Informazione
LA BIELORUSSIA DENUNCIA LE VIOLAZIONI DEI DIRITTI UMANI NEGLI USA
(source: Rick Rozoff, ANTINATO @...)
http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5072217&startrow=1&date=2004-11-
10&do_alert=0
Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - November 10, 2004
BELARUS SUBMITS TO UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY DRAFT
RESOLUTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE IN U.S.
Olesya Luchaninova
MINSK - Belarus has submitted to the UN General
Assembly a draft resolution on violation of the
principles of democracy and human rights in the U.S.,
RIA Novosti was told in the UN diplomatic mission in
Belarus.
By information of the mission's press service, the
draft resolution claims that "American authorities are
exercising strict control over mass media, are
carrying out arbitrary and secret detentions and
arrests which do not allow correspondence and
communication."
The document notes that "the election system in the
United States is not in accord with the obligations on
the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights."
It notes that the U.S. keeps violating international
standards, using the death penalty in regard to
persons below 18 years old and those with mental
illness.
The Belarussian draft, which, noted the UN mission,
has no co-authors [yet], raises the issue about the
prisoners who are now kept in custody at a camp at the
U.S. naval base in Guantanamo.
....
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1444722&PageNum=0
Itar-Tass - November 11, 2004
Belarus criticizes USA for human rights violations
GENEVA - Belarus believes that the United States has
big problems with the observation of human rights,
including the meeting of commitments to the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
the republic's Foreign Minister Sergei Martynov told
Itar-Tass.
Martynov, on a visit to Geneva, explained the reasons
behind Belarus' submitting a resolution at the UN
General Assembly on human rights violation in the
United States thus: "firstly, we wish to show that
nobody has the monopoly on criticism, and secondly, we
wish to show with real facts that even the country
presenting itself as human rights record leader has
big problems, including OSCE commitments."
Belarus assumes that "no state, even the strongest,
should be exempt from international human rights
monitoring," the foreign minister said.
Martynov noted the obstacles which observers at the
recent presidential polls in the United States had to
face.
"It's the first time an observer mission went to the
United States to monitor the election. Two thirds of
the states don't let observers in at all," he noted.
Minsk is aware that it will be difficult to ensure
that the UN General Assembly adopts the resolution on
human rights violations in the USA. "The U.S.
influence and pressure on everybody in the world is
such that just a few countries are likely to dare to
vote for the resolution openly and honestly," the
minister said.
Sergei Martynov also criticized the United States and
the European Union for the illegitimate policy of
double standards with respect to Belarus.
> Da: "Coord. Naz. per la Jugoslavia"
> Data: Lun 8 Nov 2004 20:09:56 Europe/Rome
> Oggetto: [JUGOINFO] Visnjica broj 455
>
>
> LA BIELORUSSIA CONTESTA LA REGOLARITA' DELLE ELEZIONI USA
>
>
> MosNews (Russia) - November 4, 2004
>
> Belarus Doubts Legitimacy of U.S. Presidential Election
>
> The Belarus Foreign Ministry has expressed doubts
> about the transparency of the presidential elections
> in the U.S., Russian news agency Interfax reported on
> Thursday.
> According to reports from independent observers and
> media representatives, a number of violations were
> noticed in the course of preparations and during the
> elections, namely basic international obligations set
> by the 1990 Copenhagen Document of the OSCE, the press
> secretary of the Belarus Foreign Ministry said in a
> statement circulated on Thursday.
> In particular, the official noted that U.S. officials
> had not applied sufficient effort to get rid of the
> major shortcomings in the U.S. electoral system.
> “This is why we are not surprised by reports that a
> large number of absentee ballots send by post have
> been lost, that the computer systems crash, that the
> voters are being threatened, that some voters cannot
> find themselves on voting lists, that it is impossible
> to get information on regional elections commissions
> and places where the voting was held,” the release
> reads.
> Belarus observers and a number of observers
> representing NGOs have reported that the U.S.
> authorities had not ensured the free work of
> international observers and accreditation of such
> observers in some states turned out to be virtually
> impossible.
> The release also notes that in the states where the
> international observers had managed to get the
> accreditation, the local authorities restricted their
> rights by “unprecedented harsh demands”.
> The Belarus Foreign Ministry expressed its hope that
> the mission of international observers of the OSCE
> would cover the U.S. presidential elections
> “objectively and truthfully” and give its evaluation
> of the event.
>
> http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/11/04/belaruscritic.shtml
>
>
> Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - November 5, 2004
>
> BELARUSIAN PRESIDENT CALLS U.S. ELECTION UNFAIR
>
> Alyaksandr Lukashenka [Alexander Lukashenko] said on 4
> November that this week's presidential election in the
> United States was held under standards that are
> unacceptable for Belarus, Belarusian media reported.
> "The presidential elections, according to their [U.S.]
> standards, are inadmissible for us," Belapan quoted
> Lukashenka as saying.
> "If we had staged an election like they did in the
> United States, we would have been crushed a long time
> ago."
> The same day the Belarusian Foreign Ministry issued a
> statement saying that the United States did not meet
> many international commitments regarding elections.
> "Therefore we are not surprised by many reports on the
> disappearance of a large number of ballots sent by
> mail, the malfunctions of the electronic voting
> system, intimidation of voters, the absence of voters
> on voter registers, the impossibility to freely obtain
> information from precinct and district commissions
> about the procedure and places of voting," the
> statement says.
> Minsk also charges that the U.S. authorities failed to
> ensure unhindered work by international election
> observers. "[These facts] cast doubt on the
> transparency and democracy of the U.S. elections," the
> statement concludes. JM
>
> http://www.rferl.org/newsline/3-cee.asp
>
>
> ( source: Rick Rozoff - ANTINATO @... )
>
>
(source: Rick Rozoff, ANTINATO @...)
http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5072217&startrow=1&date=2004-11-
10&do_alert=0
Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - November 10, 2004
BELARUS SUBMITS TO UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY DRAFT
RESOLUTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE IN U.S.
Olesya Luchaninova
MINSK - Belarus has submitted to the UN General
Assembly a draft resolution on violation of the
principles of democracy and human rights in the U.S.,
RIA Novosti was told in the UN diplomatic mission in
Belarus.
By information of the mission's press service, the
draft resolution claims that "American authorities are
exercising strict control over mass media, are
carrying out arbitrary and secret detentions and
arrests which do not allow correspondence and
communication."
The document notes that "the election system in the
United States is not in accord with the obligations on
the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights."
It notes that the U.S. keeps violating international
standards, using the death penalty in regard to
persons below 18 years old and those with mental
illness.
The Belarussian draft, which, noted the UN mission,
has no co-authors [yet], raises the issue about the
prisoners who are now kept in custody at a camp at the
U.S. naval base in Guantanamo.
....
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1444722&PageNum=0
Itar-Tass - November 11, 2004
Belarus criticizes USA for human rights violations
GENEVA - Belarus believes that the United States has
big problems with the observation of human rights,
including the meeting of commitments to the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
the republic's Foreign Minister Sergei Martynov told
Itar-Tass.
Martynov, on a visit to Geneva, explained the reasons
behind Belarus' submitting a resolution at the UN
General Assembly on human rights violation in the
United States thus: "firstly, we wish to show that
nobody has the monopoly on criticism, and secondly, we
wish to show with real facts that even the country
presenting itself as human rights record leader has
big problems, including OSCE commitments."
Belarus assumes that "no state, even the strongest,
should be exempt from international human rights
monitoring," the foreign minister said.
Martynov noted the obstacles which observers at the
recent presidential polls in the United States had to
face.
"It's the first time an observer mission went to the
United States to monitor the election. Two thirds of
the states don't let observers in at all," he noted.
Minsk is aware that it will be difficult to ensure
that the UN General Assembly adopts the resolution on
human rights violations in the USA. "The U.S.
influence and pressure on everybody in the world is
such that just a few countries are likely to dare to
vote for the resolution openly and honestly," the
minister said.
Sergei Martynov also criticized the United States and
the European Union for the illegitimate policy of
double standards with respect to Belarus.
> Da: "Coord. Naz. per la Jugoslavia"
> Data: Lun 8 Nov 2004 20:09:56 Europe/Rome
> Oggetto: [JUGOINFO] Visnjica broj 455
>
>
> LA BIELORUSSIA CONTESTA LA REGOLARITA' DELLE ELEZIONI USA
>
>
> MosNews (Russia) - November 4, 2004
>
> Belarus Doubts Legitimacy of U.S. Presidential Election
>
> The Belarus Foreign Ministry has expressed doubts
> about the transparency of the presidential elections
> in the U.S., Russian news agency Interfax reported on
> Thursday.
> According to reports from independent observers and
> media representatives, a number of violations were
> noticed in the course of preparations and during the
> elections, namely basic international obligations set
> by the 1990 Copenhagen Document of the OSCE, the press
> secretary of the Belarus Foreign Ministry said in a
> statement circulated on Thursday.
> In particular, the official noted that U.S. officials
> had not applied sufficient effort to get rid of the
> major shortcomings in the U.S. electoral system.
> “This is why we are not surprised by reports that a
> large number of absentee ballots send by post have
> been lost, that the computer systems crash, that the
> voters are being threatened, that some voters cannot
> find themselves on voting lists, that it is impossible
> to get information on regional elections commissions
> and places where the voting was held,” the release
> reads.
> Belarus observers and a number of observers
> representing NGOs have reported that the U.S.
> authorities had not ensured the free work of
> international observers and accreditation of such
> observers in some states turned out to be virtually
> impossible.
> The release also notes that in the states where the
> international observers had managed to get the
> accreditation, the local authorities restricted their
> rights by “unprecedented harsh demands”.
> The Belarus Foreign Ministry expressed its hope that
> the mission of international observers of the OSCE
> would cover the U.S. presidential elections
> “objectively and truthfully” and give its evaluation
> of the event.
>
> http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/11/04/belaruscritic.shtml
>
>
> Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - November 5, 2004
>
> BELARUSIAN PRESIDENT CALLS U.S. ELECTION UNFAIR
>
> Alyaksandr Lukashenka [Alexander Lukashenko] said on 4
> November that this week's presidential election in the
> United States was held under standards that are
> unacceptable for Belarus, Belarusian media reported.
> "The presidential elections, according to their [U.S.]
> standards, are inadmissible for us," Belapan quoted
> Lukashenka as saying.
> "If we had staged an election like they did in the
> United States, we would have been crushed a long time
> ago."
> The same day the Belarusian Foreign Ministry issued a
> statement saying that the United States did not meet
> many international commitments regarding elections.
> "Therefore we are not surprised by many reports on the
> disappearance of a large number of ballots sent by
> mail, the malfunctions of the electronic voting
> system, intimidation of voters, the absence of voters
> on voter registers, the impossibility to freely obtain
> information from precinct and district commissions
> about the procedure and places of voting," the
> statement says.
