Dobro dosli na J U G O I N F O !


JUGOINFO e' il bollettino sulla Jugoslavia ed i Balcani curato dal
COORDINAMENTO NAZIONALE PER LA JUGOSLAVIA - https://www.cnj.it
(vedi archivio: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/)

Con piu' di 400 iscritti, il notiziario JUGOINFO rappresenta una
delle voci piu' riconosciute della informazione sulle questioni
internazionali da una prospettiva antimperialista nel panorama
italiano: una voce autogestita, effettivamente autonoma da
logiche istituzionali e "jugo-liquidazioniste" di qualsiasi tipo.
La nostra attivita' di informazione via internet continua
ininterrottamente (seppur con diverse denominazioni) dal 1997.
Essa puo' continuare solo con il vostro sostegno.
SOTTOSCRIVETE per JUGOINFO e per le altre attivita' del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia usando il:
Conto Bancoposta n. 47595665
intestato ad Anita Krstic, Milano.
Causale: sostegno per Jugoinfo

Per contattarci: j u g o c o o r d @ t i s c a l i . i t


JUGOINFO is the bulletin on Yugoslavia and the Balkans edited by the
ITALIJANSKA KOORDINACIJA ZA JUGOSLAVIJU - https://www.cnj.it
(see archive: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/)

With more than 400 subscribers, the newsletter JUGOINFO is one
of the most appreciated voices of information on international
issues from an anti-imperialistic perspective on the Italian scene:
ours is a self-managed activity, really independent from
institutional and "jugo-liquidationist" logics of any kind.
Our effort to keep you informed through the net is continuing
without interruption (even if under different denominations)
since 1997. This has a chance to go on only if you support us.
MAKE A DONATION for JUGOINFO and the other activities of the
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia by contributing to:
Conto Bancoposta n. 47595665
intestato ad Anita Krstic, Milano.
Causale: sostegno per Jugoinfo

For any contacts: j u g o c o o r d @ t i s c a l i . i t


GRAZIE / HVALA / THANKS

[ In Germania, la Fondazione Friedrich Naumann sta collaborando
strettamente con un cosiddetto "governo tibetano in esilio", per
ristabilire l'antico rapporto cultural-geopolitico instaurato dal
nazionalsocialismo (all'epoca, in funzione essenzialmente
antibritannica) con i monaci-guerrieri. Tra i personaggi che hanno
mantenuto vivo il legame tra le due "aristocrazie spirituali", tedesca
e tibetana, annoveriamo ad esempio l'ex SS-Obersturmbannführer Bruno
Beger, che ancora negli anni Settanta era ospite d'onore del Dalai Lama.
La suddetta Fondazione, che e' vicina ai liberali (FDP), prende il nome
dal teorico della "Mitteleuropa": una Europa costituita cioè da una
Grande Germania circondata da piccoli e deboli Stati "trabant". Tra
questi ultimi Naumann non annoverava la Serbia, poichè "la Serbia, come
fortezza intralciante in quest'area deve essere cancellata dalla
cartina geografica" (citazione dal libro "Mitteleuropa", di F. Naumann).

Sulla problematica del Tibet - cioè delle attività eversive sostenute
in Occidente per squartare la Cina in "gabbie etniche" - si veda anche:
Chi è il Dalai Lama?
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3153
Cosa ha a che fare la CIA con il Dalai Lama? / Il mito del Tibet /
Menzogne americane sul Tibet e sul Dalai Lama / Dalai Lama a 'Nazi Dupe
Who Succumbed to Hitler' / Dalai Lama: "Violence needed to fight terror"
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2972
George Soros: Mago imperiale e agente doppio
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3438
Mappa della ex-Cina, nei sogni di Pannella
http://www.radicalparty.org/uighur/mappafinale.gif ]

http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1099180871.php

31.10.2004

Die Tibetfrage

POTSDAM (Eigener Bericht) - Die FDP-nahe Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung
(FNSt) und die tibetische Exilregierung werden ihre Zusammenarbeit in
der ,,Tibetfrage" intensivieren. Dies ist das Ergebnis von Gesprächen,
die der ,,Ministerpräsident" der Exilregierung, Samdhong Rinpoche, am
vergangenen Dienstag mit mehreren FNSt-Vorstandsmitgliedern führte. Die
FNSt verfügt über langjährige exklusive Sonderbeziehungen zu
tibetischen Exilkreisen, die sie für Positionsgewinne Berlins im
Machtkampf mit dem künftigen Weltmachtkonkurrenten China nutzt. Tibet
war bereits während der NS-Ostexpansion Gegenstand deutscher
Zentralasien-Strategien und galt damals als möglicher Bündnispartner
gegen Großbritannien.


