creating GUUAM, a regional alliance which lies strategically at the hub of the Caspian oil and gas wealth, “with Moldava and the Ukraine offering [pipeline] export routes to the West”.9 This geopolitical split bears a direct relationship to the crisis in Yugoslavia. The region is already unstable marked by nationalist conflicts and separatist movements.
The members of this new pro-NATO political grouping not only tacitly support the bombings in Yugoslavia, they have also agreed to “low level military cooperation” with NATO while insisting that “the group is not a military alliance directed against any third party, namely Moscow.”10
Dominated by Western oil interests, the formation of GUUAM is not only intent on excluding Russia from the oil and gas deposits in the Caspian area but also in isolating Moscow politically thereby potentially re-igniting Cold War divisions…
The War Has Stalled Nuclear Arms Controls
In turn, the War in Yugoslavia has significantly stalled nuclear arms-control initiatives leading to the cancellation of an exchange program “that would have had US and Russian nuclear weapons officers in constant contact at year’s end to prevent any launches as a result of Year 2000 computer troubles.”11
Moreover, Russia’s military has also voiced its concern “that the bombing of Yugoslavia could turn out in the very near future to be just a rehearsal for similar strikes on Russia.”12.
According to Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford, co-president of the Nobel Peace Prize winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), the impact of NATO bombings of Yugoslavia “on nuclear weapons policy is an extremely serious development… Russians feel a sense of betrayal by the West… because NATO took this action outside the UN.”13
Aleksander Arbatov, deputy chairman of the Defence Committee of the Russian State Duma U.S.-Russian relations describes the War in Yugoslavia as the “worst most acute, most dangerous juncture since the U.S.-Soviet Berlin and Cuban missile crises.”14 According to Arbatov:
“START II is dead, co-operation with NATO is frozen, co-operation on missile defence is out of the question, and Moscow’s willingness to co-operate on non-proliferation issues is at an all-time low. Moreover, anti-U..S. sentiment in Russia is real, deep and more wide-spread than ever, and the slogan describing NATO action – “today Serbia, tomorrow Russia,” is “deeply planted in Russian’s minds.”…15 Mary-Wynne Ashford also warns that whereas Russia was moving towards integration with Europe, they [the Russians] now:
“…. perceive their primary threat from the West. Officials in [Russia’s] Foreign Affairs (Arms Control and Disarmament) told us that Russia has no option but to rely on nuclear weapons for its defence because its conventional forces are inadequate…. Even if the bombings stop now, the changes in Russia’s attitude toward the West, its renewed reliance on nuclear weapons with thousands on high alert, and its loss of confidence in international law leave us vulnerable to catastrophe…. This crisis makes de-alerting nuclear weapons more urgent than ever. To those who say the Russian threat is all rhetoric, I reply that rhetoric is what starts wars”.16
The Media War: “Silencing the Silent Majority”
This war is also “a War against the Truth”.. With protest movements developing around the World, NATO has reinforced its clutch over the mass media. In a stylised (“wag the dog”) media mascarade, the Alliance is relentlessly portrayed as “the saviour of ethnic Albanian Kosovars”. A full-fledged “cover-up operation” has been set in motion with a view to thwarting public debate on the War. The hidden agenda is to “silence the silent majority.” The Western media heeding to the Alliance’s demands has blatantly misled public opinion. Casually portrayed on TV screens, civilian deaths are justified as inevitable “collateral damage”. According to the Pentagon, “there is no such thing as clean combat.”17
Meanwhile, anti-war commentators (including former ambassadors and OSCE officials) have been carefully removed from mainstream public affairs programmes, TV content is closely scrutinised, the images of civilian deaths and destruction relayed from Belgrade are seldomly and selectively displayed, journalists are under tight supervision. While the media does not hesitate to criticize NATO for having committed “errors” and “tragic mistakes”, the legitimacy of the military operation and its “humanitarian mandate” are not questioned:
“Public opinion is confronted with a loaded question which allows only one answer. In the present war, that question is, “Doesn’t ethnic cleansing have to be stopped?” This simplification allows the media to portray Yugoslavia rather than NATO as the aggressor. The alliance, in a complete inversion of reality, is presented as conducting an essentially defensive war on behalf of the Kosovar Albanians…” when in fact ethnic Albanians are the principle victims of NATO’s “humanitarian bombings.”18
According to NATO’s propaganda machine, “ethnic Albanians do not flee the bombings” and the ground war between the KLA and the Yugoslav Army. According to Diana Johnstone this makes them “nearly unique [because] throughout history, civilians have fled from war zones…. No, as we have heard repeatedly from NATO spokesmen and apologists, Kosovo Albanians run away from only one thing: brutal ethnic cleansing carried out by Serbs.”19
The refugee crisis we are told by NATO is limited to Kosovo. Yet the evidence (withheld by the Western media) confirms that people throughout Serbia are fleeing major cities:
Reliable estimates put the number of refugees who have left Belgrade to escape the bombing at 400,000. Most are women and children, as with the Kosovo Albanians. At least another 500,000 have left Serbia’s other cities, notably Novi Sad and Nish, where NATO bombing has caused air pollution, cut the water supply, and struck purely civilian targets such as market squares. Altogether, according to the Italian daily “Il Manifesto”, the NATO bombing has produced at least a million refugees in Serbia. Predrag Simic, foreign policy adviser to Serbian opposition leader Vuk Draskovic, told a Paris conference [in late May] that Kosovo was being so thoroughly devastated by NATO bombing that nobody, neither Albanians nor Serbs, would be able to go back and live there”.20
Who is Responsible for War Crimes?
Public “disapproval” of NATO bombings is immediately dismissed as “Serb propaganda”. Those who speak out against NATO are branded as “apologists of Milosevic”. While most anti-War critics in NATO countries are not defenders of the Milosevic regime, they are nonetheless expected to be “balanced” in their arguments. “Looking at both sides of the picture is the rule”: anti-war commentators are invited to echo NATO’s fabricated media consensus, to unequivocally “join the bandwagon” against Milosevic. Under these circumstances, an objective understanding and analysis of the role of the Milosovic government since the civil War in Bosnia and in the context of the present crisis in Kosovo has been rendered virtually impossible.
Media double standards? Whereas President Milosevic and four members of his government were indicted by the Hague International Criminal Tribunal (ICTY) (late May) for organising a policy of “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo, the news media failed to mention that several parallel law suits were launched at The Hague Tribunal (ICTY), accusing NATO leaders of “crimes against humanity.”21
It is also worth mentioning that the UK government (whose Prime Minister Tony Blair is among the list of accused in one of the parallel law suits) has provided The Hague Tribunal with “intelligence on the situation within Kosovo” since the beginning of the bombings.22 Part of this intelligence material was relayed by the KLA with which British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook has been in frequent contact as well as through British Special Forces (SAS) directly collaborating with the KLA.
Law Suit Directed Against Nato Leaders
In May, a group of 15 Canadian lawyers and law professors together with the American Association of Jurists (with members in more than 20 countries) launched a suit against NATO leaders at the ICTY in the Hague.23 The suit points to “open violation” of the United Nations Charter, the NATO treaty, the Geneva Conventions and the “Principles of International Law Recognized by the Nuremberg Tribunal”. The latter makes: “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances” a crime.24
The list of crimes allegedly committed by NATO leaders includes:
“wilful killing, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, extensive destruction of property,… employment of poisonous weapons [implying radioactive fall-out] or other weapons to cause unnecessary suffering, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity,… “25
Under the terms of reference of the ICTY “a person who planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime shall be individually responsible for the crime” and “the official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State or Government or as a responsible Government official, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility or mitigate punishment.”26
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson (and former President of Ireland) confirmed in Geneva on 30 April that the Prosecutor of the War Crimes Tribunal (ICTY) has the mandate not only to prosecute Serb forces but that the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and NATO may also come under scrutiny, “if it appears that serious violations of international humanitarian law have occurred.”