> Minsk also charges that the U.S. authorities failed to
> ensure unhindered work by international election
> observers. "[These facts] cast doubt on the
> transparency and democracy of the U.S. elections," the
> statement concludes. JM
>
> http://www.rferl.org/newsline/3-cee.asp
>
>
> ( source: Rick Rozoff - ANTINATO @... )
>
>
[ vedi anche:
Comunicato del Partito Socialista della Serbia sull'assassinio di Abu
Ali Mustafa, leader del Fronte Popolare per la Liberazione della
Palestina
(Belgrado, 29 agosto 2001)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1267
Belgrado, 3 aprile 2002: SOLIDARIETA' CON LA PALESTINA
Comunicato Stampa del Partito Socialista della Serbia sulla Palestina
SOLIDARITY WITH PALESTINE. PRESS RELEASE OF THE SPS
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1699 ]
From: ICDSM Italia
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:59:41 +0100
To: icdsm-italia @ yahoogroups.com
Subject: [icdsm-italia] per Arafat
(english / italiano)
Dalla sezione belgradese dell'ICDSM ci informano che:
***************************************************************
Il presidente Slobodan Milosevic ha inviato un messaggio di
condoglianze alla dirigenza ed al popolo palestinese in seguito alla
morte di Yasser Arafat. Il messaggio recita:
"In seguito alla morte di Yasser Arafat, leader storico dell'amico
popolo palestinese, presidente della Palestina e tra i piu' importanti
simboli della lotta per la liberazione dei popoli del nostro tempo,
esprimo le mie piu' profonde condoglianze alla sua famiglia, alla
dirigenza ed al popolo palestinese.
Slobodan Milosevic,
L'Aia, 11 novembre 2004"
***************************************************************
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Ven 12 Nov 2004 19:53:15 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Milosevic conveys condolences on Arafat's death
***************************************************************
President Slobodan Milosevic have sent a message of condolences to the
Palestinian leadership and people following the death of Yasser Arafat.
The message reads:
"Following the loss of Yasser Arafat, the historical leader of the
friendly Palestinian people, President of Palestine and one of the most
important symbols of the struggle for the rights of peoples in our
times, I express deepest condolences to his family, to the Palestinian
leadership and people.
The Hague, 11 November 2004
Slobodan Milosevic"
*************************************************************
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
==========================
Comunicato del Partito Socialista della Serbia sull'assassinio di Abu
Ali Mustafa, leader del Fronte Popolare per la Liberazione della
Palestina
(Belgrado, 29 agosto 2001)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1267
Belgrado, 3 aprile 2002: SOLIDARIETA' CON LA PALESTINA
Comunicato Stampa del Partito Socialista della Serbia sulla Palestina
SOLIDARITY WITH PALESTINE. PRESS RELEASE OF THE SPS
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1699 ]
From: ICDSM Italia
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 11:59:41 +0100
To: icdsm-italia @ yahoogroups.com
Subject: [icdsm-italia] per Arafat
(english / italiano)
Dalla sezione belgradese dell'ICDSM ci informano che:
***************************************************************
Il presidente Slobodan Milosevic ha inviato un messaggio di
condoglianze alla dirigenza ed al popolo palestinese in seguito alla
morte di Yasser Arafat. Il messaggio recita:
"In seguito alla morte di Yasser Arafat, leader storico dell'amico
popolo palestinese, presidente della Palestina e tra i piu' importanti
simboli della lotta per la liberazione dei popoli del nostro tempo,
esprimo le mie piu' profonde condoglianze alla sua famiglia, alla
dirigenza ed al popolo palestinese.
Slobodan Milosevic,
L'Aia, 11 novembre 2004"
***************************************************************
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Ven 12 Nov 2004 19:53:15 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Milosevic conveys condolences on Arafat's death
***************************************************************
President Slobodan Milosevic have sent a message of condolences to the
Palestinian leadership and people following the death of Yasser Arafat.
The message reads:
"Following the loss of Yasser Arafat, the historical leader of the
friendly Palestinian people, President of Palestine and one of the most
important symbols of the struggle for the rights of peoples in our
times, I express deepest condolences to his family, to the Palestinian
leadership and people.
The Hague, 11 November 2004
Slobodan Milosevic"
*************************************************************
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
==========================
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
==========================
Substantial Disruption of the International Law by the Hague 'Tribunal'
Exposed
[ Dalla sezione belgradese dell'ICDSM riceviamo e giriamo:
1. un comunicato nel quale si saluta come relativamente positiva la
restituzione a Milosevic della parziale facolta' (a meno di "problemi
di salute" addotti dalla "Corte") di presentare in prima persona la sua
autodifesa;
2. una analisi della situazione attuale, a cura della consulente e
portavoce legale dell'ICDSM Tiphaine Dickson, nella quale si
stigmatizza tra l'altro l'atteggiamento intimidatorio e discriminatorio
che la "Corte" tiene nei confronti dei testimoni "a difesa" comparsi
sinora. ]
**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
**************************************************************
SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - Member of the World Peace Council
Belgrade
www.sloboda.org.yu
**************************************************************
1. SLOBODA Press Release of 2 November 2004
2. Analysis of Me. Tiphaine Dickson, ICDSM Legal Spokesperson of 9
November 2004
**************************************************************
Belgrade, 2 November 2004
PRESS RELEASE
By his extraordinary effort, President Milosevic have reached a win for
International Law and human rights protection. Important part of his
fundamental rights has been restored.
The illegal institution which keeps him in illegal detention was forced
to do that and to further expose its illegal and political character.
The same institution which is now turning, as a consequence of
President Milosevic's struggle, from one of the most important tools
for colonization of the Balkans, into a burden for its creators.
This win should enable the continuation of the victorious struggle he
fights for truth about our people, for freedom, equality and national
dignity.
His effort had the broadest support of the progressive, patriotic and
professional public at home and abroad. Over 100 legal experts and
lawyers from the whole world, Bar Association of Belgrade and other
organizations, groups and individuals stood up in defense of the
fundamental rights of President Milosevic.
The fact that the political and illegal Hague institution was forced to
reverse in part its illegal and criminal decisions, does not mean that
the "prosecution", all its Hague assistants and all those who encourage
or back them, have gave up from their attempts to imperil the law and
even life of President Milosevic by misuse of the procedure and of his
health condition.
SLOBODA/FREEDOM Association
*******************************************************************
"Substantial Disruption" at The Hague:
Will Slobodan Milosevic be Tried In Absentia?
by Tiphaine Dickson
www.globalresearch.ca 9 November 2004
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC411A.html
In an appellate decision which appears to have been painstakingly
devised to convince public opinion that President Milosevic's rights
have been restored-- or even, as stated by some media, "increased", or
exaggerated in the favor of the defendant-- the ICTY has opened the
door to in absentia trials before international bodies, and reduced
fundamental trial rights into mere "presumptions", matters of
discretion.
Ominously, this decision is the direct echo of reports that the ICTY
will be shut down quickly by the US, well ahead of the deadline imposed
in the UN Security Council's "completion strategy". The Milosevic case
is the last remaining thorn in the side of the institution whose
outright politicization he has exposed. But his defense is far more
threatening still: to establish that the "Balkan Wars" were in fact one
war, against Yugoslavia, waged by Western powers in their interest. The
Appeals Court has now fashioned a device to prevent that case from
being made at the ICTY, which would close down, rather than hear the
evidence.
The decision handed down by the ICTY's President, Theodor Meron, who
also acts as President of the Appeals Chamber, as well as a Trial
Chamber judge, permits Slobodan Milosevic's effective removal from the
courtroom. Indeed, the judgment states that "substantial disruption" of
a trial does not necessarily have to be intentional to justify holding
proceedings in the absence of the accused, and that even the ill health
of a defendant can constitute such a "substantial disruption". In such
cases, according to the ICTY's "court of last resort", both imposition
of counsel and removal from the proceedings are justified.
The current situation is infinitely worse than that brought about by
the Trial Chamber's ultimately embarrassing ruling imposing counsel
against the wishes of Mr. Milosevic, and granting what were described
as "rights" to assigned counsel who had acted for another party in the
proceedings as amici curiae. Imposed counsel predictably failed to
present any meaningful defense, as scores of witnesses refused to
participate in proceedings that shared characteristics with the
notorious Star Chamber. In fact, most of the recalcitrant witnesses
expressed their view that what the imposed counsel were presenting was
not and could not be Mr. Milosevic's defense at all, and that their
participation would only serve to further violate his fundamental
rights.
Playing out as predicted
Presciently, perhaps, the ICTY's designated counsel had themselves
argued against imposition of counsel last August 13th, stating that
they were "concerned that the witnesses to be called by the accused,
whilst they may be willing to cooperate with him, would in the event of
a conflict make themselves unavailable to the Amici Curiae as imposed
counsel." Despite having expressed this concern almost three months
ago, Mr. Steven Kay and Ms. Gillian Higgins accepted their assignments
without objection, and for two months, the "defense" of Slobodan
Milosevic stumbled along gracelessly from postponement to postponement
as only 5 witnesses were called. Stunningly, counsel failed to object
to irrelevant, inflammatory, and frankly discriminatory if not actually
racist cross-examinations by the prosecution team, who judged necessary
to attempt to impugn a witness' credibility based on his ethnic
affiliation (Greek) and religion (Greek Orthodox). No objection was
made to a question posed as to whether the father of the witness had
donated money to a Serbian NGO, the Serbian Unity Congress, an
organization dedicated to the preservation of Serbian heritage with
chapters in 9 countries. But the question was posed to suggest,
somehow, in an almost educational display of impermissible
cross-examination, that the witness could be tainted by his father's
support of what was assumed to be a shadowy Serb outfit. Guilt by
association disguised as cross-examination, but the imposed counsel let
it slide. The Trial Chamber had no comment about this line of
questioning, nor did it upbraid the Prosecutor, Mr. Nice for "wasting
time on irrelevant matters", even during a cross-examination that
delved into obscure issues of comparative theology. Another
cross-examination focussed witheringly on why Serbs would think they
were "so special", and deserve to live on one territory because they
were "historic victims." (800 000 people-- Serbs, Jews, Roma-- were
killed at the Croatian Ustase-run Jasenovac concentration camp. These
systematic murders constitute one of the tragic chapters of the
Holocaust, and can assuredly be considered to be a "special" part of
Yugoslav history.) It goes without saying that no remotely similar
question was asked of Elie Weisel, when he testified during Biljana
Plavsic's sentencing hearing in December 2002. Some questions are
indecent, and cannot be asked. Others, however, equally indecent, and
revisionist in their assumptions are asked, and with full impunity.