Wie die FNSt mitteilt, hat ,,Ministerpräsident" Rinpoche mehrere
FNSt-Vorstandsmitglieder, darunter den ehemaligen
Bundeswirtschaftsminister Otto Graf Lambsdorff und die ehemalige
Staatsministerin im Auswärtigen Amt Irmgard Schwaetzer, über den
Fortgang der Verhandlungen zwischen der tibetischen Exilregierung und
der Volksrepublik China informiert.1) Lambsdorff und Rinpoche sprachen
sich gegen eine militärische Stärkung Beijings aus und plädierten für
eine Beibehaltung des EU-Waffenembargos gegenüber China. Auch solle der
deutsche Druck auf die chinesische Regierung (,,Menschenrechte")
aufrecht erhalten werden, hieß es.2) Lambsdorff und Rinpoche
vereinbarten, ihre Zusammenarbeit ,,zur besseren politischen
Kommunikation der Tibetfrage" zu intensivieren.

Weltmachtkonkurrenten

Die Aufhebung des EU-Waffenembargos gegen China hat der Deutsche
Bundestag jetzt im Anschluss an eine Initiative der FDP von der
Erfüllung mehrerer Bedingungen abhängig gemacht. Bundeskanzler Schröder
hatte sich kürzlich bereit erklärt, das Embargo zu annullieren und
damit eine Rüstungskooperation mit Beijing in Gang zu setzen, die als
Bündnisoption gegen die USA verstanden worden war.3) Dies gilt als
riskant, zumal die Volksrepublik China selbst als künftiger
Weltmachtkonkurrent eingeschätzt wird. Vor einer Aufhebung des Embargos
müsse Beijing u.a. angebliche Autonomierechte ethnischer Minderheiten4)
anerkennen, beschloss nun der Deutsche Bundestag.

Bündnispartner

Die FDP-Initiative basiert auf langjähriger Einflussarbeit in Tibet,
die vor allem über die parteinahe FNSt abgewickelt wird.5) Die FNSt
organisierte gemeinsam mit der tibetischen Exilregierung mehrere
Internationale Tibet-Konferenzen, die als Plattform für einige hundert
Tibet Support Groups weltweit gelten. Die zweite derartige Konferenz,
die die FNSt im Juni 1996 in Bonn veranstaltete - Hauptredner waren
damals Lambsdorff und Schwaetzer -, führte zu diplomatischen
Komplikationen, in deren Folge die chinesische Regierung die Schließung
des Stiftungsbüros in Beijing verfügte. Die FNSt ,,berät" das
tibetische Exilparlament seit 1991 ,,in allen Fragen der politischen
Bildung".6) Am 10. März 2004 - dem 45. Jahrestag eines antichinesischen
Aufstands in Tibet - hisste sie vor ihrer Geschäftsstelle die
tibetische ,,Nationalflagge". Sollte es zu einer umfassenden
Autonomieregelung für Tibet kommen, erhielte Berlin über die
tibetischen Bündnispartner der FNSt neuen Einfluss in Zentralasien.

Kriegswichtig

Tibet geriet bereits Ende der 1930er und Anfang der 1940er Jahre ins
Visier deutscher Expansionsbestrebungen.7) Im Zuge der Vorbereitung der
militärischen deutschen Ostexpansion organisierte die SS 1938 eine
Tibet-Expedition, die neben völkisch-rassistischen Experimenten auch
militärstrategische Erkundungen zum Ziel hatte. Insbesondere widmete
sie sich der Suche nach zentralasiatischen Bündnispartnern gegen
Großbritannien.8) Zu den Expeditionsteilnehmern gehörte der
SS-Obersturmbannführer Bruno Beger, der in Tibet Schädelvermessungen
vornahm, während des Zweiten Weltkriegs an Plänen für ein ,,Museum der
Untermenschen" in Straßburg arbeitete und dafür sowjetische
Kriegsgefangene töten ließ. SS-Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler erklärte
auf dem Höhepunkt der deutschen Ostexpansion die ,,Tibet- und gesamte
Asienforschung" zur ,,kriegswichtigen Zweckforschung".

Beständig

Die personellen Kontakte ehemaliger SS-Männer zu führenden
Persönlichkeiten Tibets sind auch nach 1945 nie abgerissen. Beger, der
1971 wegen während der NS-Zeit begangenen 86fachen gemeinschaftlichen
Mordes zu einer dreijährigen Gefängnisstrafe verurteilt wurde, trat
noch 1994 als offizieller Gast des tibetischen Exilpotentaten Dalai
Lama auf. Zu dessen Lehrern und Beratern gehörte in den späten 1940er
und frühen 1950er Jahren der aus britischer Gefangenschaft in Indien
geflohene frühere SS-Mann Heinrich Harrer. Harrer, dessen
autobiographischer Tibet-Bericht (,,7 Jahre in Tibet") in Deutschland
in Massenauflagen verbreitet wurde, gilt bis in die Gegenwart als enger
Freund des Dalai Lama.

1) Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit darf nicht zu einer Ignorierung der
Menschenrechte führen; www.fnst.org
2) s. auch Deutsche ,,Elite"
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1063669099.php%5d
3) s. dazu Strategische Manöver
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1079742081.php%5d
und Waffenbrüder
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1079220589.php%5d
sowie Hintergrundbericht: Strategische Partnerschaft und Eindämmung
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1073257200.php%5d
4) s. dazu Deutschland unterstützt Separatismus in Westchina
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1020117600.php%5d
und ,,Internationalisierung Tschetscheniens"
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1035496800.php%5d
sowie Hauptsitz
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1082240457.php%5d
5) s. auch ,,Wirksamste Instrumente der deutschen Außenpolitik"
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1046732400.php%5d
6) Buchbesprechung: ,,Tibet im Exil"; www.fnst.org
7) Colin Goldner: Dalai Lama - Fall eines Gottkönigs, Aschaffenburg 1999
8) s. auch Traditionen
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1097017968.php%5d
und Traditionen (II)
[http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/de/news/article/1097100886.php%5d


Informationen zur Deutschen Außenpolitik
© www.german-foreign-policy.com

E' USCITO L'ULTIMO VIDEO DI OSAMA


Dopo molti mesi di assenza dagli schermi, e' stato finalmente lanciato
l'ultimo proclama di Osama Bin Laden. La sua casa produttrice (C.I.A.)
sottolinea la strabiliante autenticita' del documento, messo in
circolazione proprio a pochissimi giorni dalle elezioni presidenziali
USA, nell'ambito di una attenta campagna promozionale. (I. Slavo)

(english)

Ashdown Forces Srebrenica Statement


1. Ashdown Forces Srebrenica Statement on Bosnian Serb President Under
Threat to Destroy Bosnian Serb State

(Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily - Volume XXII, No. 168 - Wednesday,
October 20, 2004)

2. Srebrenica case: US Official Implicated With Bosnian High
Representative Ashdown in Attempting to Force Fabricated Report on
Srebrenica

(Gregory R. Copley, International Strategic Studies Association,
September 8, 2003)

3. THE FIRST DETAILED REPORT ON SREBRENICA TO REACH THE PUBLIC

(an Introduction by R.K. Kent, Historian)


=== 1 ===

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/dfad102004.htm

SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC.ORG, Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Ashdown Forces Srebrenica Statement on Bosnian Serb President Under
Threat to Destroy Bosnian Serb State

Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily - Volume XXII, No. 168 - Wednesday,
October 20, 2004

From GIS Station, Sarajevo.

Sources within the Office of the High Representative for
Bosnia-Herzegovina (OHR) have indicated that despite the fact that
President Dragan Cavic of Republic Srpska made a statement — under
duress from OHR Paddy Ashdown — on October 15, 2004, “admitting” to
alleged Serbian atrocities against Bosnian Muslims in 1995 at
Srebrenica, it was likely that Ashdown would attempt to dismiss Pres.
Cavic as soon as possible, and conceivably before the end of 2004.

Significantly, Ashdown has chosen his timing to coincide with the US
election hiatus, which sees the US Congress not sitting until early
2005, and then with a partially new membership. Ashdown has apparently
made his move in order to stop any possible outcry from US Congressmen
who have become increasingly angered at Ashdown’s arbitrary rule in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and his plans to end any place in the state for
Bosnian Serbs, who once owned two-thirds of the lands there.

Ashdown has seen it as a mission not to implement the 1995 Dayton
Accords — for which his post was created by the international community
— but rather to transform Bosnia & Herzegovina into a unitary state,
ending the Dayton-stipulated format of two substates within a
federation. Essentially, Ashdown, according to the sources, intends to
see Republica Srpska “disappear”, which would complete the handover of
Bosnia-Herzegovina to the Bosnian Muslims, effectively “ethnically
cleansing” the Bosnian Serbs from the state.

Significantly, Republica Srpska is the only part of Bosnia-Herzegovina
where the rule of law applies, and where there is productivity, ethnic
and religious tolerance.

Ashdown, however, has had a strong history of anti-Serb behavior.

A report in Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily of September 8, 2003,
entitled US Official Implicated With Bosnian High Representative
Ashdown in Attempting to Force Fabricated Report on Srebrenica, spelled
out explicitly how Ashdown, aided by Deputy HR Amb. Donald Hays of the
US, intended to force a fictional account a narrow section of the
Srebrenica fighting during the Bosnia-Herzegovina civil war on to the
Bosnian Serb (Republica Srpska) Government, effectively then giving
Ashdown the tool to dismiss the democratically-elected Government and
President of Republica Srpska.

Under the Dayton Accords, the High Representative can dismiss any
elected or appointed official without contest, and without necessarily
stipulating a reason, or having to prove cause.

The September 8, 2003, report noted:

Very reliable sources within the Office of the High Representative in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other sources in Sarajevo, have told
GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily that a seconded US official, Amb.
Donald S. Hays, the Deputy High Representative for Bosnia and
Herzegovina, has been actively engaged in attempts to force a
fabricated report to be published on the controversial wartime fighting
at the city of Srebrenica.