According to Walter J. Rockler, former prosecutor of the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials:
“The bombing war also violates and shreds the basic provisions of the United Nations Charter and other conventions and treaties; the attack on Yugoslavia constitutes the most brazen international aggression since the Nazis attacked Poland to prevent “Polish atrocities” against Germans. The United States has discarded pretensions to international legality and decency, and embarked on a course of raw imperialism run amok.”27
Shaky Evidence of a “Humanitarian Catastrophe” Prior to the Bombings
In the course of “covering-up” the real motivations of NATO in launching the War, the international media has also failed to mention that an official intelligence report of the German Foreign Ministry (used to establish the eligibility of political refugees from Kosovo) confirmed that there was no evidence of “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo in the months immediately preceding the bombings. Who is lying? German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer had justified NATO’s intervention pointing to a “humanitarian catastrophe”, yet the internal documents of his own ministry say exactly the opposite:
“Even in Kosovo an explicit political persecution linked to Albanian ethnicity is not verifiable. The East of Kosovo is still not involved in armed conflict. Public life in cities like Pristina, Urosevac, Gnjilan, etc. has, in the entire conflict period, continued on a relatively normal basis. The actions of the security forces [were] not directed against the Kosovo-Albanians as an ethnically defined group, but against the military opponent [KLA] and its actual or alleged supporters.”… “29
[W]ith an agreement made with the Serbian leadership at the end of 1998 … both the security situation and the conditions of life of the Albanian-derived population have noticeably improved… Specifically in the larger cities public life has since returned to relative normality.”29
The above assessments are broadly consistent with several independent evaluations of the humanitarian situation in Kosovo prior to the onslaught of the bombing campaign. Roland Keith, a former field office director of the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM), who left Kosovo on March 20th reported that most of the violence in Kosovo was instigated by the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA):
“Upon my arrival the war increasingly evolved into a mid intensity conflict as ambushes, the encroachment of critical lines of communication and the [KLA] kidnapping of security forces resulted in a significant increase in government casualties which in turn led to major Yugoslavian reprisal security operations… By the beginning of March these terror and counter-terror operations led to the inhabitants of numerous villages fleeing, or being dispersed to either other villages, cities or the hills to seek refuge… The situation was clearly that KLA provocations, as personally witnessed in ambushes of security patrols which inflicted fatal and other casualties, were clear violations of the previous October’s agreement [and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1199]. The security forces responded and the consequent security harassment and counter-operations led to an intensified insurrectionary war, but as I have stated elsewhere, I did not witness, nor did I have knowledge of any incidents of so-called “ethnic cleansing” and there certainly were no occurrences of “genocidal policies” while I was with the KVM in Kosovo. What has transpired since the OSCE monitors were evacuated on March 20, in order to deliver the penultimate warning to force Yugoslavian compliance with the Rambouillet and subsequent Paris documents and the commencement of the NATO air bombardment of March 24, obviously has resulted in human rights abuses and a very significant humanitarian disaster as some 600,000 Albanian Kosovars have fled or been expelled from the province. This did not occur, though, before March 20, so I would attribute the humanitarian disaster directly or indirectly to the NATO air bombardment and resulting anti-terrorist campaign.”30
Chronology of Nato Planning
Carefully removed from the public eye, preparations for both “the air campaign” and “the ground War” have been ongoing for almost a year prior to the beginning of NATO’s “humanitarian bombings” on March 24th 1999.
Responding to broad strategic and economic objectives, the Alliance’s first priority was to secure the stationing of armed combat troops in Macedonia on the immediate border with Kosovo. US Secretary of Defense William Cohen had travelled to Skopje in late December 1997 for discussions with the Macedonian government and Military. These high levels talks were followed a few months later by the visit of Macedonia’s Defense Minister L. Kitanoski to Washington for meetings at the Pentagon. On the agenda: the establishment of a NATO base in Macedonia.31
No time was lost: on May 6, 1998, the NATO Council met “to review alliance efforts” in the region; a major military exercise entitled “Cooperative Best Effort” was slated to take place in Macedonia in September. NATO nonetheless “reassured the international community” that the military exercise was not meant to be “a rehearsal”, rather it was to enable “NATO military authorities to study various options. Decisions on whether to execute any of those options would be a matter for future decision.”32
Largely the consequence of KLA terrorism, the deterioration of the security situation in Kosovo conveniently provided NATO with a pretext to build up its ground forces in Macedonia (composed largely of British and French troops). According to NATO, it was therefore necessary to envisage “a more complicated and ambitious [military] exercise [in Macedonia] to send a clear political signal [to Belgrade] of NATO’s involvement”.33
The Role of the Kosovo Liberation Army
In parallel with the setting up of its military operations in Albania and Macedonia, NATO had established direct links with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). A US Department of Defense briefing confirms in this regard that “initial contacts” between the KLA and NATO had taken place by mid-1998:
“…the realization has come to people [in NATO] that we [NATO] have to have the UCK [acronym for KLA in Albanian] involved in this process because they have shown at least the potential to be rejectionists of any deal that could be worked out there with the existing Kosovo parties. So somehow they have to be brought in and that’s why we’ve made some initial contacts there with the group, hopefully the right people in the group, to try and bring them into this negotiating process. 34
While these “initial contacts” were acknowledged by NATO officially only in mid-1998, the KLA had (according to several reports) been receiving “covert support” and training from the CIA and Germany’s Bundes Nachrichten Dienst (BND) since the mid-nineties.35
The concurrent building up of KLA forces was part of NATO planning. By mid-1998 “covert support” had been gradually replaced –despite the KLA’s links to organised crime– by official (“overt”) support by the military Alliance in violation of UN Security Council Resolution UNSCR 1160 of 31 March 1998 which condemned: “…all acts of terrorism by the Kosovo Liberation Army or any other group or individual and all external support for terrorist activity in Kosovo, including finance, arms and training.”
On 24 September 1998, another key UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR 1199) was adopted which called “upon the authorities in Belgrade and the leadership of the Kosovar Albanian community urgently to enter without preconditions into a meaningful dialogue on political status issues.” It also required Belgrade to withdraw its troops from Kosovo.
Following a renewed wave of KLA terrorism, the Yugoslav authorities were blamed for the “crackdowns on ethnic Albanians” providing NATO defense ministers meeting in Vilmoura Portugal (September 24th on the same day as the adoption of UNSCR 1199) with the “justification” to issue an “activation warning” for a campaign of air strikes against Serb positions. The Vilmoura statement called upon Belgrade to “take immediate steps to alleviate the humanitarian situation…, stop repressive actions against the population and seek a political solution through negotiations with the Albanian majority”.36
This so-called “activation warning” was followed in mid-October by “an activation order” by the North Atlantic Council authorising NATO’s Supreme Commander for Europe General Wesley Clark to initiate “limited air strikes” and a “phased air campaign” … should the Yugoslav authorities refuse to comply with UNSCR 1199.37
Under the impending threat of air strikes, a partial withdrawal was carried out by Belgrade (following the adoption of UNSCR 1199) creating almost immediately conditions for the KLA to occupy positions previously held by retreating Serb forces.. In turn, the strengthening of the KLA was accompanied by renewed terrorist activity and a consequent “worsening of the security situation”. NATO’s hidden objective, in this regard, was to use the KLA insurgency to further provoke ethnic tensions and generate social strife in Kosovo.
In the meantime, US envoy Richard Holbrooke had entered into discussions with President Milosovic. Forged under the threat of NATO air strikes, negotiations on Kosovo’s political status had also been initiated in Pristina between a Serbian delegation led by President Milan Milutinovic and Ibrahim Rugova, President of the Democratic League (DLK) representing ethnic Albanians. While Mr Christopher Hill, the US envoy had been invited as an observer to these meetings, Milutinovic had insisted that the negotiations (which proceeded from UNSCR 1199) were an internal matter.
