Informazione
Da: ICDSM Italia
Data: Mar 26 Ott 2004
A: icdsm-italia @ yahoogroups.com
From : zambon
To : "ICDSM Italia"
Cc :
Date : Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:14:06 +0200
Subject : Giudici o mercenari?
cari compagni,
vi segnalo alcuni episodi (credo sconosciuti) dell'attività
professionale di
Carla Del Ponte tratti dalle memorie di un ispettore di polizia
svizzero da
lei costretto ad abbandonare il servizio.
I motivi sono da ricercare nell' "eccessivo" zelo del commissario nel
perseguire i reati di alcuni noti esponenti della mafia internazionale
del
traffico di droga.
Nel suo libro "Deckname Tato, Pendo Verlag, Zürich" (Soprannome TATO",
Edizioni Pendo, Zurigo) l'ex commissario Fausto Cattaneo scrive:
a pagina 197: "...il conflitto con Carla del Ponte è inevitabile. Lei
non
vuole assolutamente vedere Escobar Junior in un carcere svizzero...."
a pagina 377: "... La nomina di Carla Del Ponte a Pubblico Ministero al
Tribunale Internazionale dell'Aia nell'agosto del 1999 rappresentò il
coronamento di una carriera che si è sempre realizzata nel segno della
politica."
*** THE NATURE OF THE HAGUE BEAST ***
"La natura della bestia dell'Aia": e' il titolo della approfondita
analisi di T. Dickson ed A. Jokic che riportiamo di seguito.
La decisione del "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia (ICTY) di impedire a
Milosevic di difendersi da solo, oltre a rappresentare una violazione
senza precedenti dei diritti elementari dell'"imputato", ha finito con
il determinare una situazione di totale stallo nel "processo": infatti,
la stragrande maggioranza dei "testimoni" convocati a difesa di
Milosevic si sono rifiutati di comparire per protesta, fintantoche' la
decisione non verra' ritirata. Cosicche', il "processo" e' nuovamente
bloccato.
Sulle recenti vicende vedi anche gli aggiornamenti al nostro sito:
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm
Sul grave imbarazzo che le attivita' dell'ICTY stanno provocando,
persino ai piu' alti vertici dell'establishment statunitense, si veda
anche:
BALKAN JUSTICE JOUST - By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Washington Times - October 24, 2004
(... Washington is insisting that war crimes cases relating to the
Balkan wars of the 1990s be tried either in domestic courts or be given
an amnesty. This shift not only marks a dramatic change in U.S. policy
toward the ICTY, but more importantly, it is a fatal blow to the power
and credibility of Mrs. Del Ponte...)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041023-105636-4172r.htm
Rinnoviamo infine il nostro APPELLO:
Senza mezzi finanziari, la difesa di Milosevic non ha chances.
PER PROSEGUIRE QUESTA LOTTA ABBIAMO ASSOLUTO BISOGNO
DEL TUO CONTRIBUTO ECONOMICO -- VEDI:
http://www.pasti.org/traduz.htm
---
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Lun 25 Ott 2004 15:20:40 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: The Nature of the Hague Beast by Tiphaine Dickson and
Aleksandar Jokic
*************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
*************************************************************
www.globalresearch.ca
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
"That Is The Nature Of The Beast":
Why The Hague ICTY Cannot Afford
Slobodan Milosevic’s Right to Self-Representation
by Tiphaine Dickson and Aleksandar Jokic
www.globalresearch.ca 24 October 2004
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC410A.html
When Slobodan Milosevic was asked to plead to the indictment filed
against him, after being whisked off to The Hague as a result of a
transfer whose legality bore more resemblance to kidnapping for ransom
than to extradition, his response to the ICTY Chamber was not the
typical "Not guilty." Milosevic instead said: "That is not my problem,
that is your problem."
And, indeed, the ICTY’s problem it has become. When the prosecution
rested its case after the resignation of the Trial Chamber’s President,
Richard May, last spring, many in the media bemoaned the failure to
prove genocide, and others were unimpressed by the picture of confusion
left by weak witnesses, deflated in cross-examination by a defendant
who consistently stated the ICTY was not a legal, or judicial,
institution. Voices rose to express increasingly strident concern that
the trial was going off the rails. Expectations appeared not to have
been met.
As the defense approached, and Milosevic announced that he would
secure the attendance of 1600 witnesses to support the case he
announced he would make from the beginning—namely that the "Balkan
Wars" had in fact been one war, against Yugoslavia, planned and carried
out by Western powers, whose gruesome apotheosis was NATO’s 78-day
bombing campaign in 1999—the ICTY’s most prestigious supporters zeroed
in on the upcoming defense, arguing that Milosevic’s right to represent
himself had been granted "long enough."
The media onslaught was, and remains, significant and raises an
obvious question: what is it about the present stage of the hearings
that requires such collective effort to defeat?