Ethics, suddenly
Only a little over that a week ago did the imposed counsel request to
be withdrawn from the case, citing ethical quandaries that should have
been clear to them-- and obviously were, since they had already
articulated them, in detail, last August, in their arguments opposing
the imposition of counsel-- many months ago. Before the Appeals
Chamber, on October 21st, they complained of the fact that neither
President Milosevic nor the witnesses were cooperating with them,
again, a state of affairs they had themselves predicted, and therefore
had reason to believe would play out precisely the way it did. Mr. Kay
made the following submission to the Appeals Chamber, which could be
interpreted as blaming President Milosevic for the predictable
consequences of imposition, and of the "substantial disruption" of
proceedings caused as a result: ". in terms of a solution, it may be
that he undertakes his own consequences rather than us wasting
resources believing, and people kidding themselves, making believe that
what is happening here is a proper defense."
Who's to blame?
From the very first day of the court-appointed defense, it was made
clear who was to be blamed for the dysfunction: Slobodan Milosevic. On
September 7th, when the first witness was called by Mr. Kay, he told
the court that he'd failed in his attempts to obtain instructions from
his "client".
Patrick Robinson, who presides these proceedings, took pains to have
the record reflect that President Milosevic was responsible for the
non-cooperation. And reminded all that counsel had been imposed because
Mr. Milosevic was unfit to represent himself, and unfit to question
witnesses before assigned counsel. How, then, could he be expected to
be "fit" enough to instruct imposed counsel?
When the defendant, on the first day of what should have been his
defense, which he had been waiting to make since his dubious "transfer"
to The Hague, demanded that his right to self-representation be
restored, Mr. Robinson responded that he didn't want to hear the "tired
refrain". How "tired" could it have been on the very first day of the
defense?
There is a simple explanation for the fatigue, and it is that this
defense must come to an end before it begins. Could it be that for this
purpose a two-part strategy was designed? First, impose counsel and let
the measure inevitably "backfire", then feign the re-establishment of
the right to self-representation in a decision permitting the Trial
Chamber to proceed in absentia, for part, or the remainder, of the
defense case.
It is important to note that despite a subsequent denial from
Washington, US media recently published comments by Undersecretary for
arms control John Bolton, stating that the last Bush administration was
dissatisfied with proceedings at the ICTY, and wished to see its
"completion strategy" accelerated. In other words, close it down,
transfer cases back to domestic courts, and even grant amnesty. Last
June, the ICTY adopted an amendment to its rules of procedure and
evidence permitting just such deferrals.
Undersecretary Bolton and other senior State Department officials are
said to believe that the "ICTY has degenerated into a politicized
tribunal", but their complaints are aimed solely at Carla Del Ponte,
and not at any of the other equally politicized organs of the
institution. Yet the players in Washington know full that the ICTY is a
political body, as they created it as such. Indeed it has been stated
without irony by those closest to its establishment, such as Professor
Michael Scharf, that the institution was established to "educate
Serbs", "pin responsibility on Milosevic", and "promote catharsis" by
permitting "newly-elected" leaders to distance themselves from the
policies of Milosevic. But, in order to accelerate the completion
strategy, someone else must be faulted for the politicization of the
ICTY, and who better than the Prosecutor who was perhaps carefully
chosen so that her demise would satisfy everybody: her employers and
detractors as well. Washington also clearly stated its frustration with
the pace of the Milosevic case, which has as of yet failed to produce a
conviction. From Bolton's comments, it is obvious that President
Milosevic would not be a suitable candidate for transfer to the
jurisdiction of Serbia and Montenegro, unlike, for example, Operation
Storm's Ante Gotovina, whose indictment-- described as "bogus"-- could
conveniently be deferred to Croatia. Mere days after this article was
published in the Washington Times, ICTY President Theodor Meron
traveled to Zagreb, to discuss the "completion strategy" with the
Croatian government, according to an ICTY press release. This,
coincidentally, while the Appeals Chamber was deliberating on the
appeal launched against imposition of counsel.
Despite the clear direction this case is taking, the Appeals Chamber of
the ICTY has attempted -- and perhaps succeeded to some extent-- in
giving the appearance of having overturned an unfair decision as a
legitimate Appeals Chamber and a judicial institution. It has further
attempted to appear to provide excessive fairness to the accused to
portray the ICTY as embattled underdog. The fairness afforded is an
illusion, and the decision will serve to prevent Slobodan Milosevic
from presenting his defense.
"Substantial disruption"
The Appeals Chamber decision is signed only by ICTY President Theodor
Meron. In the course of arguments before the appellate body, President
Milosevic argued that he could not present a meaningful defense while
represented by counsel, since this political prosecution, before a
political body, requires a political defense. The ICTY Code of conduct
for defense lawyers indeed forbids counsel from " diminish(ing) public
confidence in the International Tribunal (...) or otherwise bring(ing)
the International Tribunal into disrepute." It is thus inconceivable
that a defense lawyer could argue the ICTY's illegality or
illegitimacy-- a cornerstone of Mr. Milosevic's
defense-- without breaching the body's ethical rules. President Meron
responded to Mr. Milosevic's arguments with the following statement: "I
really believe, and I believe that all my colleagues very strongly
believe that this trial is not a political trial. It is a legal trial
under human rights and due process to determine, under international
law and the Statute, whether -to determine whether you are guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt or you are not. And we would not have been
conducting those proceedings this way if we were not convinced that
this is really not only a legal trial, but I believe it is a model of a
fair trial."
The Appeals Chamber, reviewing the decision to impose counsel on an
obviously competent law school graduate, made in the course of this
"model of a fair trial"-- a move unprecedented since the Star Chamber,
and not even attempted by the Apartheid judiciary against Mandela, nor
Nazi Germany against Dimitrov-- held, without relying on any authority
whatsoever, that "substantial disruption of the proceedings" for the
purposes of stripping an accused of the right to be tried in his
presence, as well as the right to self representation, does not require
any proof that the accused had the intention of disrupting the
proceedings. Ill health suffices to violate an accused person's most
fundamental right, a position contrary to international law and
domestic practice. Illness warrants provisional release, or an end of
the proceedings, not a supplementary violation of rights. The
justification set out by Mr. Meron is the following: "But it cannot be
that the only kind of disruption legitimately cognizable by a Trial
Chamber is the intentional variety. " Not a single case is cited. This
argument states "it cannot be", therefore "it should be". Here, then,
is the acknowledgement that this measure is not only contrary to
practice, and in violation of the International Covenant for Civil and
Political Rights, but predicated on the idea of "illegal but good", or
rather "illegal, but expedient" (and "discretionary").
Unprecedented assault against fair trial rights
The Appeals Chamber has further committed an unprecedented assault on
internationally recognized human rights. The right to
self-representation--described by Mr. Meron himself as "indispensable
cornerstone of justice", "placed on a structural par" with the other
rights set out at article 21 of the Statute (and article 14 of the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights)-- become mere
"presumptive rights" that the ICTY Trial Chambers can apply in a
discretionary manner:
"As the Appeals Chamber has previously noted, a Trial Chamber exercises
its discretion in "many different situations - such as when imposing
sentence, in determining whether provisional release should be granted,
in relation to the admissibility of some types of evidence, in
evaluating evidence, and (more frequently) in deciding points of
practice or procedure." A Trial Chamber's assignment of counsel fits
squarely within this last category of decisions. It draws on the Trial
Chamber's organic familiarity with the day-to-day conduct of the
parties and practical demands of the case, and requires a complex
balancing of intangibles in crafting a case-specific order to properly
regulate a highly variable set of trial proceedings."
So the respect of that right--and, one might conceive, of the other
rights "placed at a structural par" with it, those enumerated in
Article 20, paragraph 4 of the Statute-- are no longer "entitlements",
to be "enjoyed in full equality", as set out by Article 20 of the
Statute, but a matter of discretion for the Trial Chamber. Those
entitlements constitute the minimum fundamental fair trial rights under
international law, and guarantee the following to a defendant in a
criminal trial: the right to be informed promptly and in detail in a
language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge
against him; the right to have adequate time and facilities for the
preparation of his defense and to communicate with counsel of his own
choosing; the right to be tried without undue delay; the right to be
tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal
assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have
legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned
to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and
without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient
means to pay for it; the right to examine, or have examined, the
witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of
witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against
him; the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he
cannot understand or speak the language used in the International
Tribunal; the right not to be compelled to testify against himself or
to confess guilt.
This remarkable perspective on basic fair trial rights invites
discretionary "adjustments" or "balancing" of the other enumerated
rights, since they are at a "structural par" with the right to
self-representation. In other words, if all these rights have the same
value, what prevents a Trial Chamber from violating them equally, as
they have done with the right to self-representation, which the Appeals
Chamber has upheld? This "discretion" will further be employed to
severely curtail the duration, scope and subject matter of questions,
as well as the very possibility of calling certain witnesses altogether.
Since the Trial Chamber has been granted the "wise discretion" to deal
with the "myriad health-related difficulties that may arise in the
future", and the power to craft "an appropriate set of responses to
every possible eventuality", it is entirely plausible, and in fact
highly likely that non-intentional "disruption" will be found to exist,
whether for health reasons or "non-cooperation". Then, this partial
"self-representation", and even presence at the hearings, will be
dispensed with. Considering the record of the Trial Chamber, in
particular judges Robinson and Bonomy, and their impatient attitude
(calling the Mr. Milosevic "petulant" and "puerile"), the Appeals
Chamber decision can be interpreted as an invitation to remove the
President entirely from the proceedings.
If the ICTY were not a political construct, it could and would simply
restore President Milosevic's right to self-representation. Judicial
institutions are independent bodies who suffer no interference from the
executive branch; they do not rewrite their own rules in mid-trial,
they do not emerge from the ether, survive for a few years, then hurry
to shut down their operations. Criminal courts are committed to an
unwavering respect for the Rule of law, which in adversary proceedings
means that people can only be tried "in an ordinary manner, before the
ordinary courts of the land". Courts do not engage in public relations
activities, "outreach programs", nor do they attempt to influence the
policies of foreign governments.
And as Mr. Kay compellingly argues that no lawyer can meaningfully
represent President Milosevic as assigned counsel, or even as "stand-by
counsel" without violating professional ethics, we see that there can
be no defense at all unless the right to self-representation is
restored.
The Appeals Chamber did not restore Slobodan Milosevic's right to
self-representation, but rather provided the Trial Chamber with the
tools it requires to see to it that Washington's completion strategy is
carried out swiftly. In the process, it has dealt a blow to the
fundamental fair trial rights guaranteed by the International Covenant
for Civil and Political Rights. The ICTY's endgame, as illustrated by
the strategy designed to prevent Slobodan Milosevic from further
exposing the institution's political nature, provides a valuable
lesson: there is nothing to be gained by establishing ad hoc political
courts, be they in Europe, Africa, or anywhere else. When justice is
used as an instrument to justify the crime of aggression, and when ad
hoc bodies do not even consider aggression within their jurisdiction,
there is no point in calling what emerges from the exercise
"international law." The sole superpower does not agree to be submitted
to the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction yet lays a gruesome
siege on Fallujah. And the sole superpower wishes Slobodan Milosevic's
microphone switched off, once and for all. It is imperative we at least
attempt to ponder why that is.