Following the agreement between US envoy Richard Holbrooke and President Slobodan Milosevic, Yugoslavia was to complete negotiations on “a framework for a political settlement” by the 2nd of November 1998. Moreover, a Verification Mission to establish compliance with resolutions UNSCR 1160 and UNSCR 1199, was put in place in Kosovo under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). A parallel NATO air verification mission (complementing the OSCE verification mission) was established following an agreement signed in Belgrade on 15 October 1998 by the Yugoslav Chief of General Staff and NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe, General Wesley Clark.
The terms of both the OSCE and NATO verification agreements were subsequently embodied in UNSCR 1260 of October 24th. Whereas Belgrade was given a 96 hour “deadline for compliance”, the Alliance decided to postpone the initiation of air strikes following talks in Belgrade (October 25-26) between President Slobodan Milosevic and General Wesley Clark. According to the Alliance statement: “NATO will remain prepared to carry out air operations should they be necessary” 38. In the meantime, NATO launched Operation Eagle Eye using unarmed aircraft and unmanned predator aerial vehicles (UAVs). Eagle Eye surveillance activities were coordinated with the “ground verification” mission conducted by OSCE observer teams and by the Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission (KDOM).
A Former “Iran-Contragate” Official Heads the OSCE Verification Mission
In the meantime, a career US diplomat, Ambassador William G. Walker was appointed Head of the OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM). A tailor-made assignment: Walker was well-known for his role in the “Iran-Contragate” scandal during the Reagan administration. The KLA insurgency was in many regards a “carbon copy” of the Nicaraguan Contras which had also been funded by drug money with covert support from the CIA.
Well documented by court files, William G. Walker –in association with Oliver North– played a key role in channelling covert funding to the Nicaraguan Contras while serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs in the Reagan Administration. In this capacity, he became a special assistant to Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, “a figure whose name would soon be making its way into the headlines on a daily basis in connection with … the “Iran-Contra” affair.”39
William G. Walker had been involved in the so-called Nicaraguan Humanitarian Assistance Office (“NHAO”) in the State Department which was a cover-up fund whereby covert military aid was supplied to the Contras. The objective was to circumvent the so-called “Boland Amendments”, –ie.. “riders” to the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, “which prohibited the [US] government from spending money for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Nicaragua”. 40 Confirmed by files of the US Court of Appeal (District of Columbia), “Walker attended some meetings of the Restricted Interagency Group for Central America, of which Oliver North was a member”.41
Walker was never indicted for criminal wrong-doings in the Iran- Contragate scandal.. Upon completing his work with Oliver North, he was appointed US Ambassador to El Salvador. His stint in El Salvador coincided with the rise of the death squadrons and a period during which the country was virtually “under the grip of US sponsored State terror.”42
In Kosovo, William G. Walker applied his skills in covert operations acquired in Central America. As head of the Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM), Walker maintained close links to the KLA military command in the field.43 From the outset of his mission in Kosovo, he used his position to pursue the interests of the Alliance.
“The Racak Massacre”
The so-called “Racak massacre” occurred shortly before the launching of the Rambouillet “peace initiative”. although it turned out to be a fake, the Racak massacre nonetheless played a key role in “setting the stage” for NATO’s air raids. William Walker declared (in his capacity as head of KVM) that the Yugoslav police had carried out a massacre of civilians at Racak on January 15th. The Yugoslav authorities retorted that local police had in fact conducted an operation in this village against the Kosovo Libration Army and that several KLA soliders had died in cross-fire. As later reported by several French newspapers (Le Monde, Le Figaro and Liberation), it was confirmed that the “Racak massacre” was indeed a fake put together with a view to discrediting Belgrade:
“Eventually, even the Los Angeles Times joined in, running a story entitled “Racak Massacre Questions: Were Atrocities Faked?” The theory behind all these exposs was that the KLA had gathered their own dead after the battle, removed their uniforms, put them in civilian clothes, and then called in the observers.”44.
The Rambouillet Process
On January 22, senior officials of the so-called “Contact Group” of six countries (including the US, Russia, Britain, France, Germany and Italy) meeting in London called for a peace conference which would bring together the Yugoslav government and “representatives of ethnic Albanians.” In turn, NATO warned that it was “ready to act” if the peace plan to be finalised by the Contact Group were rejected. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan concurred during a visit to NATO headquarters in Brussels that the threat of force was “essential” to press both sides into a settlement.45
In the meantime, while supporting the KLA insurgency on the ground, the Alliance had also contributed to spearheading KLA leader Hashim Thaci (a 29 year “freedom fighter”) into heading the Kosovar delegation to Rambouillet, on behalf of the ethnic Albanian majority. The Democratic League headed by Ibrahim Rugova had been deliberately side-stepped. The Alliance was relying on its KLA puppets (linked to organised crime) to rubber-stamp an agreement which would have transformed Kosovo into an occupied territory under NATO military rule.
While negotiations were ongoing in Rambouillet, NATO decided to increase the readiness of its assigned forces “so as to make them able to execute the operation within 48 hours”.46 In other words, “peace negotiations” had been initiated in Rambouillet (contrary to the Vienna Convention) under the threat of impending air strikes. NATO had granted a three weeks period to the parties meeting in Rambouillet to conclude negotiations.
On February 19, one day prior to the deadline, NATO Secretary General Javier Solano reaffirmed that, “if no agreement is reached by the deadline set by the Contact Group, NATO is ready to take whatever measures are necessary to avert a humanitarian catastrophe”.47 And on 22 March 1999, NATO’S North Atlantic Council authorised”the Secretary General to decide, subject to further consultations, on a broader range of air operations if necessary.”48 And on 23 March 1999, NATO’s Secretary General directed the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe General Wesley Clark to initiate air operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Air operations commenced on 24 March 1999 under the nickname “Operation Allied Force.”49
Sending in Ground Troups Under a G-8 “Peace Plan”
Since the brutal onslaught of the air campaign on March 24, the Alliance has continued to build up its ground combat troops on the Macedonian border in anticipation of an impending military invasion. Initially NATO had envisaged a Kosovo occupation force of 50,000 troops which could be increased to 60,000 with a larger US share than the 4,000 initially envisaged under Rambouillet.
In other words, the proposed invasion force was to be more than double that under Rambouillet (28,000 troops) while also enforcing all the normative clauses of the initial Rambouillet agreement including the “free movement” of NATO combat units throughout Yugoslavia.
In the meantime, NATO’s military establishment was forcing the pace of international diplomacy. The Alliance hinted in May that a ground offensive could be launched prior to reaching a “peace agreement” sanctioned by the G8 and ratified by the United Nations Security Council.
In addition to the 16,000 ground troops already stationed (well before the beginning of the bombings) in Macedonia (of which almost half are British), some 7000 NATO troops and “special forces” were also present in Albania, not to mention the NATO troops stationed in Bosnia-Herzegovina under Operation Joint Endeavour:
“We’ve already put quite a lot of troops in Macedonia as the nucleus of that operation”, said British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. “There are over 12,000 there already… and last weekend [14-15 May] we committed another two and a half thousand to go there. We need to build up – actually we need to build up now…”50.
In late May, the 60,000 troops target was revised to 150,000. Alliance officials estimating that “if the alliance later decides to mobilize for a land attack … an invasion force could number more than 150,000 soldiers.”51 Prime Minister Tony Blair in a separate statement had (without any form of parliamentary debate) confirmed the sending of 50,000 British troops as part of the 150,000 invasion force.