The latest offensive is apparently triggered by fear, and not only
challenges the internationally mandated right to self-representation
(and the resulting freedom to present a true defense), but is further
calculated to prevent Milosevic from demonstrating the ICTY’s
illegality, and functions. President Milosevic has indeed consistently
argued that the ICTY serves up apologia for the destruction of
Yugoslavia, provides justification for aggression, and rewrites
history. Hence, the seemingly endless references, not to Milosevic’s
health, but to his deleterious impact on the "Court’s reputation",
"credibility" and "legitimacy."
Public lobbying of the ICTY supporting the imposition of counsel on
Slobodan Milosevic has been undertaken by a trio of its stalwart
supporters: David Scheffer, Michael Scharf, and Judith Armatta. Their
claims—perhaps inadvertently—betray the political nature of the
institution.
Writing in the pages of International Herald Tribune ("Enough of
Milosevic’s Antics" July 13, 2004), David Scheffer, former Ambassador
at Large for War Crimes Issues under Secretary of State Albright,
dehumanizes Milosevic, and urges the ICTY to reassert its "authority"
over him. Writes Scheffer: "When he was the presiding judge, the late
Richard May deftly handled Milosevic’s exercise of his right to
self-representation by giving him enough leash every day to speak his
mind and then jerking that leash when he overstepped his bounds." The
metaphor of "leash jerking" is powerfully deployed here in light of the
painfully recent Abu Ghraib prison atrocities in Iraq, immortalized by
the infamous photograph of Pfc. Lynndie England holding a naked human
being on a leash. Is Scheffer urging the ICTY to become more like Abu
Ghraib, but in the judicial, rather than military theater of
operations? Whatever his intent, in one important respect there is
hardly any difference between the physical and metaphorical leash
jerking: they are both firmly grounded in the most primitive racist or
reifying attitudes toward their targets. And who exactly is the target
of David Scheffer’s comments? It would appear to be only Mr. Milosevic
who is thus rendered inhuman, but there is another, even more crucial
objective: the ICTY’s judges and prosecutor are implicitly reminded
here that they are mere tools (res) of the Empire, so they had better
deliver.
And what were the goods to be delivered by the ICTY? The process is
staggeringly costly, so it follows that a conviction is necessary, and
that "justice" mandates the gagging of Milosevic, who is: "charged with
crimes of enormous gravity in the Balkans: genocide, crimes against
humanity and war crimes. They scream out for accountability. The United
Nations and its member states are expending large sums of money on
these trials for the purpose of justice, not political diatribes and
meandering defenses." It is unclear whether this is a legal or
political argument. It may be that Scheffer’s position—promoting a
novel legal approach—is that since Milosevic has been charged with the
most serious crimes of all, and that they "scream out for
accountability," this very fact ipso facto constitutes proof beyond
reasonable doubt of his actual guilt. For who could imagine that the
ICTY might bring frivolous charges and indict a sitting President in
the midst of a war of aggression against his country? Alternatively,
Scheffer’s words might be expressing a direct political claim: "We paid
for this, and we certainly did not pay for this man to jerk us around."
Scheffer advocates the imposition of counsel, to: "ensure the
integrity of the process, which may be nearing a breaking point with
the international community." The impatience expressed on behalf of the
phantom "international community" might in fact be just Scheffer’s own
and those of his ilk, well connected to the establishment of the ICTY.
In any event, the point is that the ICTY has no legal authority beyond
the powers granted by the Security Council, and deemed legally valid by
its own appeals chamber, i.e., itself. Hence, its authority "must be
asserted." The very process, which is an abuse, must be protected from
"a crippling abuse," that is, from denunciation by Milosevic, and in
particular his witnesses: "A massive criminal enterprise of this
character deserves a long, carefully developed trial that inevitably
will experience delays. That is the nature of the beast. But the time
has arrived to reassert the court’s mandated authority and prevent a
crippling abuse of the process by the likes of Slobodan Milosevic."
"Nature of the beast", indeed. It is urgent that this be accomplished
since the ICTY, as opposed to judicial bodies the world over, is a
"limited engagement," and is attempting to complete investigations,
trials, and appeals before a Security Council-mandated deadline—known
as the "completion strategy"—in 2010. A conviction must be secured
before then. Just as performances must end before the circus can leave
town.
Also urgent is that "Serbs," specifically, "respect the court’s
authority," and presumably this transformation can only take place if
Milosevic is gagged, and the illegality of the body never mentioned
again: "Perhaps if the discipline of a competent counsel is brought
into the courtroom, Milosevic’s Serb supporters would learn to respect
the authority of this tribunal."
In his conclusion Scheffer fittingly returns to his tired leash
metaphor to reinforce his point that Milosevic must be silenced
"permanently" since he is inhuman: "Milosevic has jerked the court
around long enough. It is time to permanently pull in Judge May’s
well-worn leash."