Amb. Hays, presumably at the insistence of High Representative Paddy
Ashdown, the former British politician, has demanded the publication of
a so-called “final report” on an alleged mass-killing of Bosnian
Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995, during the Bosnian civil war, by the
Government of Republica Srpska, the predominantly Serbian province of
Bosnia-Herzegovina. In essence, Amb. Hays and Lord Ashdown are
attempting to force the Government of Republica Srpska (RS) to admit
that Serbs were responsible for killing thousands of Muslims at
Srebrenica.

On October 15, 2004, Republica Srpska Pres. Cavic issued a statement —
known to be totally against his personal knowledge and convictions on
the Srebrenica affair, and totally at odds with the forensic research
by several European governments and international forensic experts —
which said that Bosnian Serbs had proven their political maturity by
admitting for the first time that their forces slaughtered more than
7,000 Muslims in the 1995 “Srebrenica massacre”. Pres. Cavic told
Republica Srpska’s SRNA news agency the report was “proof” of the
Serbs’ “political maturity to face up to the bad things in the wartime
past”.

Pres. Cavic was known to have been told that he would be removed from
office by HR Ashdown if he refused to accept the “findings” of the
so-called Commission on Srebrenica which had been sponsored by Ashdown,
and dominated by his appointee, the head of the Muslim dominated
Commission on Missing Persons. The firing of almost 60 elected and
appointed Republica Srpska Government officials on June 30-July 1,
2004, while leaving Pres. Cavic in place, obviously reinforced the fact
that they would not be able to speak the truth about Srebrenica or any
other issue that clashed with the view of the OHR and still remain in
their jobs.

See Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, July 1, 2004, Ashdown, as
Predicted, Launches First Stage of Move to Destroy Republica Srpska
State.

Meanwhile, an independent commission has been gathering primary
evidence on what occurred in Srebrenica, including the extensive
fighting around the city in the two years preceding the 1995 incident,
and, according to one source inside that investigations “which
painstakingly exposes the highly inflated numbers and false context of
the official Srebrenica story”.

NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR) intelligence officers in Bosnia
complained to Ashdown following the June-July 2004 purge that he had
summarily dismissed people within the Republica Srpska Government who
were vital to an understanding not just of any war crimes committed in
the civil war, but to the massive influx of Islamist terrorist fighters
and supporters during the 1990s and continuing until today. As a
result, Ashdown had to reverse one of the dismissals — which had been
undertaken very publicly — and offer to reinstate the official
concerned under a new job title, to avoid embarrassment to the OHR. The
official refused to be reinstated and, as a result, considerable damage
was done by Ashdown’s actions to the Western counter-terrorism
capability.

The July 1, 2004, Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily report noted: “The
international High Representative for Bosnia-Herzegovina, Paddy
Ashdown, took steps on June 30, 2004, and July 1, 2004, to “punish” the
Bosnian Serb community, as exclusively predicted by GIS/Defense &
Foreign Affairs Daily. His move represents the first stage of an
anticipated attempt to totally overturn the internationally-agreed 1995
Dayton Accords by destroying the Bosnian Serb state, Republica Srpska,
placing power in the hands of the Bosnian Muslim leadership which has,
since the early 1990s worked closely with al-Qaida leader Osama bin
Laden.”

A few days before that report, on June 28, 2004, Defense & Foreign
Affairs Daily, in a report entitled Ashdown Expected to Escalate
Attacks on Bosnian Serbs, noted:

Sources within the “Office of the High Representative” — the
internationally-imposed leadership of Bosnia-Herzegovina — in Sarajevo
told GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs that they expected “High
Representative” Paddy Ashdown to use the Serbian historic day of June
28, 2004, which commemorates the Battle of Kosovo in 1389, as a
symbolic day to impose “more punishment” on the Bosnian Serb community.

Ashdown was reportedly extremely unhappy that NATO representatives had
essentially forced him, earlier in June 2004, to reverse the dismissal
of the Bosnian Serb official in charge of investigating war crimes, on
the basis that the investigations had already led NATO
counter-terrorism officials to major successes in their attempts to
suppress Bosnian-based Islamist terrorists. Ashdown has traditionally
maintained close ties with the Muslim community, even when he was
leader of the British Liberal Party, before he was forced from that
post. Subsequently, however, these links led him into close support for
the radical Islamists of the Bosnian SDA Party of terrorist leader
Alija Izetbegovic, who was, until his death, a major supporter and ally
of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

As a result, the success of the Bosnian Serb state created in
Bosnia-Herzegovina as a result of the 1995 Dayton Accords, and the
consistent emergence of ties between the Bosnian Muslim leadership and
Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida organization (which drew heavily on Bosnian
assets for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States), has
highlighted the failure of Ashdown’s policies in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The principal instrument which Ashdown has used to constrain the
Bosnian Serbs has been his Srebrenica Commission, which has been used
to override all international assessments of the 1995 (and earlier)
fighting in and around the town of Srebrenica.