In early June, a NATO led invasion under a bogus G8-UN peace initiative was put forth. While the latter served to appease and distract public opinion, it usefully provided the Alliance with a semblance of legitimacy under the UN Charter. It also purported to overcome the hesitation of elected politicians including German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Italian Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema. The US Administration also required the “rubber stamp” of the United Nations Security Council so as to acquire the assent of the Republican dominated Congress:
“House and Senate Democrats agree there is little support at this point for launching ground troops… even if Clinton and other NATO leaders could reach a consensus on such a dramatic shift in tactics. For now, Clinton has said he is opposed to ground troops.”52
The US House of Representatives (in what appeared to be a partisan “anti-Clinton” vote) has declined to even endorse the air campaign while signifying its refusal to authorize a “ground war” without congressional approval. In early April, Republicans and Democrats joined hands in the House and threw out a proposed “declaration of war on Yugoslavia” by an overwhelming 427-2 vote.
In late May, seventeen members of Congress launched a suit against President Clinton pointing to the blatant breach of the US Constitution:
“that the Defendant, the President of the United States, is unconstitutionally continuing an offensive military attack by United States Armed Forces against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without obtaining a declaration of war or other explicit authority from the Congress of the United States as required by Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution, and despite Congress’ decision not to authorize such action.” 53
The law suit launched in District Court (District of Columbia) also pointed to the violation of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a Vietnam War-era legislation which requires “the sitting President congressional approval for the “introduction into hostilities” of the U.S. armed forces for longer than 60 days”:
Plaintiffs also seek a declaration that a report pursuant to Section 1543(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution was required to be submitted on March 26, 1999, within 48 hours of the introduction into hostilities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of United States Armed Forces. Additionally, Plaintiffs seek a declaration that, pursuant to Section 1544(b) of the Resolution, the President must terminate the use of United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia no later than sixty calendar days after March 26, 1999. The President must do so unless the Congress declares war or enacts other explicit authorization, or has extended the sixty day period, or the President determines that thirty additional days are necessary to safely withdraw United States Armed Forces from combat.54
NATO as “Peace-keepers”
Echoing the barrage of self-serving NATO propaganda, the media scam now consists in skilfully portraying Alliance ground troops as bona fide “peace-keepers”. Public opinion should not be deluded as to the meaning of a G8-UN brokered diplomatic solution.
An “international presence” consisting largely of NATO troops under the G8 proposal (ratified by the Serbian Parliament in early June) could include a token participation of “non-NATO forces” including Russia and the Ukraine. While Moscow agreed in early June that all Yugoslav forces be withdrawn from Kosovo alongside the disarmement of the KLA, Russian envoy Viktor Chernomyrdin nonetheless insisted that the command structure of the proposed international force be under the control and jurisdiction of the United Nations.
Despite his perfunctory condemnation of NATO bombings, Russian President Boris Yeltsin is a Western puppet. Chernomyrdin writing in the Washington Post had earlier warned that a continuation of the air raids could hurt US-Russian relations: “The world has never in this decade been so close as now to be on brink of nuclear war…” adding that “Russia would pull out of the negotiating process if NATO bombing, which started March 24, doesn’t stop soon.”55
In the meantime, the Alliance, however, had persisted in maintaining a unified NATO command structure (which was unacceptable to Moscow and Belgrade). NATO has also stepped up the bombings as a means of pressuring Belgrade into accepting (without prior negotiation) NATO’s “five conditions”.
If the G-8 proposal were to be ratified, NATO would first send in US Marines into Kosovo from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit in the Adriatic Sea. The Marines would be part of a so-called “Enabling Force” prior to the moving in of a force of 50,000 troops.
A G-8 “peace proposal” (implying a de facto military occupation of Kosovo) could be formally ratified at the Cologne G7-G8 Summit in mid-June. All G7 heads of government and heads of State together with President Boris Yeltsin will be in attendance at Cologne in what is hoped to be a highflown display of unity in favour of a (G8 sanctioned) NATO led invasion. NATO nonetheless warned in early June that should the diplomatic initiative not succeed, the Alliance would proceed with a ground invasion involving 150,000 troops….
The Sending in of “Special Forces”
In the meantime, an incipient undeclared ground War has already commenced: special British, French and American forces were reported to be advising the KLA in the conduct of ground combat operations against regular units of the Yugoslav Army. To support this initiative, a Republican sponsored bill was launched in the US Congress to provide direct military aid to the KLA.
These “special forces” are “advising the rebels at their strongholds in northern Albania, where the KLA has launched a major recruitment and training operation. According to high-ranking KLA officials, the [British] SAS is using two camps near Tirana, the Albanian capital, and another on the Kosovar border to teach KLA officers how to conduct intelligence-gathering operations on Serbian positions”.56 In May, three French special forces officers wearing uniforms of the French Armed Forces (“Parachutistes”) were reported killed on the Albania-Yugoslavia border by the Yugoslav daily Vecernje Novosti. According to the French daily Libration, the three men were allegedly “instructors in charge of coordinating ground war activities by the KLA…”57.
An Unholy “Marriage of Convenience”
In addition to the dispatch of Western special forces, Mujehadeen mercenaries and other Islamic fundamentalist groups (financed inter alia by Iran and Saudi financier Osmane Bin L
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
da wpered.su
Traduzione dal russo di Mauro Gemma
“Il Partito Comunista si pronuncia per un rapido riconoscimento internazionale della Repubblica Popolare di Donetsk e aspira a stabilire stretti contatti con i partiti fratelli di tutto il mondo. I comunisti di Donetsk hanno conquistato un alto prestigio al momento della creazione della Repubblica. Che crescerà considerevolmente se il KPDNR contribuirà direttamente alla causa del riconoscimento della Repubblica da parte della comunità internazionale. Il primo passo per ottenere ciò è quello di allacciare relazioni bilaterali di collaborazione con i partiti comunisti degli altri paesi, in primo luogo, l'Unione dei Partiti Comunisti–PCUS (SKP-KPSS)”
In relazione alla guerra
I comunisti della Repubblica Popolare di Donetsk si schierano contro la guerra civile nel Donbass ed esigono l'immediata cessazione delle azioni militari, di cui porta la colpa l'attuale regime di Kiev, instaurato da un colpo di stato e dai suoi sostenitori occidentali. Due anni fa, il fascismo ucraino ha iniziato le operazioni punitive contro la popolazione civile del Donbass, che aveva rifiutato di obbedire al governo illegittimo di Kiev e che nel referendum dell'11 maggio 2014 aveva fermamente deciso di scegliere un cammino comune con la sorella Russia.
Noi comunisti dichiariamo che dietro i battaglioni punitivi neonazisti, che terrorizzano i civili, ci sono gli interessi del grande capitale. Gli oligarchi ucraini hanno considerato e continuano a considerare il Donbass come un proprio feudo, e i suoi cittadini come loro schiavi. Con questo gli abitanti del Donbass non sono mai stati d'accordo, dal momento che migliaia di loro hanno dato il bene più prezioso, la vita, per la libertà. Il capitale è la forza materiale che assicura tutto ciò, e per questa ragione deve essere contrastato da una forza corrispondente, vale a dire il proletariato organizzato guidato dal partito Comunista, che opera in base alle idee del marxismo-leninismo. Come conferma l'esperienza delle precedenti generazioni di comunisti durante la guerra civile in Russia e la Grande Guerra Patriottica.
Il movimento proletario è un movimento internazionale, a cui è del tutto estranea l'ideologia del nazionalismo borghese. A questo proposito dichiariamo il nostro deciso sostegno ai nostri fratelli ucraini nella loro lotta contro gli oppressori e con i nostri sforzi congiunti ci proponiamo di fermare la carneficina nel Donbass.