Michael Scharf, visiting professor of law at Case Western Reserve
University, and instrumental in the creation of the ICTY, followed
Scheffer’s opening salvo in the Washington Post, and, with
bone-chilling clarity, made the case for imposition, employing
strikingly political arguments. ("Making a Spectacle of Himself:
Milosevic Wants a Stage, Not the Right to Provide His Own Defense",
August 29th, 2004) Drawing on the now-familiar refrain that Slobodan
Milosevic is "playing for the home audience", Scharf is outraged by the
idea that the unrepresented defendant would somehow make use of a show
trial to gain support in Serbia and Montenegro, when the ICTY was
created, he deadpans, precisely to remove Milosevic from politics, and
"educate" Serbs, so that he and his like would be put out of commission
forever. That his own argument confirms the political nature of the
ICTY and candidly clarifies its objectives as non-judicial does not
deter Scharf from the description of the process as an "international
war crimes trial" and the institution as a "court of law."
According to Scharf: "Milosevic’s caustic defense strategy is
unlikely to win him acquittal, but it isn’t aimed at the court of law
in The Hague. His audience is the court of public opinion back home in
Serbia, where the trial is a top-rated TV show and Milosevic’s standing
continues to rise. Opinion polls have reported that 75 percent of Serbs
do not feel that Milosevic is getting a fair trial, and 67 percent
think that he is not responsible for any war crimes. ‘Slobo Hero!’
graffiti is omnipresent on Belgrade buses and buildings. Last December,
he easily won a seat in the Serbian parliament in a national election."
What any of these concerns and political trivia could possibly have
to do with international law—if considered as an activity of a judicial
nature—is unclear. If, however, playing to an uninformed Western
public, the idea is to suggest that by granting basic internationally
recognized human rights to the man who was the West’s principal
interlocutor in Balkan peace negotiations for over half a decade, the
ICTY is failing in its mission to "educate" the Serbs, then the point
is well taken. Scharf deplores the fact that opinion polls show that
"75% of Serbs do not feel Milosevic is getting a fair trial." Scharf’s
disappointment in this expression of popular distrust—which may well be
directed to the institution as a whole—assumes that public opinion in
Serbia and Montenegro is misguided, and that it fails to appreciate the
"fairness" of the proceedings. But if, as Scharf claims, ICTY hearings
are "top rated" TV shows, then public opinion was formed by actually
observing the proceedings; in which case the problem might not be
collective delusion abroad, but rather Western ignorance of the ICTY’s
day to day workings. The latter are largely inconsistent with the
widely held Western belief—based, perhaps, on faith or missionary
zeal—that proceedings in The Hague are inherently fair.
Scharf’s preoccupation with graffiti adorning the buses and
buildings of Belgrade is perhaps an expression of concern for the
environment. However, any threat posed by "Slobo Hero!" pales in
comparison to the effects of NATO’s bombing, and in particular, with
the presence of depleted uranium in the soil and groundwater of Serbia
and Montenegro. It may be that "Serb" public opinion has not yet been
sufficiently educated by the "court of law" to lose sight of this
disturbing reality, which will remain with it for decades, and possibly
centuries. Perhaps this reality and the ever-present reminders of
NATO’s bombing in the streets of Belgrade have had some influence on
the public perception of the ICTY’s "fairness."
Scharf’s assault on Mr. Milosevic’s right to self-representation,
while in line with Scheffer’s demand that the "leash be pulled in
permanently," presents one significant difference in approach. Where
Scheffer depicted the late judge May as an uncompromising animal-tamer
of sorts, Scharf presents him as a misguided fool. Rather than invoke
his capacity for discipline, he accuses him—in an eloquent
demonstration of the reification of the ICTY’s functionaries, in
particular the deceased—of having been lax and in error by having
granted the right to self-representation to Milosevic in the first
place. He writes: "Virtually everything that has gone wrong with the
Milosevic trial can be traced back to that erroneous ruling."
And what has "gone wrong" is that Milosevic made "disparaging
remarks about the court" and "browbeat" witnesses. He doesn’t recognize
the ICTY, and he has said so. As for the "browbeating" of witnesses,
that is to a certain extent, whether we like it or not, part of the art
of cross-examination. But Scharf’s emphasis is placed not so much on
these complaints as on his wild claims about Mr. Milosevic’s growing
popularity in Serbia and Montenegro.
Scharf makes plain that the ICTY was created for political reasons,
yet advocates imposing counsel on Slobodan Milosevic to prevent him
from making precisely the same point. The only difference is that
Milosevic is "disparaging," while Scharf argues that the ICTY’s evident
political objectives are somehow valid:
"In creating the Yugoslavia tribunal statute, the U.N. Security
Council set three objectives: first, to educate the Serbian people, who
were long misled by Milosevic’s propaganda, about the acts of
aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by his
regime; second, to facilitate national reconciliation by pinning prime
responsibility on Milosevic and other top leaders and disclosing the
ways in which the Milosevic regime had induced ordinary Serbs to commit
atrocities; and third, to promote political catharsis while enabling
Serbia’s newly elected leaders to distance themselves from the
repressive policies of the past. May’s decision to allow Milosevic to
represent himself has seriously undercut these aims."
The idea that affording the right of self-representation to
Milosevic had "seriously undercut" the "aims" of the ICTY’s very
establishment strains credulity. However, if those aims were, and
continue to be, "to pin" responsibility on Slobodan Milosevic, and to
"educate" Serbs about how bad he was—or, ultimately, how bad Yugoslavia
was—then these aims are assuredly not shared by the defendant. Indeed,
Milosevic has no intention of assisting the ICTY in "convincing Serbs"
that acts of aggression committed against Yugoslavia were justified.