Tiphaine Dickson is a criminal defence lawyer specialized in
international criminal law based in Montréal. She was lead counsel for
the defence in one of the first UN trials prosecuting genocide before
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Me. Dickson is a lawyer
and legal spokesperson for the International Committee to Defend
Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM).
****************************************************************
TECHNICAL NOTE: After the electricity and water supplies in "Sloboda"
offices have been cut for some days and after the negotiations with
supplying companies ended with the agreement to cover a half of the
debt, we are able to circulate our information again.
***************************************************************
URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL
After the Hague Tribunal declared war against human rights and
International Law by banning President Milosevic's right to
self-defense, our activities for his liberation and for the restoration
of his freedom and for the national sovereignty of the Serbian people
need to be reorganized and intensified.
We need professional, legal work now more than ever. Thus, the creation
of conditions for that work is the imperative at this moment.
The petition of 100 lawyers and law professors from 18 countries, and
other related activities of the ICDSM Legal Committee, produced a
public effect incomparable to any other previous action by the ICDSM.
President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use
that advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally
discredited tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted
actions which would involve the Bar Associations, the European Court,
the UN organs in charge and the media.
Our practice has shown that ad hoc voluntary work is not enough to deal
properly with these tasks. The funds secured in Serbia are still enough
only to cover the expenses of the stay and work of President
Milosevic's legal associates at The Hague (one at the time). The funds
secured by the German section of the ICDSM (still the only one with
regular contributions) are enough only to cover minimal additional work
at The Hague connected with contacts and preparations of foreign
witnesses. Everything else is lacking.
3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.
Our history and our people oblige us to go on with this necessary
action.
But without these funds it will not be possible.
Please organize urgently the fundraising activity and send the
donations to the following ICDSM accounts:
Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS
or
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5
All of your donations will be used for legal and other necessary
accompanying activities, on instruction or with the consent of
President Milosevic. To obtain additional information on the use of
your donations or to obtain additional advice on the most efficient way
to submit your donations or to make bank transfers, please do not
hesitate to contact us:
Peter Betscher (ICDSM Treasurer) E-mail: peter_betscher @ freenet.de
Phone: +49 172 7566 014
Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail: slobodavk @ yubc.net
Phone: +381 63 8862 301
The ICDSM and Sloboda need to address governments, international human
rights and legal organizations, and to launch legal proceedings. The
ICDSM plans a legal conference at The Hague. Sloboda has just sent to
the patriotic factions in the Serbian Parliament an initiative to adopt
a parliamentary Resolution against the human rights violations by the
Hague Tribunal and to form an international team of experts to make an
extensive report on these violations which would be submitted to the UN.
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
==========================
Substantial Disruption of the International Law by the Hague 'Tribunal'
Exposed
[ Dalla sezione belgradese dell'ICDSM riceviamo e giriamo:
1. un comunicato nel quale si saluta come relativamente positiva la
restituzione a Milosevic della parziale facolta' (a meno di "problemi
di salute" addotti dalla "Corte") di presentare in prima persona la sua
autodifesa;
2. una analisi della situazione attuale, a cura della consulente e
portavoce legale dell'ICDSM Tiphaine Dickson, nella quale si
stigmatizza tra l'altro l'atteggiamento intimidatorio e discriminatorio
che la "Corte" tiene nei confronti dei testimoni "a difesa" comparsi
sinora. ]
**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
**************************************************************
SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - Member of the World Peace Council
Belgrade
www.sloboda.org.yu
**************************************************************
1. SLOBODA Press Release of 2 November 2004
2. Analysis of Me. Tiphaine Dickson, ICDSM Legal Spokesperson of 9
November 2004
**************************************************************
Belgrade, 2 November 2004
PRESS RELEASE
By his extraordinary effort, President Milosevic have reached a win for
International Law and human rights protection. Important part of his
fundamental rights has been restored.
The illegal institution which keeps him in illegal detention was forced
to do that and to further expose its illegal and political character.
The same institution which is now turning, as a consequence of
President Milosevic's struggle, from one of the most important tools
for colonization of the Balkans, into a burden for its creators.
This win should enable the continuation of the victorious struggle he
fights for truth about our people, for freedom, equality and national
dignity.
His effort had the broadest support of the progressive, patriotic and
professional public at home and abroad. Over 100 legal experts and
lawyers from the whole world, Bar Association of Belgrade and other
organizations, groups and individuals stood up in defense of the
fundamental rights of President Milosevic.
The fact that the political and illegal Hague institution was forced to
reverse in part its illegal and criminal decisions, does not mean that
the "prosecution", all its Hague assistants and all those who encourage
or back them, have gave up from their attempts to imperil the law and
even life of President Milosevic by misuse of the procedure and of his
health condition.
SLOBODA/FREEDOM Association
*******************************************************************
"Substantial Disruption" at The Hague:
Will Slobodan Milosevic be Tried In Absentia?
by Tiphaine Dickson
www.globalresearch.ca 9 November 2004
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC411A.html
In an appellate decision which appears to have been painstakingly
devised to convince public opinion that President Milosevic's rights
have been restored-- or even, as stated by some media, "increased", or
exaggerated in the favor of the defendant-- the ICTY has opened the
door to in absentia trials before international bodies, and reduced
fundamental trial rights into mere "presumptions", matters of
discretion.
Ominously, this decision is the direct echo of reports that the ICTY
will be shut down quickly by the US, well ahead of the deadline imposed
in the UN Security Council's "completion strategy". The Milosevic case
is the last remaining thorn in the side of the institution whose
outright politicization he has exposed. But his defense is far more
threatening still: to establish that the "Balkan Wars" were in fact one
war, against Yugoslavia, waged by Western powers in their interest. The
Appeals Court has now fashioned a device to prevent that case from
being made at the ICTY, which would close down, rather than hear the
evidence.
The decision handed down by the ICTY's President, Theodor Meron, who
also acts as President of the Appeals Chamber, as well as a Trial
Chamber judge, permits Slobodan Milosevic's effective removal from the
courtroom. Indeed, the judgment states that "substantial disruption" of
a trial does not necessarily have to be intentional to justify holding
proceedings in the absence of the accused, and that even the ill health
of a defendant can constitute such a "substantial disruption". In such
cases, according to the ICTY's "court of last resort", both imposition
of counsel and removal from the proceedings are justified.
The current situation is infinitely worse than that brought about by
the Trial Chamber's ultimately embarrassing ruling imposing counsel
against the wishes of Mr. Milosevic, and granting what were described
as "rights" to assigned counsel who had acted for another party in the
proceedings as amici curiae. Imposed counsel predictably failed to
present any meaningful defense, as scores of witnesses refused to
participate in proceedings that shared characteristics with the
notorious Star Chamber. In fact, most of the recalcitrant witnesses
expressed their view that what the imposed counsel were presenting was
not and could not be Mr. Milosevic's defense at all, and that their
participation would only serve to further violate his fundamental
rights.
Playing out as predicted
Presciently, perhaps, the ICTY's designated counsel had themselves
argued against imposition of counsel last August 13th, stating that
they were "concerned that the witnesses to be called by the accused,
whilst they may be willing to cooperate with him, would in the event of
a conflict make themselves unavailable to the Amici Curiae as imposed
counsel." Despite having expressed this concern almost three months
ago, Mr. Steven Kay and Ms. Gillian Higgins accepted their assignments
without objection, and for two months, the "defense" of Slobodan
Milosevic stumbled along gracelessly from postponement to postponement
as only 5 witnesses were called. Stunningly, counsel failed to object
to irrelevant, inflammatory, and frankly discriminatory if not actually
racist cross-examinations by the prosecution team, who judged necessary
to attempt to impugn a witness' credibility based on his ethnic
affiliation (Greek) and religion (Greek Orthodox). No objection was
made to a question posed as to whether the father of the witness had
donated money to a Serbian NGO, the Serbian Unity Congress, an
organization dedicated to the preservation of Serbian heritage with
chapters in 9 countries. But the question was posed to suggest,
somehow, in an almost educational display of impermissible
cross-examination, that the witness could be tainted by his father's
support of what was assumed to be a shadowy Serb outfit. Guilt by
association disguised as cross-examination, but the imposed counsel let
it slide. The Trial Chamber had no comment about this line of
questioning, nor did it upbraid the Prosecutor, Mr. Nice for "wasting
time on irrelevant matters", even during a cross-examination that
delved into obscure issues of comparative theology. Another
cross-examination focussed witheringly on why Serbs would think they
were "so special", and deserve to live on one territory because they
were "historic victims." (800 000 people-- Serbs, Jews, Roma-- were
killed at the Croatian Ustase-run Jasenovac concentration camp. These
systematic murders constitute one of the tragic chapters of the
Holocaust, and can assuredly be considered to be a "special" part of
Yugoslav history.) It goes without saying that no remotely similar
question was asked of Elie Weisel, when he testified during Biljana
Plavsic's sentencing hearing in December 2002. Some questions are
indecent, and cannot be asked. Others, however, equally indecent, and
revisionist in their assumptions are asked, and with full impunity.
Ethics, suddenly
Only a little over that a week ago did the imposed counsel request to
be withdrawn from the case, citing ethical quandaries that should have
been clear to them-- and obviously were, since they had already
articulated them, in detail, last August, in their arguments opposing
the imposition of counsel-- many months ago. Before the Appeals
Chamber, on October 21st, they complained of the fact that neither
President Milosevic nor the witnesses were cooperating with them,
again, a state of affairs they had themselves predicted, and therefore
had reason to believe would play out precisely the way it did. Mr. Kay
made the following submission to the Appeals Chamber, which could be
interpreted as blaming President Milosevic for the predictable
consequences of imposition, and of the "substantial disruption" of
proceedings caused as a result: ". in terms of a solution, it may be
that he undertakes his own consequences rather than us wasting
resources believing, and people kidding themselves, making believe that
what is happening here is a proper defense."
Who's to blame?
From the very first day of the court-appointed defense, it was made
clear who was to be blamed for the dysfunction: Slobodan Milosevic. On
September 7th, when the first witness was called by Mr. Kay, he told
the court that he'd failed in his attempts to obtain instructions from
his "client".
Patrick Robinson, who presides these proceedings, took pains to have
the record reflect that President Milosevic was responsible for the
non-cooperation. And reminded all that counsel had been imposed because
Mr. Milosevic was unfit to represent himself, and unfit to question
witnesses before assigned counsel. How, then, could he be expected to
be "fit" enough to instruct imposed counsel?
When the defendant, on the first day of what should have been his
defense, which he had been waiting to make since his dubious "transfer"
to The Hague, demanded that his right to self-representation be
restored, Mr. Robinson responded that he didn't want to hear the "tired
refrain". How "tired" could it have been on the very first day of the
defense?