On April 20, 2004, Ashdown summarily dismissed the Republica Srpska
official, Dejan Miletic, who had been in charge of investigating war
crimes, and then ordered the Bosnian Serb leadership to make a
statement — totally dictated by Ashdown’s Office of the High
Representative — accepting the Ashdown and Islamist version of what
happened in the Srebrenica fighting, despite the fact that Ashdown’s
repeated statements consistently flew in the face of independent
forensic investigation of the affair. Indeed, as GIS has noted in the
past, Ashdown had refused even to speak with the forensic scientists
who had, independently, developed the intelligence of what really
happened in Srebrenica.

One Western European member of the OHR staff said: “Ashdown isn’t going
to let the facts get in the way of his story. It’s all about him, not
about building the stable, multi-confessional state which the Dayton
Accords specified.”

And after forcing the Bosnian Serb (Republica Srpska) leadership to
make a statement — following the removal of Mr Miletic, who would not
agree with Ashdown’s arbitrary and unsubstantiated accounts of the
Srebrenica affair, on threat of arbitrary dismissal by Ashdown of both
the President and Prime Minister of Republica Srpska — Ashdown agreed
to NATO Stabilization Force (SFOR) demands that Miletic be allowed to
return to his job, albeit with a different job title.

Ashdown has become increasingly angered, as well, by increasing reports
of actual Islamist terrorist activity within Bosnia, on the basis that
such reports — despite their validity — make him appear to have failed
in his mission.

Several Serbian sources have told GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs bureau
officials in Sarajevo and Belgrade that the consistent support from
some international officials for the creation of a separate Albanian
state in the Serbian area of Kosovo and Metohija should be met with a
claim that it was time to consider a sovereign and separate Bosnian
Serb state in what is now the component state of Republica Srpska in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. One Serb said: “We had an agreement at Dayton, and
yet despite that the lands and rights of Serbs are being eroded
constantly. Soon, if Ashdown, Holbrooke, Clark and their Albanian and
Bosnian Islamist friends have their way, there will be no lands left
under Serbian control, despite the fact that Serbia was the only state
in the region which has traditionally offered hospitality to all races
and religions.”

Copyright 2004 Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily
Posted for Fair Use only.


=== 2 ===

http://www.artel.co.yu/en/izbor/yu_kriza/2004-10-18.html

Srebrenica case

By Gregory R. Copley
Editor, GIS, International Strategic Studies Association
September 8, 2003

US Official Implicated With Bosnian High Representative Ashdown in
Attempting to Force Fabricated Report on Srebrenica

Exclusive. Analysis.
By Gregory R. Copley, Editor, GIS, with input from sources in
Sarajevo and elsewhere.

Very reliable sources within the Office of the High Representative in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and other sources in Sarajevo, have told
GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily that a seconded US official, Amb.
Donald S. Hays, the Deputy High Representative for Bosnia and
Herzegovina, has been actively engaged in attempts to force a
fabricated report to be published on the controversial wartime fighting
at the city of Srebrenica.

Amb. Hays, presumably at the insistence of High Representative Paddy
Ashdown, the former British politician, has demanded the publication of
a so-called "final report" on an alleged mass-killing of Bosnian
Muslims at Srebrenica in 1995, during the Bosnian civil war, by the
Government of Republica Srpska, the predominantly Serbian province of
Bosnia-Herzegovina.

In essence, Amb. Hays and Lord Ashdown are attempting to force the
Government of Republica Srpska (RS) to admit that Serbs were
responsible for killing thousands of Muslims at Srebrenica.

The Government of Republica Srpska's leadership - indeed any of the
elected officials of the state - can be summarily dismissed immediately
by the High Representative at any time should they refuse to obey his
orders, regardless of whether or not the officials were democratically
elected or whether the High Representative's own actions violate the
Dayton Accords, which he was put in office to sustain. This threat was
implicit in the ultimatum delivered by Amb. Hays in a series of
meetings he held with the Republica Srpska Prime Minister, Mladen
Ivanic, in late August and early September 2003 in Banja Luka, the RS
capital.

Amb. Hays presented the Prime Minister with a document - on the
letterhead of the Office of the High Representative (OHR) - which the
Government of Republica Srpska was "advised" to accept as r Sait
accompli, in which three major points were made. The content of the
two-page document was to be re-issued by the Government of Republica
Srpska, probably through the RS Office of Human Rights, as though it
represented the RS "final report" on the Srebrenica issue.

Significantly, the RS has been conducting a detailed and thorough
investigation of the issue and has already issued some material which
acknowledged Serbian responsibility for some actions but which also
contained a wide range of other information which showed the conflict
in a much more detailed light. The RS office was established
specifically to assist the International Criminal Tribunal on
Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague, where prosecutions for war crimes have
been underway.

The RS investigations are, in fact, far from over.