In relazione alla Repubblica Popolare del Donbass (DNR)
Il KPDNR opera per la costruzione della Repubblica Popolare di Donetsk come stato sovrano con successiva integrazione nell'Unione economica eurasiatica (di cui fanno parte Russia, Bielorussia e Kazakhstan, ndt.). I comunisti sostengono anche la partecipazione della DNR alle organizzazioni interstatali di amicizia con la Russia.
In relazione all'attuale dirigenza della DNR
Il Partito Comunista appoggia la dirigenza della Repubblica nella realizzazione dei punti della Dichiarazione di sovranità della DNR e dell'Atto sull'indipendenza statale della DNR.
Il ruolo dei comunisti negli eventi del Donbass e la loro posizione nella DNR
Nella notte del 22 febbraio 2014 decine di patrioti del Donbass sono intervenuti in difesa del monumento a Vladimir Lenin, simbolo dei lavoratori di Donetsk, e non hanno consentito ai fascisti ucraini di portare a compimento la demolizione della statua. Insieme ai difensori del monumento c'erano anche i comunisti, che per primi avevano organizzato e allestito una tendopoli. Vicino al monumento decine di migliaia di persone hanno organizzato manifestazioni di condanna del colpo di stato a Kiev. I partecipanti all'azione hanno avanzato alle autorità la richiesta di svolgere un referendum sulla struttura federale dell'Ucraina, che permettesse di garantire un corso di politica estera basato sulla collaborazione con i paesi della CSI, e in primo luogo con la Federazione Russa. Ma Kiev e la dirigenza della regione di Donetsk non hanno voluto ascoltare la richiesta del popolo. Si era giunti, come ha insegnato anche Vladimir Lenin, a una situazione rivoluzionaria: le classi subalterne (il popolo) non volevano più vivere come in passato, mentre i vertici (l'élite al potere) non erano più in grado di gestire la nuova situazione.
Il 7 aprile i rappresentanti delle comunità territoriali, dei partiti politici e delle organizzazioni sociali della regione hanno proclamato la creazione di uno stato sovrano – la Repubblica Popolare di Donetsk. I comunisti hanno svolto un ruolo di primo piano nella preparazione della Dichiarazione sulla sovranità della DNR e dell'Atto sull'indipendenza statale della DNR, e hanno preso parte attiva alla preparazione e allo svolgimento del referendum dell'11 maggio 2014.
In questo momento, i comunisti difendono la giovane Repubblica imbracciando le armi e sono impegnati nel processo pacifico della sua costruzione. Il KPDNR ha realizzato e continua a realizzare progetti umanitari, destinati ad alleviare le sofferenze del popolo del Donbass, e che soffrono per le azioni del criminale regime di Kiev. Assistenza fraterna ci è venuta dal Partito Comunista della Federazione Russa, che spedisce convogli umanitari.
Il sostegno sociale dei comunisti
Il risveglio delle grandi masse nell'attività sociale rappresenta il risultato più importante degli eventi nel Donbass. In prospettiva la nostra regione potrebbe diventare un centro rivoluzionario della CSI e di tutta l'Europa. Per ottenere questo è necessaria prima di tutto la base sociale: il proletariato industriale. In secondo luogo, i lavoratori del Donbass acquisiscono esperienza militare nella lotta contro gli aggressori ucraini. Il proletariato armato diretto dal partito rivoluzionario dei comunisti rappresenta il necessario prerequisito per la rivoluzione socialista. Raggiungere l'unità del partito e della classe non è possibile senza l'introduzione della coscienza di classe negli ambienti operai. Per ottenere questo i comunisti hanno intensificato l'attività di agitazione e propaganda attraverso la creazione di un “giornalismo di partito”, vale a dire proprie pubblicazioni cartacee ed elettroniche, forum di discussione, canali radiofonici e televisivi.
La questione delle nazionalizzazioni
Oggi il Donbass si trova sull'orlo della catastrofe economica, che si è profilata in conseguenza della guerra. Per riportare il potenziale industriale della regione al livello di prima della guerra, è necessario nel più breve tempo possibile liquidare gli effetti distruttivi delle azioni militari. Noi crediamo che ciò non si possa raggiungere se non in presenza di due condizioni essenziali:
1) l'instaurazione del controllo statale sui settori strategici e sulle risorse naturali;
2) la formazione di un sistema di controllo e di contabilità.
Il sistema bancario
Il KPDNR accoglie con favore la creazione di una Banca centrale repubblicana, che si trova sotto il controllo dello Stato, e ritiene necessario creare un proprio sistema finanziario.
Le relazioni dei comunisti di Donetsk con il movimento comunista mondiale
Il Partito Comunista si pronuncia per un rapido riconoscimento internazionale della Repubblica Popolare di Donetsk e aspira a stabilire stretti contatti con i partiti fratelli di tutto il mondo.. I comunisti di Donetsk hanno conquistato un alto prestigio al momento della creazione della Repubblica. Che crescerebbe considerevolmente se il KPDNR contribuisse direttamente alla causa del riconoscimento della Repubblica da parte della comunità internazionale. Il primo passo per ottenere ciò è quello di allacciare relazioni bilaterali di collaborazione con i partiti comunisti degli altri paesi, in primo luogo, l'Unione dei Partiti Comunisti–PCUS (SKP-KPSS).
Unendo i nostri sforzi dobbiamo cercare di ottenere la fine della guerra civile nel centro dell'Europa, sanzioni contro i crimini del fascismo ucraino nel Donbass, il riconoscimento del diritto degli abitanti della DNR all'autodeterminazione. Allo stesso tempo, sosteniamo i nostri fratelli in tutto il mondo nella loro lotta contro il fascismo, l'imperialismo, l'oppressione di classe e tutte le forme di discriminazione.
Proletari di tutti i paesi, unitevi!
http://www.rifondazione.it/primapagina/?p=33355
Il Donbass tra l'Ucraina e la Russia
Intervento del segretario del Comitato centrale del KPDNR (Partito Comunista della Repubblica Popolare di Donetsk), Stanislav Retinskiy, in occasione del viaggio in Italia di marzo 2018
Il viaggio, organizzato dal PRC (Partito della Rifondazione Comunista), si è articolato in diverse tappe tra Roma, Mestre, Milano, Napoli, Bologna. In occasione dell'appuntamento di Bologna (15 marzo 2018) il locale Comitato Ucraina Antifascista ha curato la traduzione scritta dell'intervento introduttivo, che riproduciamo di seguito (fonte):
GLOSSARIO
KPDNR = Partito Comunista della Repubblica Popolare di Donetsk (pagina internet)
KPLNR =Partito Comunista della Repubblica Popolare di Lugansk
KPRF = Partito Comunista della Federazione Russa
KPU = Partito Comunista di Ucraina
DNR = Repubblica Popolare di Donetsk
LNR = Repubblica Popolare di Luhansk
KPS-KPSS = Unione dei Partiti Comunisti, Partiti Comunisti dell’Unione Sovietica
PSU = Partito socialista di Ucraina
Quando 4 anni fa, nel febbraio 2014, a Kiev era in atto un colpo di Stato, sono stati proprio i militanti di base del KPU (Partito Comunista di Ucraina) a scendere per primi in piazza a difendere il monumento di Lenin e a partecipare in maniera attiva a numerose manifestazioni. Nel frattempo, la dirigenza del comitato del Partito Comunista di Ucraina della regione di Donetsk, non solo dimostrava di non aver capito l’essenza del momento storico, ovvero la necessità di agire con le masse e di chiarire al proletariato il proprio interesse di classe, al contrario, apertamente, sabotava il lavoro dei militanti di base comunisti. Il Comitato regionale del Partito Comunista di Ucraina ha dato l'ordine di fermare tali attività e di prepararsi alle elezioni di Ucraina. A questo punto, i quadri intermedi (dirigenti dei comitati cittadini e di distretto), hanno deciso di assumersi la responsabilità per il destino del partito e della Regione. Il Primo Segretario del comitato del distretto di Kirov del Partito Comunista di Ucraina, attuale Primo Segretario del Comitato centrale del Partito comunista della Repubblica Popolare di Donetsk, Boris Litvinov, è autore dell’Atto e della Dichiarazione di Indipendenza della DNR. Il Primo Segretario del comitato cittadino di Slavjansk del Partito Comunista di Ucraina, attuale Secondo Segretario del Comitato centrale del Partito comunista della Repubblica Popolare di Donetsk, Anatoliy Hmelevoi, ha preso parte alla battaglia di Slavjansk. Il referendum del 11.05.2014,con la creazione delle commissioni elettorali su tutto territorio della ex regione di Donetsk, è avvenuto anche per merito dei comunisti e della loro attività. Più di 20 deputati, tra i 98 nell'Alto Consiglio della DNR (Parlamento), erano comunisti. Numerosi membri del partito facevano e fanno parte delle forze armate della DNR.