There is a simple explanation for the fatigue, and it is that this
defense must come to an end before it begins. Could it be that for this
purpose a two-part strategy was designed? First, impose counsel and let
the measure inevitably "backfire", then feign the re-establishment of
the right to self-representation in a decision permitting the Trial
Chamber to proceed in absentia, for part, or the remainder, of the
defense case.
It is important to note that despite a subsequent denial from
Washington, US media recently published comments by Undersecretary for
arms control John Bolton, stating that the last Bush administration was
dissatisfied with proceedings at the ICTY, and wished to see its
"completion strategy" accelerated. In other words, close it down,
transfer cases back to domestic courts, and even grant amnesty. Last
June, the ICTY adopted an amendment to its rules of procedure and
evidence permitting just such deferrals.
Undersecretary Bolton and other senior State Department officials are
said to believe that the "ICTY has degenerated into a politicized
tribunal", but their complaints are aimed solely at Carla Del Ponte,
and not at any of the other equally politicized organs of the
institution. Yet the players in Washington know full that the ICTY is a
political body, as they created it as such. Indeed it has been stated
without irony by those closest to its establishment, such as Professor
Michael Scharf, that the institution was established to "educate
Serbs", "pin responsibility on Milosevic", and "promote catharsis" by
permitting "newly-elected" leaders to distance themselves from the
policies of Milosevic. But, in order to accelerate the completion
strategy, someone else must be faulted for the politicization of the
ICTY, and who better than the Prosecutor who was perhaps carefully
chosen so that her demise would satisfy everybody: her employers and
detractors as well. Washington also clearly stated its frustration with
the pace of the Milosevic case, which has as of yet failed to produce a
conviction. From Bolton's comments, it is obvious that President
Milosevic would not be a suitable candidate for transfer to the
jurisdiction of Serbia and Montenegro, unlike, for example, Operation
Storm's Ante Gotovina, whose indictment-- described as "bogus"-- could
conveniently be deferred to Croatia. Mere days after this article was
published in the Washington Times, ICTY President Theodor Meron
traveled to Zagreb, to discuss the "completion strategy" with the
Croatian government, according to an ICTY press release. This,
coincidentally, while the Appeals Chamber was deliberating on the
appeal launched against imposition of counsel.
Despite the clear direction this case is taking, the Appeals Chamber of
the ICTY has attempted -- and perhaps succeeded to some extent-- in
giving the appearance of having overturned an unfair decision as a
legitimate Appeals Chamber and a judicial institution. It has further
attempted to appear to provide excessive fairness to the accused to
portray the ICTY as embattled underdog. The fairness afforded is an
illusion, and the decision will serve to prevent Slobodan Milosevic
from presenting his defense.
"Substantial disruption"
The Appeals Chamber decision is signed only by ICTY President Theodor
Meron. In the course of arguments before the appellate body, President
Milosevic argued that he could not present a meaningful defense while
represented by counsel, since this political prosecution, before a
political body, requires a political defense. The ICTY Code of conduct
for defense lawyers indeed forbids counsel from " diminish(ing) public
confidence in the International Tribunal (...) or otherwise bring(ing)
the International Tribunal into disrepute." It is thus inconceivable
that a defense lawyer could argue the ICTY's illegality or
illegitimacy-- a cornerstone of Mr. Milosevic's
defense-- without breaching the body's ethical rules. President Meron
responded to Mr. Milosevic's arguments with the following statement: "I
really believe, and I believe that all my colleagues very strongly
believe that this trial is not a political trial. It is a legal trial
under human rights and due process to determine, under international
law and the Statute, whether -to determine whether you are guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt or you are not. And we would not have been
conducting those proceedings this way if we were not convinced that
this is really not only a legal trial, but I believe it is a model of a
fair trial."
The Appeals Chamber, reviewing the decision to impose counsel on an
obviously competent law school graduate, made in the course of this
"model of a fair trial"-- a move unprecedented since the Star Chamber,
and not even attempted by the Apartheid judiciary against Mandela, nor
Nazi Germany against Dimitrov-- held, without relying on any authority
whatsoever, that "substantial disruption of the proceedings" for the
purposes of stripping an accused of the right to be tried in his
presence, as well as the right to self representation, does not require
any proof that the accused had the intention of disrupting the
proceedings. Ill health suffices to violate an accused person's most
fundamental right, a position contrary to international law and
domestic practice. Illness warrants provisional release, or an end of
the proceedings, not a supplementary violation of rights. The
justification set out by Mr. Meron is the following: "But it cannot be
that the only kind of disruption legitimately cognizable by a Trial
Chamber is the intentional variety. " Not a single case is cited. This
argument states "it cannot be", therefore "it should be". Here, then,
is the acknowledgement that this measure is not only contrary to
practice, and in violation of the International Covenant for Civil and
Political Rights, but predicated on the idea of "illegal but good", or
rather "illegal, but expedient" (and "discretionary").
Unprecedented assault against fair trial rights
The Appeals Chamber has further committed an unprecedented assault on
internationally recognized human rights. The right to
self-representation--described by Mr. Meron himself as "indispensable
cornerstone of justice", "placed on a structural par" with the other
rights set out at article 21 of the Statute (and article 14 of the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights)-- become mere
"presumptive rights" that the ICTY Trial Chambers can apply in a
discretionary manner:
"As the Appeals Chamber has previously noted, a Trial Chamber exercises
its discretion in "many different situations - such as when imposing
sentence, in determining whether provisional release should be granted,
in relation to the admissibility of some types of evidence, in
evaluating evidence, and (more frequently) in deciding points of
practice or procedure." A Trial Chamber's assignment of counsel fits
squarely within this last category of decisions. It draws on the Trial
Chamber's organic familiarity with the day-to-day conduct of the
parties and practical demands of the case, and requires a complex
balancing of intangibles in crafting a case-specific order to properly
regulate a highly variable set of trial proceedings."
So the respect of that right--and, one might conceive, of the other
rights "placed at a structural par" with it, those enumerated in
Article 20, paragraph 4 of the Statute-- are no longer "entitlements",
to be "enjoyed in full equality", as set out by Article 20 of the
Statute, but a matter of discretion for the Trial Chamber. Those
entitlements constitute the minimum fundamental fair trial rights under
international law, and guarantee the following to a defendant in a
criminal trial: the right to be informed promptly and in detail in a
language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge
against him; the right to have adequate time and facilities for the
preparation of his defense and to communicate with counsel of his own
choosing; the right to be tried without undue delay; the right to be
tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal
assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have
legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned
to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and
without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient
means to pay for it; the right to examine, or have examined, the
witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of
witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against
him; the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he
cannot understand or speak the language used in the International
Tribunal; the right not to be compelled to testify against himself or
to confess guilt.
This remarkable perspective on basic fair trial rights invites
discretionary "adjustments" or "balancing" of the other enumerated
rights, since they are at a "structural par" with the right to
self-representation. In other words, if all these rights have the same
value, what prevents a Trial Chamber from violating them equally, as
they have done with the right to self-representation, which the Appeals
Chamber has upheld? This "discretion" will further be employed to
severely curtail the duration, scope and subject matter of questions,
as well as the very possibility of calling certain witnesses altogether.
Since the Trial Chamber has been granted the "wise discretion" to deal
with the "myriad health-related difficulties that may arise in the
future", and the power to craft "an appropriate set of responses to
every possible eventuality", it is entirely plausible, and in fact
highly likely that non-intentional "disruption" will be found to exist,
whether for health reasons or "non-cooperation". Then, this partial
"self-representation", and even presence at the hearings, will be
dispensed with. Considering the record of the Trial Chamber, in
particular judges Robinson and Bonomy, and their impatient attitude
(calling the Mr. Milosevic "petulant" and "puerile"), the Appeals
Chamber decision can be interpreted as an invitation to remove the
President entirely from the proceedings.
If the ICTY were not a political construct, it could and would simply
restore President Milosevic's right to self-representation. Judicial
institutions are independent bodies who suffer no interference from the
executive branch; they do not rewrite their own rules in mid-trial,
they do not emerge from the ether, survive for a few years, then hurry
to shut down their operations. Criminal courts are committed to an
unwavering respect for the Rule of law, which in adversary proceedings
means that people can only be tried "in an ordinary manner, before the
ordinary courts of the land". Courts do not engage in public relations
activities, "outreach programs", nor do they attempt to influence the
policies of foreign governments.
And as Mr. Kay compellingly argues that no lawyer can meaningfully
represent President Milosevic as assigned counsel, or even as "stand-by
counsel" without violating professional ethics, we see that there can
be no defense at all unless the right to self-representation is
restored.
The Appeals Chamber did not restore Slobodan Milosevic's right to
self-representation, but rather provided the Trial Chamber with the
tools it requires to see to it that Washington's completion strategy is
carried out swiftly. In the process, it has dealt a blow to the
fundamental fair trial rights guaranteed by the International Covenant
for Civil and Political Rights. The ICTY's endgame, as illustrated by
the strategy designed to prevent Slobodan Milosevic from further
exposing the institution's political nature, provides a valuable
lesson: there is nothing to be gained by establishing ad hoc political
courts, be they in Europe, Africa, or anywhere else. When justice is
used as an instrument to justify the crime of aggression, and when ad
hoc bodies do not even consider aggression within their jurisdiction,
there is no point in calling what emerges from the exercise
"international law." The sole superpower does not agree to be submitted
to the International Criminal Court's jurisdiction yet lays a gruesome
siege on Fallujah. And the sole superpower wishes Slobodan Milosevic's
microphone switched off, once and for all. It is imperative we at least
attempt to ponder why that is.
Tiphaine Dickson is a criminal defence lawyer specialized in
international criminal law based in Montréal. She was lead counsel for
the defence in one of the first UN trials prosecuting genocide before
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Me. Dickson is a lawyer
and legal spokesperson for the International Committee to Defend
Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM).
****************************************************************
TECHNICAL NOTE: After the electricity and water supplies in "Sloboda"
offices have been cut for some days and after the negotiations with
supplying companies ended with the agreement to cover a half of the
debt, we are able to circulate our information again.
***************************************************************
URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL
After the Hague Tribunal declared war against human rights and
International Law by banning President Milosevic's right to
self-defense, our activities for his liberation and for the restoration
of his freedom and for the national sovereignty of the Serbian people
need to be reorganized and intensified.
We need professional, legal work now more than ever. Thus, the creation
of conditions for that work is the imperative at this moment.
The petition of 100 lawyers and law professors from 18 countries, and
other related activities of the ICDSM Legal Committee, produced a
public effect incomparable to any other previous action by the ICDSM.
President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use
that advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally
discredited tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted
actions which would involve the Bar Associations, the European Court,
the UN organs in charge and the media.