The ICTY has also been conducting its own investigation into the
Srebrenica allegations, and its investigation is also far from over. As
a result, the ICTY, having heard about the OHR's pressure to force a
statement on the issue, essentially accepting Serb blame for war
crimes, has distanced itself from the OHR position and has refused to
go along with Amb. Hays? insistence on the statement by the RS
Government in Banja Luka.

It appeared that the OHR wanted the statement issued before the opening
of a Muslim monument - essentially a shrine which was being promoted as
a site for annual Muslim pilgrimages from around the world -
memorializing the radical Islamist allegations about events in
Srebrenica to occur on September 19, 2003. The unveiling of the
monument would be attended by former US Pres. William Clinton, and
"finalizing" the Srebrenica case would help stop the ongoing wave of
allegations of illegal Clinton Administration activity in supporting
radical Islamist activities in Bosnia during the 1990s. This is
particularly critical given the fact that a significant number of the
Islamist terrorists involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks on the United States had strong links into the Bosnian Muslims
whom Clinton had supported.

The US Embassy in Sarajevo donated $1-million to the construction of
the "shrine", even though all proper investigations of the Srebrenica
affair in fact showed the Islamists' claims to be unsubstantiated and,
in many respects, without foundation at all.

Recent information emerging from Bosnia-Herzegovina, and particularly
from the RS investigations into the Srebrenica affair and other aspects
of terrorism in the region, have highlighted the fact that the Clinton
Administration had, during the war, facilitated the Islamist terrorist
activities because of the Clinton Administration's need to demonize the
Serbs in order to provide a casus belli for US-led military actions in
the area to distract from domestic US political problems.
Significantly, when the Muslim representatives involved in building the
"shrine" in Srebrenica approached New York Mayor Michael Blumberg to
establish a sister-city relationship with New York, the Mayor refused,
based on intelligence showing the link between the Bosnian Islamists
and the al-Qaida attacks on... his city.

Amb. Hays' two-page document was expected to lead to a statement,
possibly as early as September 8, 2003, by RS officials, which would
not only serve to protect the Clinton Administration officials,
including the former US President, but would also serve as an admission
of guilt of Serbs for killing thousands of Muslims who, in fact, were
not known to have been killed. Several hundred bodies have been found
as a result of the fighting in and around Srebrenica, but the Islamists
and their supporters have claimed figures which grow higher with each
telling, with figures now claiming some 15,000 alleged deaths. At the
same time, there is no acknowledgement of the Muslim killing of
thousands of Serbs at Srebrenica earlier in the war, when the city was
supposed to have been a demilitarized zone.

The document which Hays has been pushing essentially forces the RS
Government to state that:

1. Nothing is unclear in the Srebrenica investigation except the number
of victims. In other words, the Islamist propaganda, supported by
Ashdown - who has long been disavowed in the UK by his former
colleagues in the Royal Marines because of his unequivocal acceptance
of Islamist propaganda - is accepted as fact by the RS Government,
thereby admitting guilt for crimes never committed;

2. The RS apologizes to the Muslims for earlier RS statements which
disputed the Islamist propaganda; and

3. A new commission would be organized which would investigate further
what happened at Srebrenica, despite the RS Government's a priori
acceptance - implicit in point one of the statement - of the alleged
crime. This "commission" would include three individuals from RS (not
necessarily selected by the RS Government), three from the
"international community" and one from an unspecified non-governmental
organization...

The Government of RS would have to pay for the work of the new
"commission".

Sources in Sarajevo, Belgrade and Washington have made it clear to GIS
that the present US Bush Administration has been totally ignoring
developments in the former Yugoslavia because of preoccupations with
Iraq and the "war on terror", while former Clinton Administration
appointees, actively supported by the George Soros Foundation - which
has been avowedly anti-Serb and anti-Bush - have been able to compound
their control of the area. Significantly, as numerous GIS reports have
shown, the Iranian and al-Qaida/bin Laden terrorist infrastructure in
Bosnia and Serbia-Montenegro has been increasingly active during 2003,
preparing for a new breakout to draw US pressure away from Iran and
al-Qaida activities elsewhere.

[See, particularly, Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, June 12, 2003:
Terrorism in the Balkans and the Wider Ramifications for the Global
"War on Terror", and Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, August 29, 2003:
Osama bin Laden Focuses on the Balkans for the New Wave of Anti-Western
Terrorism.]

One moderate Muslim source in Sarajevo told GIS: "If the Bush
Administration does not act soon, terrorism against US and Western
interests will erupt soon across much of the Balkans, and from the
Balkans into the rest of the world. And all of this seems to be just to
allow the old US Administration of Clinton to cover their tracks. The
radicals not only destroyed the Serbs, they also destroyed the lives of
moderate Muslims. Now they will start another war. Why is the Bush
Administration following the policies of the Clinton Administration?
Why are Clinton people still running all the key posts in American
embassies in the region?"