La storia del partito comunista della DNR inizia l’8 giugno 2014, quando si è svolto il congresso di fondazione. La maggioranza dei delegati erano rappresentanti del Partito Comunista di Ucraina. Ma se prima i comunisti erano coinvolti attivamente nella vita politica della Repubblica, adesso se ne sono un po’ allontanati. Per esempio, nel Consiglio Popolare della DNR i deputati comunisti non sono presenti. Ma questo in generale non significa che il Partito Comunista della DNR sia diventato meno attivo. I comunisti hanno fatto molto per la causa della costituzione della Repubblica. Attualmente, parte rilevante del nostro lavoro, è il riconoscimento internazionale della Repubblica. Raggiungere questo obiettivo è possibile, in particolare, grazie all’instaurazione di legami internazionali tra i partiti. Ed è per questo che non perdiamo il contatto con il KPU, con i nostri compagni nella lotta antifascista. Nonostante il fatto che il KPDNR sia stato formato contro la volontà del comitato regionale di Donetsk del KPU, nel complesso consideriamo il KPU un partito fratello. Nel momento attuale il KPU sta attraversando un periodo difficile, a causa non solo della situazione politica del paese, ma anche per la crisi interna: si è in una fase di "purificazione" dagli elementi estranei alla linea del partito. Il fatto è che dirigenti del comitato regionale di Donetsk, i quali ci hanno proibito di organizzare e svolgere manifestazioni a sostegno dell’ autodeterminazione del Donbass, hanno poi preso posizioni contro il KPU. Quando il KPU era sul punto di essere messo al bando, i suoi militanti di base presero subito le distanze da coloro che perseguivano solo interessi di arricchimento personale. Se il KPU riuscirà a superare la crisi, allora diventerà sicuramente più forte. La cosa principale è giungere alle giuste conclusioni rispetto alla situazione attuale. In primo luogo, il marxismo è l'unica arma teorica dei comunisti.. Il suo rifiuto porta inevitabilmente alla sconfitta. Senza una teoria della rivoluzione non ci può essere una pratica rivoluzionaria, diceva Lenin. Di conseguenza, il rifiuto del marxismo conduce prima a una sconfitta teorica, e poi a una sconfitta pratica. Il secondo luogo: i comunisti dovrebbero essere pronti a condurre non solo una lotta parlamentare, ma anche al di fuori del parlamento, pronti per il lavoro non solo legale, ma anche illegale. Senza questo è impossibile fornire una degna resistenza al nazionalismo. Siamo uniti da un nemico comune : l'imperialismo. Nell’area post - sovietica lo spazio politico di aggregazione è il KPS-KPSS, che include i partiti comunisti dell'ex Unione Sovietica, compresi Moldova e Trasnistria , Georgia e Obkhasia. In altre parole, la divisione su base nazionale non influisce in alcun modo sulla solidarietà comunista. Come è noto, nel KPS-KPSS, è incluso anche il KPU. Inoltre il KPDNR e il KPLNR (Partito comunista della Repubblica popolare di Lugansk),nonostante siano stati fondati relativamente di recente, sono già osservatori di questa unione di partiti comunisti. Nell’ ambito dei lavori del KPS-KPSS, vi è uno scambio di opinioni sull'attuale situazione politica in Ucraina e nel Donbass. Il nucleo del KPS-KPSS, ovviamente è il KPRF (Partito Comunista della Federazione Russa ), il quale promuove attivamente i nostri sforzi. I membri del KPDNR hanno l'opportunità di partecipare alla formazione al centro studi politici del Comitato centrale del KPRF, di svolgere stage presso i Media comunisti, partecipare a eventi di partito, plenum, congressi, raduni. Si instaurano contatti non solo tra le direzioni dei partiti, ma anche tra i comitati regionali. E’ promossa inoltre la cooperazione tra le organizzazioni giovanili. Grazie al KPRF il nostro partito è diventato osservatore nel KPS-KPSS I comunisti russi hanno riconosciuto i risultati del referendum dell’11 maggio 2014 e regolarmente prestano assistenza umanitaria al Donbass. Prima dei combattimenti a Donetsk e Lugansk furono consegnati 70 convogli umanitari. Questo è l'unico partito in Russia che fornisce assistenza sistematica al Donbass. Il KPRF ha intrapreso una missione per aiutare le truppe interne della DNR, dove ci sono i nostri sostenitori, in primo luogo l'ospedale militare, il teatro drammatico, la biblioteca Krupskaya. Inoltre i comunisti russi hanno patrocinato numerose strutture sociali nel distretto di Telmanovsky, restaurato la scuola e l'ospedale. Su richiesta dei comunisti di Donetsk, il KPRF ha fornito regolarmente assistenza mirata a coloro che ne avevano bisogno : veterani, disabili, famiglie numerose. Una parte sostanziale degli aiuti umanitari viene raccolta nella fattoria statale V. Lenin, il cui direttore Pavel Grudinin è candidato alla presidenza della Russia dal Partito Comunista. Come sappiamo, Grudin non è solo per il riconoscimento delle Repubbliche, ma anche per la loro inclusione nella Federazione Russa.. Il primo Segretario del comitato centrale del KPDNR Boris Litvinov ha preso parte ai lavori del congresso del KPRF , in cui Pavel Grudinin è stato nominato. Boris Litvinov lo ha ringraziato per l'assistenza umanitaria e ha augurato la vittoria alle elezioni. Anche allora Pavel Grudinin ha sottolineato che la questione del riconoscimento delle Repubbliche sarebbe stata inclusa nel suo programma elettorale.