Furthermore, whether or not the political aims set out by Scharf are
valid, morally correct, or politically expedient, they cannot make
legal what is illegal, they cannot make legitimate what is
illegitimate, and they cannot, most crucially, turn a political body
into a court.
As was perhaps inevitable, the ICTY did impose counsel. On
September 2nd, two of the former amici curiae were "assigned"—the Trial
Chamber pointedly insisted on the use of this term, instead of the
apparently indelicate "imposed"—to represent Slobodan Milosevic, and
given full responsibility over his defense, including the formation of
his strategy and choice of witnesses. The prerogatives granted to
imposed counsel were far more intrusive than what had been expected;
even, apparently, by the prosecution’s senior trial attorney who had
appeared during the hearings to envisage a "standby counsel" prepared
to step in should Milosevic’s health prevent him from acting. Instead,
the defense was handed over to strangers, who in addition to receiving
no instructions from their "client" happened to have acted as another
party in these proceedings, as "friends" of a "court" the defendant
does not recognize.
That this imposition of counsel constitutes a conflict of interest,
that it violates the International Covenant for Civil and Political
Rights, that neither the South African Apartheid regime nor Nazi
Germany imposed counsel against Mandela or Dimitrov, respectively, and
that imposition has actually caused more delay of the proceedings
(while Milosevic is healthy) does not deter those who defend the ICTY’s
decision to strip President Milosevic of the right to call his
witnesses, and present his defense. And his defense is the problem, as
it is candidly presented as a political defense, before a political
body.
Imposed counsel struggled in vain to present more than five
witnesses since early September, and were confronted with the refusal
of experts, diplomats, officers and dozens of others to participate in
a defense that was not the defense they had agreed to support. (Of
note, here, is that before a normal judiciary, witnesses have no say in
whether or not they wish to participate in the workings of justice. The
etymology of the word "subpoena"—"under penalty"—makes clear that legal
courts also have legal authority) This latest crisis before the ICTY
prompted new intervention in the media, for the sake of the ICTY’s
credibility. But the political nature of the claims has had the
opposite effect.
Judith Armatta, a lawyer acting as trial observer for the US-based
Coalition for International Justice (Justice, not Political Platform
for Milosevic, IHT, October 7th), much like her predecessors, Scheffer
and Scharf, betrays the true reason for imposition of counsel on
Slobodan Milosevic. Clearly neither Armatta nor the ICTY appreciates
his "political defense". Armatta implies that Milosevic—and others
before the ad hoc Security Council bodies, such as the ICTR in Arusha,
Tanzania—are simply capricious accused who refuse to respect
established court procedure, while these embattled courts struggle to
provide fair trials in the face of obstructionism from "unreasonable"
defendants. This is a mischaracterization both of Slobodan Milosevic’s
position (and that of Rwandan accused at the ICTR) and of the ad hoc
tribunals' legitimacy.
Armatta writes that the "trial of Slobodan Milosevic before the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has reached a
standoff, where the will of the UN-established court is pitted against
the will of one individual, the accused."
This depiction of the Milosevic case as a battle of wills is
peculiar, to say the least, as it falsely presents ICTY as an underdog
in this "standoff" requiring some assistance and encouragement. What
could possibly disadvantage the ICTY—which enjoys the full support of
the only super power—in its "test of wills" with Milosevic? The message
sent by ICTY supporters, such as Armatta, is that the ICTY’s handicap
is its tendency to go overboard with fairness. Trying to be as fair as
possible creates difficulties for the forces of justice. Thus calls on
ICTY like this one: "It is incumbent on this tribunal to stand up to
Milosevic, assert its authority and bring the world one step closer to
the rule of law." But is accomplishing fairness the ICTY’s central
concern? And how does "standing up" to Milosevic bring anybody any
closer to the Rule of law, in particular when international human
rights instruments are violated in the process?
The problem is what Milosevic has to say. That the ICTY pointedly
imposed counsel for "health reasons" is a secondary consideration for
Armatta, as it might well have been for the Chamber who disregarded the
fact that Slobodan Milosevic has defended himself quite ably for the
past three years, and suffered from hypertension for ten. In fact,
since counsel was imposed, the health reasons that justified the
measure have gradually been replaced by suggestions that Milosevic
lacks sufficient "respect for the court."
Armatta’s criticism of Slobodan Milosevic’s behavior suggests she
has privileged access to his mind. She not only chastises him for not
cooperating with the ongoing violation of his rights, but reveals why
he embarks on such a baffling course: "the accused refuses to
communicate with counsel or assist in selecting and securing witnesses
or developing a defense strategy, since he seeks not to defend himself
but to use the trial as a platform to advance his political agenda. "
Were it acceptable to apply such psychoanalysis to the ICTY,
instead of Milosevic, the inquiry could address the wholly predictable
consequences of imposition of counsel. Armatta describes the situation
in the following manner: "Nearly half the witnesses initially scheduled
to testify on his behalf have followed his example by refusing to
appear in court if Milosevic is not allowed to represent himself." If
we wanted to speculate, we could posit that the reason for imposition
of counsel had nothing to do with his health or fairness. On the
contrary, the reason might be that the ICTY wanted to prevent the
appearance of most of his witnesses, as they would expose the illegal
nature of ICTY. So, while in the realm of speculation, one could
imagine that they correctly predicted that by imposing counsel on
Milosevic they would bring about a boycott by those witnesses and bring
the proceedings to a quick conclusion without most of them ever
appearing.