According to the OHR website, the Principal Deputy High Representative,
Donald S. Hays, a US diplomat, took up his duties with the OHR in July
2001.

Between 1999 and 2001 he was the US Representative to the United
Nations for UN Management and Reform, with ambassadorial rank.
Previously he had served in the State Department as the Director of the
Office of Management Policy and Planning and as the Executive Director
of the European Affairs Bureau.

He has also been posted to US embassies in Bonn, Islamabad, Dakar,
Freetown (Sierra Leone), and Saigon. Ambassador Hays graduated in
Political Science from the University of California, Santa Barbara...


=== 3 ===

THE FIRST DETAILED
REPORT ON SREBRENICA
TO REACH THE PUBLIC

an Introduction by
R.K. Kent, Historian

“Lies have no sustainable depth” (*)
“The tripwire is always in the details” (**)

Preface

Eversince 1995, “SREBRENICA” became a red flag, egging-on the bull of
public opinion as site of “the worst massacre since WWII,” where “the
Serbs” “executed” “7,000 Muslim men and boys.” Amid the propaganda
mills in Sarajevo and abroad, amid managed scenarios, ostensibly
informed statements and persistent media repetitions, two major factors
were distinctly missing. No questioning of the “established truth” was
allowed to reach a wider public. Equally, the wider public could not
consult any detailed report or reports on what actually happened at
Srebrenica, let alone a detailed account from the Serb side.

It was in 1993 that the U.N.s Security Council established an
International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY). Its mandate was
to address all war crimes in all of Yugoslavia since 1991. The idea for
such an international tribunal came from Western European sources but
it was translated into practice by the U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations, Madeleine Albright. She obtained the initial funding of some
$6,000,000 from two Muslim States. She selected personally the first
team of 25 legal professionals to serve on the ICTY.All shared her
anti-Serb bias, openly expressed in a number of printed interviews. The
first ICTY’s Chief Investigator was a teacher of International Law. It
just so happened that he was also a Sunni Muslim.

This was a moment in time whenBosnia’s Muslim leaders (of Sunni
persuasion) took the whole of Bosnia out of the Yugoslav Federation,
with theU.S.blessing. It was done forcefully and without any
post-Lisbon attempts at a modus vivendi with Bosnia’s Christian Serbs
or about one-third of its total population. Local Serbs had been
inBosniafor centuries, before and after Bosnia came under an Ottoman
occupation. It was during this external Muslim over-rule that Bosnia’s
Slavic converts to Islam settled mainly in towns while its Christian
Slavs predominated in the countryside. At the outbreak of hostilities
in Bosnia, the rural Serbs owned legally just over 60% of the total
landscape.

The vast majority of local Muslims were not remotely connected with
militant Islam. Many, probably, several thousand, intermarriages took
place before WWII and later, between the years of 1945 and 1991. As a
part of a larger federation Bosnia and its people did provide an
example of successful co-habitation of Muslims and Christians who spoke
the same language. It was in WWII, under German occupation, that the
more extreme Muslim elements emereged in Bosnia. Their sacerdotal
leader, the Grand Mufti, was openly pro-German. There was even a new
S.S. “Handzar Division.” The term “handzar” means “knife.” Indeed, the
Division used cold weapons quite often to kill virtually defenseless
Christian Serbs, often in the most bestial ways, by the thousands over
a span of some 3-4 years.

When hostilities broke out inBosniain 1991-2, the “Balkanizing”(+)
process included first the covert and later overt interventions of
theUnited Statesand its NATO Allies. The U.S. decision to enter into
the Balkans and to side rapidly with Bosnia’s Muslims was heavily
influenced by two top National Security advisers to President Clinton
(A. Lake and S.Berger) They persuaded themselves that this would be a
masterful way of enhancing the Midddle East peace process.

Help came from two sides. As the Bosnian Serb population could not
forget what was done to them in WWII, most were gripped by fear that a
repetition was just around the corner. Some para-military ad hoc groups
fromSerbiacrossed intoBosnia. They hit some urban areas along the way
and were spotted by international media. A newly formed Bosnian Serb
Army shelledSarajevowithout any real necessity while the TV cameras
were rolling in a town which had hosted the Olympic Games and was
widely known.

On the other side, Madeleine Albright was unable to reign-in her
advocacy to punish “ the Serbs.” She was one of two key persons (the
other was U.S. Ambassador Zimmerman) who saw to it that the February
1992 peace accords between all co-belligerents in ex-Yugoslavia
(brokered by the Portuguese Foreign Minister in Lisbon for the European
Union ) would become “unacceptable” on the grounds of “moral
imperatives.” In so doing she even rejected an attempt by Richard
Holbrooke to have theLisbonAccords approved in Washington and not only
byWestern Europe. By blocking Holbrooke’s recommendation, Ambassador
Albright made the war between Bosnian Muslims and Christian Serbs
inevitable under the evolviong local circumstances.To this day, Mme
Albright is called a “Washington Heavy Weight .” It would probably take
the re-encarnation of Sigmund Freud and his time with Frau Lou to
unravel the cobwebs of someone whose Czeck family was given twice
refuge and warm reception in Belgrade. This is stated herein without
rancor as the present writer harbors no hate for a tormented human
being who was given the power she should nerver have had. By the way,
do see the “Times” article on “Madeleine’s War.”