Our practice has shown that ad hoc voluntary work is not enough to deal
properly with these tasks. The funds secured in Serbia are still enough
only to cover the expenses of the stay and work of President
Milosevic's legal associates at The Hague (one at the time). The funds
secured by the German section of the ICDSM (still the only one with
regular contributions) are enough only to cover minimal additional work
at The Hague connected with contacts and preparations of foreign
witnesses. Everything else is lacking.
3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.
Our history and our people oblige us to go on with this necessary
action.
But without these funds it will not be possible.
Please organize urgently the fundraising activity and send the
donations to the following ICDSM accounts:
Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS
or
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5
All of your donations will be used for legal and other necessary
accompanying activities, on instruction or with the consent of
President Milosevic. To obtain additional information on the use of
your donations or to obtain additional advice on the most efficient way
to submit your donations or to make bank transfers, please do not
hesitate to contact us:
Peter Betscher (ICDSM Treasurer) E-mail: peter_betscher @ freenet.de
Phone: +49 172 7566 014
Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail: slobodavk @ yubc.net
Phone: +381 63 8862 301
The ICDSM and Sloboda need to address governments, international human
rights and legal organizations, and to launch legal proceedings. The
ICDSM plans a legal conference at The Hague. Sloboda has just sent to
the patriotic factions in the Serbian Parliament an initiative to adopt
a parliamentary Resolution against the human rights violations by the
Hague Tribunal and to form an international team of experts to make an
extensive report on these violations which would be submitted to the UN.
Partito Comunista dei popoli della Spagna - Sulla Nuova Costituzione
dell’Unione Europea
Siamo contro la Costituzione Europea.
Nel referendum che si svolgerà in Spagna nel febbraio del 2005, il PCPE
invita il popolo spagnolo a votare NO.
Un progetto di gestazione antidemocratico
Il progetto di Costituzione Europea si è sviluppato in modo
antidemocratico, è stato elaborato da una commissione di 105 notabili
non scelti dai paesi coinvolti, esercitando la potestà costituente
senza mandato popolare e senza che ci fosse un ampio dibattito sociale
sull'opportunità e necessità di tale Costituzione, ma ciò che è più
grave è il suo articolo 6 che dice: "La Costituzione ed il diritto
adottati dall’Unione prevarranno sul diritto degli Stati membri."
Un ridotto e scelto gruppo di rappresentanti delle grandi imprese
multinazionali impongono a 400 milioni di persone un codice legale che
potrà difficilmente essere riformato, perché lo stesso codice
stabilisce che per farlo è necessario il consenso unanime degli Stati
membri, l’unanimità quindi, mai ottenuta da misure progressiste.
Il Trattato di Costituzione dell'Unione Europea è un pezzo chiave nella
coesione del blocco imperialista europeo. Avanza nella configurazione
delle sue istituzioni politiche decisionali, di carattere non
rappresentativo e non partecipativo, e della sua strutturazione
economica, il principio intoccabile della proprietà privata e della
competitività, dell’assemblaggio d’apparati polizieschi e giudiziari
(esperti nell'implacabile repressione d’ogni dissidenza reale), di un
esercito centralizzato autonomo, influenzato dalla dottrina di guerra
preventiva lì dove il capitale lo richieda, e di un conglomerato di
servizi sociali diretto dalla logica neoliberale.
CHE COSA DICE LA COSTITUZIONE?
CHE COSA CONSOLIDA L’EUROPA?
CHE COSA VOGLIAMO IN EUROPA?
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa dell'oligarchia
Art. 26: la Commissione Europea eserciterà le sue responsabilità con
piena indipendenza. I Commissari europei non solleciteranno né
accetteranno istruzioni di nessun governo, istituzione, organo od
organismo.
Gli atti legislativi dell'Unione Europea potranno solo adottarsi su
proposta della Commissione.
Art. 5: gli Stati membri aiuteranno l'Unione nel compimento della sua
missione e si asterranno da ogni misura che possa mettere in pericolo
la realizzazione degli obiettivi dell'Unione.
Art. 16: la competenza dell'Unione in materia di politica estera e di
sicurezza comune abbraccerà tutti gli ambiti e tutte le questioni...
compresa la definizione progressiva di una politica comune di difesa.
Gli Stati membri appoggeranno attivamente e senza riserve la
politica... Si asterranno da ogni azione contraria.
Art. 40: Si consulterà il Parlamento Europeo su politica estera e di
sicurezza comune, e sarà mantenuto informato".
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa dell'oligarchia, sottomessa agli
interessi delle grandi imprese multinazionali. Perciò, stabilisce un
modello di unione simile alla federazione di stati, modello col quale i
paesi cedono gran parte della sovranità agli organismi dell'Unione
Europea. Così, un piccolo gruppo di commissari, la cosiddetta
Commissione Europea, decidono quasi tutto per circa 400 milioni di
persone. Quel governo dell'Europa non esce da nessun’elezione popolare
né è nominato da nessun Parlamento. Non esiste nessun meccanismo per il
suo controllo democratico.
Il Parlamento Europeo, unico organismo di elezione popolare, non ha
potestà per proporre e decidere il presidente della Commissione. Il
Parlamento Europeo conta poco, la cittadinanza è relegata da ogni
processo di dibattito e decisione ed i popolo non appaiono nemmeno
nella Costituzione Europea. Il Parlamento Europeo è, cosa fondamentale,
solo un organismo da consultare o informare, non è un’istituzione con
capacità di decisione.
Vogliamo un’Europa dei popoli.
Cioè, un’Europa nella quale i paesi storicamente costituiti possano
esercitare pienamente la loro sovranità, compreso il diritto di
autodeterminazione.
Vogliamo una Europa democratica, cioè, dotata di meccanismi di
partecipazione e decisione popolare che garantiscano che i suoi popoli
ed individui abbiano il potere reale.
Vogliamo un’Europa articolata come una confederazione di stati sovrani,
senza tutoraggio.
Vogliamo un’Europa nella quale le competenze di qualunque Stato membro
servano per generalizzare ed estendere i diritti a tutta la
cittadinanza e non solo per garantire la sicurezza dei capitalisti.
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa del capitalismo neoliberale
Art. 3: l'Unione offrirà ai suoi cittadini un mercato unico in cui la
competenza sia libera... in un'economia sociale di mercato altamente
competitiva.
Art. 30: la Banca Centrale Europea sarà indipendente nell'esercizio
delle sue competenze e nella gestione delle sue finanze. Le
istituzioni, organi ed organismi dell'Unione ed i governi degli Stati
membri rispetteranno quest’indipendenza".
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa del capitalismo neoliberale, basata
sulla dittatura economica del mercato. Perciò, stabilisce la
competitività come mandato costituzionale. Per la vita quotidiana dei
lavoratori, che cosa significa la competitività? Contratti eventuali,
aumento della giornata lavorativa, diminuzione dei salari,
licenziamento libero, disoccupazione, graduale eliminazione dei diritti
di disoccupazione, persecuzione dell'attività sindacale onesta,
delocalizzazione di aziende, ricatto imprenditoriale, confronto e
disunione tra settori della classe operaia.
Per gli impresari, la competitività significa pagare sempre meno
imposte, riduzione di quote alla previdenza sociale, mani libere per
licenziare, intensificare lo sfruttamento della classe operaia, libertà
per portarsi le imprese dove più economica sia la manodopera; in
sintesi, aumento costante di benefici. Viene respinta ogni struttura
economica che non sia il capitalismo e viene dato tutto il potere
monetario alla Banca Centrale Europea.
Amiamo un’Europa aperta al superamento della barbarie capitalista, non
blindata contro il socialismo. Vale a dire, vogliamo un’Europa
d’uguaglianza, giustizia sociale, lavoro emancipato e libertà reali.
Vogliamo un’Europa dove i lavoratori siano i protagonisti della vita
politica e sociale, dove i suoi diritti siano prioritari di fronte ai
diritti dei possessori del capitale.
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa che tende ad eliminare la
protezione sociale pubblica
Art. II-74: Ogni persona ha diritto all'educazione. Questo diritto
include la facoltà di ricevere gratuitamente l'insegnamento
obbligatorio. Si rispetta la libertà di creazione di centri docenti.
Art. II-75: Ogni persona ha diritto a lavorare.
Art. II-94: L'Unione riconosce e rispetta il diritto d’accesso alle
prestazioni di previdenza sociale ed i servizi sociali.
Art. II-96: L'Unione riconosce e rispetta l'accesso ai servizi
d’interesse economico generale, come dispongono le legislazioni e
pratiche nazionali
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa che tende ad eliminare la
protezione sociale pubblica, orienta verso la privatizzazione di
sanità, educazione, pensioni ed altri servizi ora pubblici e che chiama
d’interesse economico generale.
Il diritto al lavoro che comporta il diritto all'assicurazione
d’occupazione degna, si trasforma nel diritto a lavorare che non
obbliga gli Stati a trovare impiego per tutte le persone in età e
condizioni di farlo.
L'UE, va contro le conquiste sociali, le quali hanno bisogno di un
forte settore pubblico per essere garantite. La privatizzazione che
consolida il progetto di Costituzione colloca una maggioranza di donne
davanti ad un futuro di disoccupazione o impiego-spazzatura data la sua
elevata percentuale nell'adempimento dei posti di lavoro in servizi
sociali, sanitari ed educativi.
Per la politica sociale, la direttiva marcata dalla Costituzione è che
ogni stato definisca la sua. Scommessa per la sovranità? No, scommessa
per il dumping sociale; cioè, diminuire la spesa pubblica in protezione
sociale per creare "vantaggio competitivo" che attragga l'investimento
di capitale ad un contesto preparato per l'ottenimento del massimo
beneficio e che non obblighi alla contribuzione sociale. Un altro
vantaggio per gli impresari sta nel fatto che legalizza la chiusura
padronale per pressare i lavoratori che esercitino il diritto di
sciopero.
Vogliamo un’Europa d’ampia protezione sociale pubblica, con precisi
diritti e servizi, che limitino l’abbrutimento "legge della giungla"
propria del capitalismo. Vogliamo un’Europa in cui la sanità,
l'insegnamento e le pensioni siano pubbliche, gratuite e di qualità,
garantite per tutta la cittadinanza.
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa imperialista, dotandola di una
dottrina militare aggressiva, interventista e che riprende la "guerra
preventiva"
Art. 3: nelle sue relazioni col resto del mondo, l'Unione affermerà e
promuoverà i suoi valori ed interessi.
Art. 41: la politica comune di sicurezza e difesa fa parte integrante
della politica estera e di sicurezza comune. Offrirà all'Unione una
capacità operativa basata su mezzi civili e militari. L'Unione potrà
ricorrere a detti mezzi in missioni dell'Unione... Rispetterà gli
obblighi derivati del Trattato dell’Alleanza Atlantica (NATO)
checontinuerà ad essere il fondamento della sua difesa collettiva... Si
creerà un’Agenzia nell'ambito dello sviluppo delle capacità di difesa,
d’investigazione, d’armamento... per rinforzare la base industriale e
tecnologica del settore della difesa".