Il KPRF è alla ricerca di nuove forme di lotta e la candidatura di Pavel Grudinin lo testimonia. Ciò rappresenta una parte della strategia dei comunisti russi che riguarda lo sviluppo delle imprese popolari nel novero delle quali rientra il sovcos Lenin nei dintorni di Mosca. Nel suo insieme tale strategia si è rivelata popolare nella società e questo è testimoniato dalle alte percentuali di voto stimate per il candidato del KPRF. Le idee socialiste in Russia sono anche ora attuali ed è per questa ragione che, secondo la nostra previsione, per Pavel Grudinin voterà un gran numero di elettori. I comunisti di DNR fanno propaganda elettorale per il candidato del KPRF sia dentro i confini del Donbass che fuori delle sue frontiere. Di recente i membri del KPRF hanno preso parte ad un incontro di Pavel Grudinin con gli elettori di Rostov-sul-Don. Altra cosa, tuttavia, è affermare che le imprese popolari possano costituire la base per il passaggio al socialismo. Già Karl Marx e Friedrich Engels scrissero che “ogni allargamento delle relazioni sopprimerebbe il comunismo locale”. In questo modo essi valutavano i tentativi dei socialisti-utopisti di costruire il comunismo su imprese isolate. Come esempio appunto si può citare il tentativo fallito di Robert Owen a New-Lanark. Criticò il socialismo “cooperativo” lo stesso Lenin, che lo definiva“fantasticheria”. Secondo il pensiero della guida dei bolscevichi la trasformazione della società capitalista in socialista è impossibile senza la lotta di classe. A suo tempo anche le forze Ucraine di sinistra hanno puntato sulle imprese popolari. Si tratta del complesso industriale “Il’ich”(Ильич) a Maryiupol, il cui pacchetto maggioritario era in possesso del collettivo lavorativo. I lavoratori dello stabilimento ricevevano degli stipendi abbastanza alti e la sfera sociale era sviluppata. Il direttore del complesso industriale,Vladimir Boico,non era iscritto al partito (a questo proposito come anche Pavel Grudinin) ma sosteneva il Partito Socialista. Nella lista elettorale del PSU (Partito socialista di Ucraina) è stato eletto un deputato alla Suprema Rada. “Il socialismo di Maryiupol” ha avuto termine con l’inizio della crisi economica mondiale,che ha condotto verso un notevole abbassamento del profitto del complesso industriale. In conclusione il complesso industriale “Il’ich”fu assorbito dal “Metinvest”- una struttura dell’oligarca ucraino Rinat Ahmetov. E la minaccia di venire assorbiti dal grande capitale pende sopra ogni impresa popolare. Il successo della nostra lotta per il socialismo dipende molto dal successo della lotta dei comunisti russi. Ed è per questo che noi auguriamo solo la vittoria ai nostri fratelli in Russia. Inoltre le difficoltà che noi incontriamo sono della stessa natura anche per il Partito Comunista del la LNR. Noi cerchiamo di risolverle con degli sforzi comuni. Nella fase attuale, la nostra collaborazione,consiste fondamentalmente nello scambio di informazioni e di esperienza. I rappresentanti del KPDNR partecipano alle iniziative politiche dei comunisti di Lugansk e viceversa. Noi cerchiamo di concordare le nostre azioni riguardo i principali problemi nell’ambito della politica interna, dei rapporti internazionali e dei problemi di carattere umanitario. I nostri partiti, KPDNR e KPLNR, sono diventati ambedue osservatori nel KPS-KPSS. In prospettiva, noi e i comunisti di Lugansk, speriamo in un riconoscimento anche da altre organizzazioni internazionali comuniste.
Svjedok vremena: Partizansko spomen groblje u Mostaru
U Bosni i Hercegovini su i spomenici žrtve specifičnog uređenja ove države. A kad se birokratski cinizam upari s povijesnim revizionizmom njihova sudbina postaje krajnje porazna.
“Mnoge od memorijalnih građevina kojima sam posvetio svoje najbolje umne i fizičke snage, danas više ne postoje ili su, bar kako sada stvari stoje, osuđene na neprimetno fizičko degradiranje i nestajanje. Osećao bih se bedno, kad bih ma i u magnovanju, dozvolio sebi da zažalim, na primer, za najraskošnijim delom svoje graditeljske mladosti – za Partizanskim spomenikom u Mostaru, danas kad više nema ni pravog, starog Mostara, ni mnogih mostarskih starih familija, čija su deca počivala na ovom časnom ratničkom groblju. Objašnjavajući nekad svoju zamisao, često sam zahvalnim slušaocima pričao priču kako će se jednog dana, i zauvek, “dva grada” gledati licem u lice, oči u oči – grad mrtvih antifašističkih junaka, uglavnom mladića i devojaka – ratnika i grad živih, za koji su oni položili živote… sve što je ostalo od mog prvobitnog obećanja to je da se bivši grad mrtvih i bivši grad živih ipak gledaju, ali se gledaju praznim, crnim, izgorelim očima.”
Dio je ovo autorskog teksta “Mostarski grad mrtvih” Bogdana Bogdanovića napisanog neposredno nakon rata, 1997. godine. Dvadeset godina nakon, Bogdanovićeve riječi gotovo proročanski lebde nad Mostarom, gradom čije se postojanje i bivanje možda najbolje i može sagledati kroz odnos prema Partizanskom spomen groblju. Taj monument sagrađen da bude replika grada u malom i njegov idealni dijagram, danas je ogledalo od kamena na čijim se krhotinama iscrtavaju obrisi politika i ideologija koje su uništile i grad, i njegov spomenik, i njegove ljude.
Uništavanje Partizanskog spomen groblja u Mostaru gotovo da više i nije vijest, posebno ne u mejnstrimu. Skoro po pravilu, neposredno prije ili na sam dan kada Mostar obilježava jedan od najvažnijih datuma u svojoj povijesti – 14. februar, Dan oslobođenja od fašizma, Partizansko groblje postaje poprište destrukcije gdje se obično pod okriljem noći uništavanju i posljednji očuvani ostaci nadgrobnih ploča, ispisuju fašističke parole na njegovim zidovima, pale čak i čempresi i šuma koji čine neraskidivi element Bogdanovićevog jedinstvenog arhitektonskog i pejzažnog ostvarenja. Upravo takva slika dočekala je nekolicinu onih koji su prije 10-tak dana na Partizansko groblje došli obilježiti 73. godine od dana kada su dalmatinske i hercegovačke divizije oslobodile Mostar od fašističke vlasti.
Obnova, rušenje, floskula
Za one koje je obradovala vijest o akciji čišćenja i uređenja ovog spomenika kao prvog koraka u njegovoj obnovi krajem prošle godine, zatečeno stanje na Partizanskom groblju od prije nekoliko dana poslužilo je kao svojevrsni reality check – nikakve akcije čišćenja, uređivanja i pošumljavanja niti različite inicijative o njegovoj obnovi, neće spriječiti njegovo daljnje uništavanje i propadanje. Razlog tomu, između ostalog, leži u činjenici da se mostarske gradske vlasti, ni ove sada, a ni one prije, nikada nisu “obračunale” s onima koji sustavno i godinama nastoje ovaj spomenik izbrisati s mape grada, istorije i sjećanja njegovih stanovnika, jer bi to značilo obračunati se i vlastitim legitimiranjem takvog odnosa i politikama koje su do njega dovele. U praksi to znači da MUP Hercegovačko-neretvanskog kantona nikada nije imao niti jednog osumnjičenog za ova kaznena djela, pa samim time niti Tužilaštvo ovog kantona nije imalo koga da osudi. Stoga logično djeluje da su se ovakvi i slični vandalski napadi kroz godine samo intenzivirali, a svaki pokušaj obnove spomenika služi gotovo kao poziv na novu destrukciju sa zagarantiranom amnestijom.
Prvi konzervatorsko-restauratorski radovi na kompleksu Partizanskog spomen groblja nakon rata, u kojem je pretrpio značajna razaranja, rađeni su 2005. godine donatorskim sredstvima Vlade Nizozemske i Kraljevine Norveške, uz sufinanciranje grada i Federacije. Djelomična obnova spomenika sastojala se od rekonstrukcije nekolicine elemenata samog kompleksa (primjerice grobnih obilježja), čišćenju zelenih površina, sanaciji vodovodne i kanalizacione mreže, te postavljanju nove rasvjete. No, već se u izvještaju sa sjednice Komisije za očuvanje nacionalnih spomenika BiH, održane od 19. do 23. siječnja 2006. godine, kada je donesena Odluka o proglašenju Graditeljske cjeline – Partizansko spomen-groblje u Mostaru nacionalnim spomenikom BiH – navodi da su brojni obnovljeni elementi na spomeniku pretrpjeli ponovna oštećenja, te da je potrebno pristupiti hitnoj zaštiti i sanaciji. Dakle, svega nekoliko mjeseci bilo je potrebno da se ovaj spomenik dovede u isto stanje kakvo je bilo prije obnove, a takav se odnos nastavio i godinama poslije, bez izuzetaka..