“Balkanization” is understood as a breaking-up process both from within
and without.

The Enclosed Report

To meet external demands, after Dayton, the Repubika Srpska at Banja
Luka (considered as more moderate than Pale) developed a Documentation
Center with a special Bureau for cooperation with the Hague Tribunal.
Its perceived mission was to “present the whole truth about crimes
committed in Srebrenica region regardless (of) (the) nationality of
perpetrators of crimes (along) (with) (the) time(s)when they were
committed.”(brackets added for clarity).Its preamble stresses adherence
to the search for “universal category... of criminals, against the
whole humankind... (with) only one name - criminal.”
It also underscores the absolute necessity to look at both the trees
and the forest. There is a basic context without which the whole truth
about Srebrenica cannot be captured. This context involves crimes
committed inBosnia-Herzegovinaas well as those committed in the
Srebrenica-Bratunac region.. The point of departure is not July 1995
but the sequence of events between 1992-1995. The preamble concludes
with the following statement: “The whole truth about (the) mentioned
events has an inestimable significance for the process of
reconciliation...Reconcilliation between nationalities inBosnia and
Herzegovinais possible only with respect of justice.” The table of
contents lists 25 sub-analyses.

Unfortunately, none of this was wanted at the Hague or the UN itself.
Excluding the case of Srebrenica, which came later, a great deal of
detailed information in the present Report of 2002 was delivered to the
General Assembly of the UN and its Security Council by the end of 1993.
It never came out. The ICTY’s Chief Investigator Baissuni was also
given a batch of documens, many of prima facie quality. When asked
about them he could “not remember” any.What really gives the game away
and is apt to jolt even the hardest partisans of ICTY, by the start of
1996, with its cost going above 40 million dollars, the Tribunal had
indicted 46 Serbs and just ONE Bosnian Muslim. The ICTP’s “hunt”:was,
as intended by its creators, for Serb heads. In March,1996, to avoid a
glaring assymmetry, the ICTY added three more indicted Bosnian Musluims
of lower rank.

The detrails in this Report are devastating to the basic premise of the
ICTY and its supporters in any land. The premise is simple and it
conforms to justifications for an international military attack on the
Bosnian Serbs and, later, on Serbia proper, involving 78 days of
bombing a nation not at war with either NATO or any of its members .
The premise? “The Serbs” are the sole AGGRESSORS inBosniaand the
Bosnian Muslims are their sole VICTIMS.

The wealth of specific details and pictorial evidence in the Report
speak for themselves and need no further introduction by the present
writer. There is however a footnote he must add. There exists a
present-day and acutely Serbophobic Gauliter forBosnia, Paddy
Ashdiown(former British SAS operative). He has been giving the Serbs
lessons in “Democracy” by firing their elected officials and by
sanctioning the banning of books in Serb classrooms (including Ivo
Andric’s “Bridge on the RiverDrina” which won the Nobel Prize in
Literature). He demands “political maturity” by forcing the current
leader of Republika Srpska to “confess” that the Bosnian Serbs are
guilty for the “Srebrenica Massacre” or else there will be no Republika
Srpska in total violation of theDaytonAccord. When he was given the
present report he threw it away without reading the contents, demanded
that it be suppressed and appointed surrogates to write an entirely
different “Report” which would “re-certify” the total Serb guilt and
the entire victimization and innocence. of the Bosnian Muslims.Ashdon
thinks that he is buildinga state, under a Bosnian Muslim Government, a
state that never existed.

Ashdown is not alone in thinking that one can force foreign populations
to accept what is imposed from an outside that believes in a new form
of the “MissionCivilistrice” which dominated the Nineteenth century. To
this end any method is appropriate because the ends justify the means.
It is certain that in this endevor Ashdown has external support both in
the European Union and in theU.S.Nation-busting and then
nation-building may seem to some “strategists” as a jolly good approach
toward some sort of aNew WorldOrder. It is a pity that such people are
histiorical illiterates who confirm that the only thing learned from
History is that nothing is learned from History.

Raymond K. Kent, Emeritus

History Department,
University of California,
Berkeley, CA. 94720
(510/642-1971)


(*) Idiomatic translation of a Serb tenet (“u lazi su plitke noge”)
which applies everywhere.
(**) Another local tenet inBosnia (“vrag je u detaljima”) with
universal application.


SEE THE REPORT:

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg-sreb101604.htm
SREBRENICA REPORT, September 2002 (15 Mb) PDF File
URL of the Srebrenica report is:

http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/documents/srebrenica.pdf