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa imperialista, dotandola di una
dottrina militare aggressiva, interventista che include la "guerra
preventiva". La "politica comune di sicurezza e difesa" offrirà
capacità operativa per missioni dell'Unione Europea al fine di
"mantenere i valori dell'Unione e rispondere ai suoi interessi".
Perciò, la Costituzione sancisce la creazione dell'Agenzia Europea di
Difesa, la quale serva per lo stimolo di ricerca che permetta di
raggiungere una posizione d’avanguardia in tecnologie strategiche per
le future capacità di difesa e sicurezza", creare un potere militare
che uguagli e superi quello degli USA. Dove dice "promuovere la pace"
vuole dire una pace armata fino ai denti per accentuare il saccheggio
delle ricchezze d’altri paesi con cui mantenere il benessere dei paesi
dell'Unione. Niente disarmo, solo più "superarmo". Niente scambio equo
tra paesi, ma saccheggio mediante la violenza imperialista.
Vogliamo un’Europa di paesi coscientemente internazionalisti,
antimperialisti, rispettosi dei diritti d’altri paesi.
Vogliamo un’Europa attivamente impegnata per la pace, il disarmo e la
cooperazione, senza blocchi militari.
Vogliamo la dissoluzione della NATO e la progressiva smilitarizzazione
di tutto il pianeta.
Vogliamo che tutte le fabbriche d’armamento si riconvertano
progressivamente in industrie civili che aiutino ad incrementare la
qualità della vita dei popoli.
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa autoritaria, poliziesca, blindata
Art. 5: l'Unione rispetterà le funzioni essenziali dello Stato, quelle
che hanno per oggetto garantire l'integrità territoriale dello Stato,
mantenere l'ordine pubblico e salvaguardare la sicurezza interna.
Art. 41: se uno Stato membro fosse oggetto di un attacco armato nel suo
territorio, gli altri Stati partecipanti gli dovranno a tutti i costi
aiuto ed assistenza... al fine di difendere i valori e favorire gli
interessi dell'Unione.
Art. 42: l'Unione costituirà uno spazio di libertà, sicurezza e
giustizia mediante l'adozione di leggi... riconoscimento mutuo delle
risoluzioni giudiziali ed extragiudiziali... mediante la cooperazione
operativa.
Art. 43: l'Unione e gli Stati membri agiranno in uno spirito di
solidarietà... con tutti gli strumenti che dispongono, compresi i mezzi
militari, per prevenire la minaccia terroristica nel territorio degli
Stati membri... o per proteggere le istituzioni democratiche".
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa autoritaria, poliziesca, blindata
contro le trasformazioni vantaggiose per le grandi maggioranze,
stabilendo lo spazio poliziesco e giudiziale unico e la "clausola di
solidarietà", meccanismi che autorizzano l'intervento dell'Unione su
questioni interne d’ogni paese e la repressione coordinata d’ogni
dissidenza, il caso di Genova, dove assassinarono un giovane, è un
esempio del modello poliziesco che stanno imponendo. L'avviamento per
un paese di cambiamenti politici e sociali profondi sarà trattato come
una minaccia terroristica. La sovranità popolare è ridotta a zero. Il
diritto d’autodeterminazione rimane fuori dalla massima istanza legale
dell'Unione Europea.
Vogliamo un’Europa di libertà e diritti umani, con piene garanzie di
fronte all'impunità poliziesca e giudiziale.
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa di cultura sociale imperialista
Preambolo: L'Europa ora riunita proseguirà su questo strada di civiltà,
progresso e prosperità.
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa di cultura sociale imperialista,
rivendicata dalla sua introduzione affermando che proseguirà le sue
tradizioni. Europee sono state le principali potenze spoliatrici del
pianeta mediante il colonialismo, lo schiavitù, il neocolonialismo, le
migrazioni forzate, la distruzione di culture autoctone e lo scambio
disuguale, eseguito tutto ciò con una violenza solo uguagliata dagli
altri imperialismi (USA, Giappone,). I valori che coltiva la
Costituzione sono quelli dell'individualismo neoliberale espressi nella
formula "si riconosce e rispetta il diritto a" invece di garantire il
suo esercizio dall'azione istituzionale. Coltiva i valori della
spoliazione violenta delle ricchezze d’altri paesi difendendo la
prerogativa d’intervento militare delle frontiere dell'UE. Coltiva
valori di discriminazione e razzismo non riconoscendo cittadinanza agli
immigrati.
Vogliamo un’Europa laica di valori umanisti fortificati mediante
l'unione delle sue diverse identità popolari con la creazione culturale
universalista.
Vogliamo un’Europa aperta che concepisca il pianeta come patrimonio di
tutta l'umanità, capendo come il flusso di abitanti da un posto
all’altro sia un diritto senza restrizioni.
Tutti i diritti per tutte le persone immigrate.
Siamo Contro La Costituzione Europea
Come ogni Costituzione, anche quella europeacontiene molti comma non
criticabili, perché esprime concetti ed aspirazioni ottenuti nelle
innumerevoli lotte popolari dei decenni anteriori. Anche la
Costituzione Spagnola del 1978 stabilisce importanti diritti del
popolo, ma che divengono lettera morta per effetto della monarchia,
dell'economia di mercato (capitalismo) e della negazione del diritto
d’autodeterminazione.
La Costituzione Europea ha similitudini con quella spagnola: è
elaborata da un gruppo di "notabili" sottraendola al dibattito sociale,
ha molti punti che resteranno lettera morta e i suoi principi - forza
sono completamente contrari agli interessi dei popoli, delle grandi
maggioranze.
L'Europa dei popoli, di lavoratori, è incompatibile con questa
Costituzione che indebolisce la democrazia, la protezione sociale,
l’occupazione, i servizi sociali e la laicità.
È necessario articolare un ampio "no" a questa Costituzione, che
impedisca al capitale e ai i suoi prestanome di imporci i suoi principi
camuffati in mezzo a quello che sarà lettera morta.
Il Partito Comunista dei Popoli della Spagna (PCPE) partecipa con
decisione a tutte le piattaforme unitarie di tutti i livelli che
lavorano con criteri progressisti per il rifiuto della Costituzione
Europea.
dell’Unione Europea
Siamo contro la Costituzione Europea.
Nel referendum che si svolgerà in Spagna nel febbraio del 2005, il PCPE
invita il popolo spagnolo a votare NO.
Un progetto di gestazione antidemocratico
Il progetto di Costituzione Europea si è sviluppato in modo
antidemocratico, è stato elaborato da una commissione di 105 notabili
non scelti dai paesi coinvolti, esercitando la potestà costituente
senza mandato popolare e senza che ci fosse un ampio dibattito sociale
sull'opportunità e necessità di tale Costituzione, ma ciò che è più
grave è il suo articolo 6 che dice: "La Costituzione ed il diritto
adottati dall’Unione prevarranno sul diritto degli Stati membri."
Un ridotto e scelto gruppo di rappresentanti delle grandi imprese
multinazionali impongono a 400 milioni di persone un codice legale che
potrà difficilmente essere riformato, perché lo stesso codice
stabilisce che per farlo è necessario il consenso unanime degli Stati
membri, l’unanimità quindi, mai ottenuta da misure progressiste.
Il Trattato di Costituzione dell'Unione Europea è un pezzo chiave nella
coesione del blocco imperialista europeo. Avanza nella configurazione
delle sue istituzioni politiche decisionali, di carattere non
rappresentativo e non partecipativo, e della sua strutturazione
economica, il principio intoccabile della proprietà privata e della
competitività, dell’assemblaggio d’apparati polizieschi e giudiziari
(esperti nell'implacabile repressione d’ogni dissidenza reale), di un
esercito centralizzato autonomo, influenzato dalla dottrina di guerra
preventiva lì dove il capitale lo richieda, e di un conglomerato di
servizi sociali diretto dalla logica neoliberale.
CHE COSA DICE LA COSTITUZIONE?
CHE COSA CONSOLIDA L’EUROPA?
CHE COSA VOGLIAMO IN EUROPA?
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa dell'oligarchia
Art. 26: la Commissione Europea eserciterà le sue responsabilità con
piena indipendenza. I Commissari europei non solleciteranno né
accetteranno istruzioni di nessun governo, istituzione, organo od
organismo.
Gli atti legislativi dell'Unione Europea potranno solo adottarsi su
proposta della Commissione.
Art. 5: gli Stati membri aiuteranno l'Unione nel compimento della sua
missione e si asterranno da ogni misura che possa mettere in pericolo
la realizzazione degli obiettivi dell'Unione.
Art. 16: la competenza dell'Unione in materia di politica estera e di
sicurezza comune abbraccerà tutti gli ambiti e tutte le questioni...
compresa la definizione progressiva di una politica comune di difesa.
Gli Stati membri appoggeranno attivamente e senza riserve la
politica... Si asterranno da ogni azione contraria.
Art. 40: Si consulterà il Parlamento Europeo su politica estera e di
sicurezza comune, e sarà mantenuto informato".
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa dell'oligarchia, sottomessa agli
interessi delle grandi imprese multinazionali. Perciò, stabilisce un
modello di unione simile alla federazione di stati, modello col quale i
paesi cedono gran parte della sovranità agli organismi dell'Unione
Europea. Così, un piccolo gruppo di commissari, la cosiddetta
Commissione Europea, decidono quasi tutto per circa 400 milioni di
persone. Quel governo dell'Europa non esce da nessun’elezione popolare
né è nominato da nessun Parlamento. Non esiste nessun meccanismo per il
suo controllo democratico.
Il Parlamento Europeo, unico organismo di elezione popolare, non ha
potestà per proporre e decidere il presidente della Commissione. Il
Parlamento Europeo conta poco, la cittadinanza è relegata da ogni
processo di dibattito e decisione ed i popolo non appaiono nemmeno
nella Costituzione Europea. Il Parlamento Europeo è, cosa fondamentale,
solo un organismo da consultare o informare, non è un’istituzione con
capacità di decisione.
Vogliamo un’Europa dei popoli.
Cioè, un’Europa nella quale i paesi storicamente costituiti possano
esercitare pienamente la loro sovranità, compreso il diritto di
autodeterminazione.
Vogliamo una Europa democratica, cioè, dotata di meccanismi di
partecipazione e decisione popolare che garantiscano che i suoi popoli
ed individui abbiano il potere reale.
Vogliamo un’Europa articolata come una confederazione di stati sovrani,
senza tutoraggio.
Vogliamo un’Europa nella quale le competenze di qualunque Stato membro
servano per generalizzare ed estendere i diritti a tutta la
cittadinanza e non solo per garantire la sicurezza dei capitalisti.
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa del capitalismo neoliberale
Art. 3: l'Unione offrirà ai suoi cittadini un mercato unico in cui la
competenza sia libera... in un'economia sociale di mercato altamente
competitiva.