But this type of speculation is deemed improper. And it is
inconsistent with Armatta’s depiction of the current situation as a
battle of the wills, which provides absolute clarity as to where the
good and the bad wills lie. And what better way to expose the unsavory
intent of the one deemed to have bad will than to point to his
consistent opposition to the process that is assumed to be inherently
fair? Armatta states, as if this established his bad faith, that Mr.
Milosevic: "has consistently maintained, he does not recognize the
legitimacy of the tribunal but will use whatever opportunity is
provided to make his political case to the public."
It should be obvious by now that if Slobodan Milosevic maintains
that the ICTY is illegal, he will naturally take every opportunity he
gets to let the world know about that fact. Is Armatta suggesting that
those who contend, relying on reasonable legal arguments, that the
institution is illegal should nonetheless quietly succumb to it and
personally contribute to the illegal activities undertaken against
them? Armatta—as well as Scheffer and Scharf—express concern about the
deleterious effects of self-representation in other cases. Scharf fears
Saddam Hussein could use "the unique opportunity of self-representation
to launch daily attacks against the legitimacy of the proceedings and
the U.S. invasion of Iraq." Is it then that all targets of aggression
are to be denied the right to self-representation? Or does the very
creation of the ICTY, by the Security Council, (who then proceeded to
establish the ICTR, a body without jurisdiction to consider the
invasion of Rwanda by US-supported "rebels", which aggression sparked
that country’s tragic war) send another message? Could it be that there
is no right of self-defense when the US, or their clients, are the
aggressors?
The essence of Armatta’s complaint against Milosevic, whose will
must not be allowed to prevail over the will of the ICTY, comes from a
flawed view of the ICTY and its process. She states:
"As a legitimate court, it is charged with seeing justice done
for the heinous crimes, including genocide, committed throughout the
territory of the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s. Its fundamental
responsibility, as that of all courts, is to justice."
It is probably no accident the court is here described as
"legitimate." Since the institution’s legality is dubious, the goal is
to portray it as "legitimate" instead. This is the same well known
gambit employed by Antonio Cassese, the former President of the ICTY,
whose unequivocal assertion that the US war against Yugoslavia (by
means of NATO) in 1999 was illegal, but a good ("legitimate"?) thing
since it might lead to the emergence of a new legal principle. Could it
be that even Armatta agrees with Milosevic on the illegality of the
ICTY? This minor problem of illegality can be totally overlooked,
however, since "the court’s fundamental responsibility is to justice".
The picture emerges of an illegal but legitimate court dispensing
justice! If one finds it baffling that an illegal court could be
legitimate, it is all the more challenging to conclude that the ICTY
dispenses justice. For how can a court dispense justice without
observing due process?
Nonetheless, Armatta, reacting to the boycott of the proceedings by
many of Slobodan Milosevic’s witnesses, argues that they have some kind
of duty towards the process: "Witnesses who can testify on those issues
owe it to the accused, the public and the victims to participate in the
trial." But if the trial is essentially unfair, and the court is
illegal, there is no one to whom the witnesses owe anything.
The need to preserve the Rule of law is advocated by Armatta in
support of her contention that the ICTY is correct in refusing to be
"highjacked" or "blackmailed" by President Milosevic. But the "Rule of
law" means something quite different from the process Armatta seeks to
legitimate. A.V. Dicey, the celebrated British constitutional scholar,
offers the classic definition:
"We mean, in the first place, that no man is punishable or can
be made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law
established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of
the land."
Slobodan Milosevic is by no means being tried "in the ordinary
legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land." The ICTY was not
established by treaty or by a vote of the UN General Assembly. The
Constitutional court of Yugoslavia found that Milosevic had been
"transferred" to The Hague in violation of Yugoslav and international
law. The concept of "joint criminal enterprise", which does not require
the prosecution to establish genocidal intent in some instances, is a
recent jurisprudential development. (Not all would consider this
caselaw consistent with the idea that the requisite intent for genocide
must reflect the gravity of the crime, and that it must therefore be
special. The first judgment of an ad hoc court defining genocide,
Prosecutor v. Akayesu, called this dolus specialis. Most, however,
would argue that the relaxed requirements are "good". Again, perhaps a
manifestation of "illegal but good.") Dicey also defines Rule of Law as
a system that adheres to equality before the law. The ICTY’s Prosecutor
(an actual "organ" of the body, as per its Statute) did not consider it
necessary to bring a single charge as a result of the myriad breaches
of international law alleged as a result of NATO’s 78-day bombing
campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999.