Danas je Partizansko spomen groblje u gorem stanju nego što je to bilo neposredno nakon ratnih razaranja i sve to zahvaljujući činjenici da o njemu nitko ne brine niti želi preuzeti odgovornost za njegovu zaštitu. U slučaju ovog spomenika tim i više, jer nadležne su sve razine vlasti – država i entitet FBiH budući da je riječ o Nacionalnom spomeniku – ali i Grad Mostar jer je u njegovom vlasništvu. Država i FBiH godinama svojom šutnjom i nereagiranjem šalju vrlo jasnu poruku o tome koji je njihov stav: dovoljno se sjetiti slučaja Zemaljskog muzeja BiH, jedne od sedam institucija od državnog značaja, koji je tri godine bio zatvoren zbog činjenice da država nije bila u stanju da omogući redovno financiranje Muzeja niti da riješi njegov pravni status. Sudbina državnih institucija i spomenika kulture tako već godinama ovisi o tome iz koje stranke dolazi ministar i njegovih preferencija i stavova. Partizansko spomen groblje kao nacionalni spomenik pod administrativnom je zaštitom FBiH, no i entitetske vlasti nisu ništa poduzele u prevenciji daljnjeg uništavanja ovog spomenika. Njihovo se djelovanje uglavnom svodi na isprazne reakcije i floskule o značaju spomenika i potrebi njegove obnove, te pozivima gradskim vlastima Mostara da se uključe u rješavanje problema.
Ping-pong birokracija
Tako je bilo i početkom novembra kada su premijer FBiH Fadil Novalić i predsjedavajući Vijeća ministara BiH Denis Zvizdić posjetili Partizansko spomen groblje. „Odmah nakon današnje posjete mi ćemo s nadležnom agencijom poduzeti sve mjere fizičke zaštite ovog lokaliteta. Dalje, dogovorit ćemo dinamiku njegove rekonstrukcije. Partizanskom groblju moramo vratiti njegov dignitet i to mora biti naš prioritet”, izjavio je Novalić tom prilikom. Nekoliko dana nakon posjete, dva mostarska komunalna preduzeća, JP Parkovi i JP Komos, izvršili su radove na čišćenju i odvozu smeća s lokaliteta te kultiviranju vegetacije. Tri mjeseca kasnije spomenik je ponovo pretrpio znatna oštećenja jer nažalost “sve fizičke mjere zaštite” očigledno nisu podrazumijevale i stvarnu zaštitu.
Mostarski gradonačelnik Ljubo Bešlić, koji je na čelu grada od 2004. godine1, sastanku sa Zvizdićem i Novalićem nije prisustvovao. On je pak u više navrata izjavljivao kako smatra da je Partizansko spomen groblje i nemoguće zaštiti jer ga je nemoguće zatvoriti, kao i da su njegova rekonstrukcija i obnova u nadležnosti FBiH s obzirom na to da se radi o Nacionalnom spomeniku. Kao dokaz svoje posvećenosti rješavanju ovog problema, Bešlić često ističe da je upravo on osobno bio pokretač inicijative za uređenje Partizanskog spomen groblja 2003. godine, kada je i uspostavljen Odbor za podršku obnovi ovog kompleksa, te kako je u suradnji s Bogdanom Bogdanovićem i tadašnjim Federalnim ministrom kulture i sporta Gavrilom Grahovcem dogovorio sve faze i pripremne radnje za obnovu spomenika, ali da nakon djelomične rekonstrukcije koja se dogodila 2006. godine, izostaje financijska potpora federalnih vlasti. Svoju odgovornost za stanje u kojem se nalazi Partizansko Ljubo Bešlić amnestira isticanjem da se čak i u današnjoj situaciji, kada Mostar već skoro cijelu deceniju nema lokalne izbore, iz godišnjeg budžeta grada (koji donose Bešlić i njegov pomoćnik za financije) izdvaja 30.000 KM za njegovo održavanje. Postoje i trenuci kada gradonačelnik Mostara javno konstatira da je kompleks ipak vlasništvo Skupštine Općine grada i da on kao gradonačelnik Mostara ipak ima određene ingerencije kada je ovaj spomenik u pitanju.
Naime, Bešlić je sredinom oktobra prošle godine odbio dati suglasnost na odluku Agencije Stari Grad2, o imenovanju Odbora za obnovu Partizanskog spomen groblja i novog predsjednika ovog Odbora Sergeja Šotrića. U pismu upućenom direktoru ove Agencije, Bešlić je naveo kako “članove Odbora ne može imenovati Agencija bez da prethodno uputi inicijativu gradonačelniku sa zahtjevom za održavanje sastanka” koji će organizirati Gradska uprava ili delegirati obavezu Agenciji, kako bi se upražnjeno mjesto predsjednika i pojedinih članova Odbora “moglo obaviti u zakonitoj proceduri”. Istaknuo je da je to u nadležnosti Grada Mostara koji je i pomenuti Odbor prvi put imenovao 2003. godine.
Deklarativne vrijednosti
U mostarskom Udruženju antifašista i boraca NOR-a, koji je nešto ranije formirao svoj Odbor za obnovu i revitalizaciju Partizanskog spomen groblja i na čijem je čelu Raif Dizdarević, ovu Bešlićevu odluku podržavaju iako ističu da se u mnogočemu već godinama s gradonačelnikom ne slažu. Zaslugu za formiranje Odbora za obnovu 2003. godine pripisuju vlastitoj inicijativi, te tvrde da je Odbor svoj zadatak završio izradom projekta obnove koja je potom i uslijedila. Gradonačelniku Bešliću podnijeli su inicijativu da se nekadašnji Odbor upotpuni nedostajućim članovima ili da se formira novi Odbor koji bi pristupio što hitnijoj izradi projekta sanacije i zaštite spomenika. Ulogu Odbora čijeg su osnivači i koji broji na desetine članova, vide u stalnom lobiranju i vršenju pritiska na sve nivoe vlasti u BiH da preuzmu odgovornost koja im zakonom i pripada. S druge strane, Sergej Šotrić koji je bio domaćin Zvizdiću i Novaliću u nedavnoj posjeti Mostaru, ističe kako Odbor kojim predsjedava ima podršku federalnih i državnih vlasti, koji su izrazili punu spremnost da sudjeluju u svim etapama rekonstrukcije spomenika koje su već definirane. Tako je grad koji je gotovo u svemu djeljiv s dva, dobio i dva Odbora za obnovu Partizanskog spomen groblja i možda treći u nastajanju. Promatrajući iz tog konteksta moglo bi se pomisliti da je obnovu Partizanskog spomen groblja žele svi i da je na sceni otimačina za glavnu ulogu u tom procesu.
No, stvarnost i stanje u kojem se nalazi Bogdanovićev spomenik jasno odražavaju stav dviju dominantnih političkih stranaka u Mostaru i Federaciji, koje godinama oblikuju neke nove službene narative i zvanične kulture sjećanja, u kojima su antifašističke vrijednosti ili samo nominalne i deklarativne ili otvoreno revizionističke. Dovoljno je prisjetiti se da u Mostaru i danas postoje ulice s imenima ustaških ministara i zapovjednika ili da je u Sarajevu nedavno jedna osnovna škola dobila ime po ustaškom kolaboratoru. U takvom okruženju Partizansko spomen groblje dijeli sudbinu brojnih antifašističkih spomenika širom BiH i bivše Jugoslavije za čiju je valorizaciju, revitalizaciju i obnovu potrebno izgraditi neko novo društvo i izmijeniti dominantne narative, a ne umnožavati nove Odbore i inicijative koje u startu nemaju gotovo pa nikakve šanse.
proiezione del documentario “Nicola Grosa Moderno Antigone” (2012) regia di Mario Garofalo
a seguire aperitivo russo a cura di SaporeCritico