Art. 30: la Banca Centrale Europea sarà indipendente nell'esercizio
delle sue competenze e nella gestione delle sue finanze. Le
istituzioni, organi ed organismi dell'Unione ed i governi degli Stati
membri rispetteranno quest’indipendenza".
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa del capitalismo neoliberale, basata
sulla dittatura economica del mercato. Perciò, stabilisce la
competitività come mandato costituzionale. Per la vita quotidiana dei
lavoratori, che cosa significa la competitività? Contratti eventuali,
aumento della giornata lavorativa, diminuzione dei salari,
licenziamento libero, disoccupazione, graduale eliminazione dei diritti
di disoccupazione, persecuzione dell'attività sindacale onesta,
delocalizzazione di aziende, ricatto imprenditoriale, confronto e
disunione tra settori della classe operaia.
Per gli impresari, la competitività significa pagare sempre meno
imposte, riduzione di quote alla previdenza sociale, mani libere per
licenziare, intensificare lo sfruttamento della classe operaia, libertà
per portarsi le imprese dove più economica sia la manodopera; in
sintesi, aumento costante di benefici. Viene respinta ogni struttura
economica che non sia il capitalismo e viene dato tutto il potere
monetario alla Banca Centrale Europea.
Amiamo un’Europa aperta al superamento della barbarie capitalista, non
blindata contro il socialismo. Vale a dire, vogliamo un’Europa
d’uguaglianza, giustizia sociale, lavoro emancipato e libertà reali.
Vogliamo un’Europa dove i lavoratori siano i protagonisti della vita
politica e sociale, dove i suoi diritti siano prioritari di fronte ai
diritti dei possessori del capitale.
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa che tende ad eliminare la
protezione sociale pubblica
Art. II-74: Ogni persona ha diritto all'educazione. Questo diritto
include la facoltà di ricevere gratuitamente l'insegnamento
obbligatorio. Si rispetta la libertà di creazione di centri docenti.
Art. II-75: Ogni persona ha diritto a lavorare.
Art. II-94: L'Unione riconosce e rispetta il diritto d’accesso alle
prestazioni di previdenza sociale ed i servizi sociali.
Art. II-96: L'Unione riconosce e rispetta l'accesso ai servizi
d’interesse economico generale, come dispongono le legislazioni e
pratiche nazionali
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa che tende ad eliminare la
protezione sociale pubblica, orienta verso la privatizzazione di
sanità, educazione, pensioni ed altri servizi ora pubblici e che chiama
d’interesse economico generale.
Il diritto al lavoro che comporta il diritto all'assicurazione
d’occupazione degna, si trasforma nel diritto a lavorare che non
obbliga gli Stati a trovare impiego per tutte le persone in età e
condizioni di farlo.
L'UE, va contro le conquiste sociali, le quali hanno bisogno di un
forte settore pubblico per essere garantite. La privatizzazione che
consolida il progetto di Costituzione colloca una maggioranza di donne
davanti ad un futuro di disoccupazione o impiego-spazzatura data la sua
elevata percentuale nell'adempimento dei posti di lavoro in servizi
sociali, sanitari ed educativi.
Per la politica sociale, la direttiva marcata dalla Costituzione è che
ogni stato definisca la sua. Scommessa per la sovranità? No, scommessa
per il dumping sociale; cioè, diminuire la spesa pubblica in protezione
sociale per creare "vantaggio competitivo" che attragga l'investimento
di capitale ad un contesto preparato per l'ottenimento del massimo
beneficio e che non obblighi alla contribuzione sociale. Un altro
vantaggio per gli impresari sta nel fatto che legalizza la chiusura
padronale per pressare i lavoratori che esercitino il diritto di
sciopero.
Vogliamo un’Europa d’ampia protezione sociale pubblica, con precisi
diritti e servizi, che limitino l’abbrutimento "legge della giungla"
propria del capitalismo. Vogliamo un’Europa in cui la sanità,
l'insegnamento e le pensioni siano pubbliche, gratuite e di qualità,
garantite per tutta la cittadinanza.
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa imperialista, dotandola di una
dottrina militare aggressiva, interventista e che riprende la "guerra
preventiva"
Art. 3: nelle sue relazioni col resto del mondo, l'Unione affermerà e
promuoverà i suoi valori ed interessi.
Art. 41: la politica comune di sicurezza e difesa fa parte integrante
della politica estera e di sicurezza comune. Offrirà all'Unione una
capacità operativa basata su mezzi civili e militari. L'Unione potrà
ricorrere a detti mezzi in missioni dell'Unione... Rispetterà gli
obblighi derivati del Trattato dell’Alleanza Atlantica (NATO)
checontinuerà ad essere il fondamento della sua difesa collettiva... Si
creerà un’Agenzia nell'ambito dello sviluppo delle capacità di difesa,
d’investigazione, d’armamento... per rinforzare la base industriale e
tecnologica del settore della difesa".
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa imperialista, dotandola di una
dottrina militare aggressiva, interventista che include la "guerra
preventiva". La "politica comune di sicurezza e difesa" offrirà
capacità operativa per missioni dell'Unione Europea al fine di
"mantenere i valori dell'Unione e rispondere ai suoi interessi".
Perciò, la Costituzione sancisce la creazione dell'Agenzia Europea di
Difesa, la quale serva per lo stimolo di ricerca che permetta di
raggiungere una posizione d’avanguardia in tecnologie strategiche per
le future capacità di difesa e sicurezza", creare un potere militare
che uguagli e superi quello degli USA. Dove dice "promuovere la pace"
vuole dire una pace armata fino ai denti per accentuare il saccheggio
delle ricchezze d’altri paesi con cui mantenere il benessere dei paesi
dell'Unione. Niente disarmo, solo più "superarmo". Niente scambio equo
tra paesi, ma saccheggio mediante la violenza imperialista.
Vogliamo un’Europa di paesi coscientemente internazionalisti,
antimperialisti, rispettosi dei diritti d’altri paesi.
Vogliamo un’Europa attivamente impegnata per la pace, il disarmo e la
cooperazione, senza blocchi militari.
Vogliamo la dissoluzione della NATO e la progressiva smilitarizzazione
di tutto il pianeta.
Vogliamo che tutte le fabbriche d’armamento si riconvertano
progressivamente in industrie civili che aiutino ad incrementare la
qualità della vita dei popoli.
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa autoritaria, poliziesca, blindata
Art. 5: l'Unione rispetterà le funzioni essenziali dello Stato, quelle
che hanno per oggetto garantire l'integrità territoriale dello Stato,
mantenere l'ordine pubblico e salvaguardare la sicurezza interna.
Art. 41: se uno Stato membro fosse oggetto di un attacco armato nel suo
territorio, gli altri Stati partecipanti gli dovranno a tutti i costi
aiuto ed assistenza... al fine di difendere i valori e favorire gli
interessi dell'Unione.
Art. 42: l'Unione costituirà uno spazio di libertà, sicurezza e
giustizia mediante l'adozione di leggi... riconoscimento mutuo delle
risoluzioni giudiziali ed extragiudiziali... mediante la cooperazione
operativa.
Art. 43: l'Unione e gli Stati membri agiranno in uno spirito di
solidarietà... con tutti gli strumenti che dispongono, compresi i mezzi
militari, per prevenire la minaccia terroristica nel territorio degli
Stati membri... o per proteggere le istituzioni democratiche".
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa autoritaria, poliziesca, blindata
contro le trasformazioni vantaggiose per le grandi maggioranze,
stabilendo lo spazio poliziesco e giudiziale unico e la "clausola di
solidarietà", meccanismi che autorizzano l'intervento dell'Unione su
questioni interne d’ogni paese e la repressione coordinata d’ogni
dissidenza, il caso di Genova, dove assassinarono un giovane, è un
esempio del modello poliziesco che stanno imponendo. L'avviamento per
un paese di cambiamenti politici e sociali profondi sarà trattato come
una minaccia terroristica. La sovranità popolare è ridotta a zero. Il
diritto d’autodeterminazione rimane fuori dalla massima istanza legale
dell'Unione Europea.
Vogliamo un’Europa di libertà e diritti umani, con piene garanzie di
fronte all'impunità poliziesca e giudiziale.
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa di cultura sociale imperialista
Preambolo: L'Europa ora riunita proseguirà su questo strada di civiltà,
progresso e prosperità.
La Costituzione consolida un’Europa di cultura sociale imperialista,
rivendicata dalla sua introduzione affermando che proseguirà le sue
tradizioni. Europee sono state le principali potenze spoliatrici del
pianeta mediante il colonialismo, lo schiavitù, il neocolonialismo, le
migrazioni forzate, la distruzione di culture autoctone e lo scambio
disuguale, eseguito tutto ciò con una violenza solo uguagliata dagli
altri imperialismi (USA, Giappone,). I valori che coltiva la
Costituzione sono quelli dell'individualismo neoliberale espressi nella
formula "si riconosce e rispetta il diritto a" invece di garantire il
suo esercizio dall'azione istituzionale. Coltiva i valori della
spoliazione violenta delle ricchezze d’altri paesi difendendo la
prerogativa d’intervento militare delle frontiere dell'UE. Coltiva
valori di discriminazione e razzismo non riconoscendo cittadinanza agli
immigrati.
Vogliamo un’Europa laica di valori umanisti fortificati mediante
l'unione delle sue diverse identità popolari con la creazione culturale
universalista.
Vogliamo un’Europa aperta che concepisca il pianeta come patrimonio di
tutta l'umanità, capendo come il flusso di abitanti da un posto
all’altro sia un diritto senza restrizioni.
Tutti i diritti per tutte le persone immigrate.
Siamo Contro La Costituzione Europea
Come ogni Costituzione, anche quella europeacontiene molti comma non
criticabili, perché esprime concetti ed aspirazioni ottenuti nelle
innumerevoli lotte popolari dei decenni anteriori. Anche la
Costituzione Spagnola del 1978 stabilisce importanti diritti del
popolo, ma che divengono lettera morta per effetto della monarchia,
dell'economia di mercato (capitalismo) e della negazione del diritto
d’autodeterminazione.
La Costituzione Europea ha similitudini con quella spagnola: è
elaborata da un gruppo di "notabili" sottraendola al dibattito sociale,
ha molti punti che resteranno lettera morta e i suoi principi - forza
sono completamente contrari agli interessi dei popoli, delle grandi
maggioranze.
L'Europa dei popoli, di lavoratori, è incompatibile con questa
Costituzione che indebolisce la democrazia, la protezione sociale,
l’occupazione, i servizi sociali e la laicità.
È necessario articolare un ampio "no" a questa Costituzione, che
impedisca al capitale e ai i suoi prestanome di imporci i suoi principi
camuffati in mezzo a quello che sarà lettera morta.
Il Partito Comunista dei Popoli della Spagna (PCPE) partecipa con
decisione a tutte le piattaforme unitarie di tutti i livelli che
lavorano con criteri progressisti per il rifiuto della Costituzione
Europea.