Michael Scharf argues that the ICTY’s aims are to "educate" the
Serbian people, and to promote "reconciliation" in the Balkans. But
these are not judicial functions, and Slobodan Milosevic should have
the right to point out what the ICTY’s creators—Scharf is considered to
have been instrumental in the adoption of Security Council Resolution
827, which adopted the ICTY’s Statute—unhesitatingly state themselves.
To argue that the ICTY is not violating fundamental rights and
international law, but is rather protecting the "Rule of Law" is not
only false, but debases the very idea.
On October 21st, the ICTY’s Appeals Chamber heard the parties on
assigned counsels’ appeal against the Trial Chamber’s decision to
impose them as Milosevic’s lawyers. Slobodan Milosevic argued that
imposition of counsel and the violation of the right to defend oneself
in person is the province of political courts, such as the 17th century
Star Chamber, and pointed to Scharf’s statement that the ICTY’s
objectives were transparently political, not judicial, in nature.
Hence, Milosevic stated that given the fact the process was political,
he required a political defense, which could only be achieved through
self-representation. (Indeed, recent amendments to the ICTY’s Code of
Conduct for defense lawyers state that lawyers:
"must not have engaged in conduct, whether in pursuit of his
profession or otherwise (...) likely to diminish public confidence in
the International Tribunal (...) or otherwise bring the International
Tribunal into disrepute.")
The ICTY’s President, Theodor Meron, responded by saying:
"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."
While we note that President Meron’s remarks constitute an implicit
disavowal of Scharf’s conception of the ICTY’s aims, the fact remains
that the ICTY did not clearly indicate that it would not tolerate such
claims. For who and what endangers the ICTY’s credibility? President
Milosevic, who is prevented from arguing that the ICTY is a political
body, or people like Scheffer, Scharf and Armatta, who make plain that
it is? Could it simply be that the ICTY is in fact a political body,
whose creation, as well as its conclusion—in other words, whose birth
and death—are the result of political decisions?
That political reality eloquently reveals "the nature of the
beast." And the fact that not everyone is entitled to make that very
point only reinforces Slobodan Milosevic's arguments, even if he is
stripped of the right to articulate them.
Tiphaine Dickson is a Montreal-based criminal defense lawyer and
was lead counsel in one of the first UN genocide trials before the ICTR
in Arusha, Tanzania. She can be reached at tiphainedickson @
videotron.ca
Aleksandar Jokic is Professor of Philosophy at Portland State
University, and Director of the Center for Philosophical Education in
Santa Barbara. He can be reached at ajokic @ sbceo.org
******************************************************************
© Copyright Tiphaine Dickson an Aleksandar Jokic, CRG 2004 .
================================================
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM www.icdsm.org Sofia-New York-Moscow
SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - Member of the World Peace Council
www.sloboda.org.yu Belgrade
*********************************************************
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.
***************************************************************
For truth and human rights against aggression!
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
Freedom and equality for people!
On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,
Vladimir Krsljanin,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic
*************************************************************
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
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
Data: Mar 26 Ott 2004
A: icdsm-italia @ yahoogroups.com
From : zambon
To : "ICDSM Italia"
Cc :
Date : Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:14:06 +0200
Subject : Giudici o mercenari?
cari compagni,
vi segnalo alcuni episodi (credo sconosciuti) dell'attività
professionale di
Carla Del Ponte tratti dalle memorie di un ispettore di polizia
svizzero da
lei costretto ad abbandonare il servizio.
I motivi sono da ricercare nell' "eccessivo" zelo del commissario nel
perseguire i reati di alcuni noti esponenti della mafia internazionale
del
traffico di droga.
Nel suo libro "Deckname Tato, Pendo Verlag, Zürich" (Soprannome TATO",
Edizioni Pendo, Zurigo) l'ex commissario Fausto Cattaneo scrive:
a pagina 197: "...il conflitto con Carla del Ponte è inevitabile. Lei
non
vuole assolutamente vedere Escobar Junior in un carcere svizzero...."
a pagina 377: "... La nomina di Carla Del Ponte a Pubblico Ministero al
Tribunale Internazionale dell'Aia nell'agosto del 1999 rappresentò il
coronamento di una carriera che si è sempre realizzata nel segno della
politica."
*** THE NATURE OF THE HAGUE BEAST ***
"La natura della bestia dell'Aia": e' il titolo della approfondita
analisi di T. Dickson ed A. Jokic che riportiamo di seguito.
La decisione del "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia (ICTY) di impedire a
Milosevic di difendersi da solo, oltre a rappresentare una violazione
senza precedenti dei diritti elementari dell'"imputato", ha finito con
il determinare una situazione di totale stallo nel "processo": infatti,
la stragrande maggioranza dei "testimoni" convocati a difesa di
Milosevic si sono rifiutati di comparire per protesta, fintantoche' la
decisione non verra' ritirata. Cosicche', il "processo" e' nuovamente
bloccato.
Sulle recenti vicende vedi anche gli aggiornamenti al nostro sito:
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm
Sul grave imbarazzo che le attivita' dell'ICTY stanno provocando,
persino ai piu' alti vertici dell'establishment statunitense, si veda
anche:
BALKAN JUSTICE JOUST - By Jeffrey T. Kuhner
The Washington Times - October 24, 2004
(... Washington is insisting that war crimes cases relating to the
Balkan wars of the 1990s be tried either in domestic courts or be given
an amnesty. This shift not only marks a dramatic change in U.S. policy
toward the ICTY, but more importantly, it is a fatal blow to the power
and credibility of Mrs. Del Ponte...)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20041023-105636-4172r.htm
Rinnoviamo infine il nostro APPELLO:
Senza mezzi finanziari, la difesa di Milosevic non ha chances.
PER PROSEGUIRE QUESTA LOTTA ABBIAMO ASSOLUTO BISOGNO
DEL TUO CONTRIBUTO ECONOMICO -- VEDI:
http://www.pasti.org/traduz.htm
---
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Lun 25 Ott 2004 15:20:40 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: The Nature of the Hague Beast by Tiphaine Dickson and
Aleksandar Jokic
*************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
*************************************************************
www.globalresearch.ca
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
"That Is The Nature Of The Beast":
Why The Hague ICTY Cannot Afford
Slobodan Milosevic’s Right to Self-Representation
by Tiphaine Dickson and Aleksandar Jokic
www.globalresearch.ca 24 October 2004
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC410A.html
When Slobodan Milosevic was asked to plead to the indictment filed
against him, after being whisked off to The Hague as a result of a
transfer whose legality bore more resemblance to kidnapping for ransom
than to extradition, his response to the ICTY Chamber was not the
typical "Not guilty." Milosevic instead said: "That is not my problem,
that is your problem."
And, indeed, the ICTY’s problem it has become. When the prosecution
rested its case after the resignation of the Trial Chamber’s President,
Richard May, last spring, many in the media bemoaned the failure to
prove genocide, and others were unimpressed by the picture of confusion
left by weak witnesses, deflated in cross-examination by a defendant
who consistently stated the ICTY was not a legal, or judicial,
institution. Voices rose to express increasingly strident concern that
the trial was going off the rails. Expectations appeared not to have
been met.
As the defense approached, and Milosevic announced that he would
secure the attendance of 1600 witnesses to support the case he
announced he would make from the beginning—namely that the "Balkan
Wars" had in fact been one war, against Yugoslavia, planned and carried
out by Western powers, whose gruesome apotheosis was NATO’s 78-day
bombing campaign in 1999—the ICTY’s most prestigious supporters zeroed
in on the upcoming defense, arguing that Milosevic’s right to represent
himself had been granted "long enough."
The media onslaught was, and remains, significant and raises an
obvious question: what is it about the present stage of the hearings
that requires such collective effort to defeat?
The latest offensive is apparently triggered by fear, and not only
challenges the internationally mandated right to self-representation
(and the resulting freedom to present a true defense), but is further
calculated to prevent Milosevic from demonstrating the ICTY’s
illegality, and functions. President Milosevic has indeed consistently
argued that the ICTY serves up apologia for the destruction of
Yugoslavia, provides justification for aggression, and rewrites
history. Hence, the seemingly endless references, not to Milosevic’s
health, but to his deleterious impact on the "Court’s reputation",
"credibility" and "legitimacy."
Public lobbying of the ICTY supporting the imposition of counsel on
Slobodan Milosevic has been undertaken by a trio of its stalwart
supporters: David Scheffer, Michael Scharf, and Judith Armatta. Their
claims—perhaps inadvertently—betray the political nature of the
institution.
Writing in the pages of International Herald Tribune ("Enough of
Milosevic’s Antics" July 13, 2004), David Scheffer, former Ambassador
at Large for War Crimes Issues under Secretary of State Albright,
dehumanizes Milosevic, and urges the ICTY to reassert its "authority"
over him. Writes Scheffer: "When he was the presiding judge, the late
Richard May deftly handled Milosevic’s exercise of his right to
self-representation by giving him enough leash every day to speak his
mind and then jerking that leash when he overstepped his bounds." The
metaphor of "leash jerking" is powerfully deployed here in light of the
painfully recent Abu Ghraib prison atrocities in Iraq, immortalized by
the infamous photograph of Pfc. Lynndie England holding a naked human
being on a leash. Is Scheffer urging the ICTY to become more like Abu
Ghraib, but in the judicial, rather than military theater of
operations? Whatever his intent, in one important respect there is
hardly any difference between the physical and metaphorical leash
jerking: they are both firmly grounded in the most primitive racist or
reifying attitudes toward their targets. And who exactly is the target
of David Scheffer’s comments? It would appear to be only Mr. Milosevic
who is thus rendered inhuman, but there is another, even more crucial
objective: the ICTY’s judges and prosecutor are implicitly reminded
here that they are mere tools (res) of the Empire, so they had better
deliver.
And what were the goods to be delivered by the ICTY? The process is
staggeringly costly, so it follows that a conviction is necessary, and
that "justice" mandates the gagging of Milosevic, who is: "charged with
crimes of enormous gravity in the Balkans: genocide, crimes against
humanity and war crimes. They scream out for accountability. The United
Nations and its member states are expending large sums of money on
these trials for the purpose of justice, not political diatribes and
meandering defenses." It is unclear whether this is a legal or
political argument. It may be that Scheffer’s position—promoting a
novel legal approach—is that since Milosevic has been charged with the
most serious crimes of all, and that they "scream out for
accountability," this very fact ipso facto constitutes proof beyond
reasonable doubt of his actual guilt. For who could imagine that the
ICTY might bring frivolous charges and indict a sitting President in
the midst of a war of aggression against his country? Alternatively,
Scheffer’s words might be expressing a direct political claim: "We paid
for this, and we certainly did not pay for this man to jerk us around."
Scheffer advocates the imposition of counsel, to: "ensure the
integrity of the process, which may be nearing a breaking point with
the international community." The impatience expressed on behalf of the
phantom "international community" might in fact be just Scheffer’s own
and those of his ilk, well connected to the establishment of the ICTY.
In any event, the point is that the ICTY has no legal authority beyond
the powers granted by the Security Council, and deemed legally valid by
its own appeals chamber, i.e., itself. Hence, its authority "must be
asserted." The very process, which is an abuse, must be protected from
"a crippling abuse," that is, from denunciation by Milosevic, and in
particular his witnesses: "A massive criminal enterprise of this
character deserves a long, carefully developed trial that inevitably
will experience delays. That is the nature of the beast. But the time
has arrived to reassert the court’s mandated authority and prevent a
crippling abuse of the process by the likes of Slobodan Milosevic."
"Nature of the beast", indeed. It is urgent that this be accomplished
since the ICTY, as opposed to judicial bodies the world over, is a
"limited engagement," and is attempting to complete investigations,
trials, and appeals before a Security Council-mandated deadline—known
as the "completion strategy"—in 2010. A conviction must be secured
before then. Just as performances must end before the circus can leave
town.
Also urgent is that "Serbs," specifically, "respect the court’s
authority," and presumably this transformation can only take place if
Milosevic is gagged, and the illegality of the body never mentioned
again: "Perhaps if the discipline of a competent counsel is brought
into the courtroom, Milosevic’s Serb supporters would learn to respect
the authority of this tribunal."
In his conclusion Scheffer fittingly returns to his tired leash
metaphor to reinforce his point that Milosevic must be silenced
"permanently" since he is inhuman: "Milosevic has jerked the court
around long enough. It is time to permanently pull in Judge May’s
well-worn leash."
Michael Scharf, visiting professor of law at Case Western Reserve
University, and instrumental in the creation of the ICTY, followed
Scheffer’s opening salvo in the Washington Post, and, with
bone-chilling clarity, made the case for imposition, employing
strikingly political arguments. ("Making a Spectacle of Himself:
Milosevic Wants a Stage, Not the Right to Provide His Own Defense",
August 29th, 2004) Drawing on the now-familiar refrain that Slobodan
Milosevic is "playing for the home audience", Scharf is outraged by the
idea that the unrepresented defendant would somehow make use of a show
trial to gain support in Serbia and Montenegro, when the ICTY was
created, he deadpans, precisely to remove Milosevic from politics, and
"educate" Serbs, so that he and his like would be put out of commission
forever. That his own argument confirms the political nature of the
ICTY and candidly clarifies its objectives as non-judicial does not
deter Scharf from the description of the process as an "international
war crimes trial" and the institution as a "court of law."
According to Scharf: "Milosevic’s caustic defense strategy is
unlikely to win him acquittal, but it isn’t aimed at the court of law
in The Hague. His audience is the court of public opinion back home in
Serbia, where the trial is a top-rated TV show and Milosevic’s standing
continues to rise. Opinion polls have reported that 75 percent of Serbs
do not feel that Milosevic is getting a fair trial, and 67 percent
think that he is not responsible for any war crimes. ‘Slobo Hero!’
graffiti is omnipresent on Belgrade buses and buildings. Last December,
he easily won a seat in the Serbian parliament in a national election."
What any of these concerns and political trivia could possibly have
to do with international law—if considered as an activity of a judicial
nature—is unclear. If, however, playing to an uninformed Western
public, the idea is to suggest that by granting basic internationally
recognized human rights to the man who was the West’s principal
interlocutor in Balkan peace negotiations for over half a decade, the
ICTY is failing in its mission to "educate" the Serbs, then the point
is well taken. Scharf deplores the fact that opinion polls show that
"75% of Serbs do not feel Milosevic is getting a fair trial." Scharf’s
disappointment in this expression of popular distrust—which may well be
directed to the institution as a whole—assumes that public opinion in
Serbia and Montenegro is misguided, and that it fails to appreciate the
"fairness" of the proceedings. But if, as Scharf claims, ICTY hearings
are "top rated" TV shows, then public opinion was formed by actually
observing the proceedings; in which case the problem might not be
collective delusion abroad, but rather Western ignorance of the ICTY’s
day to day workings. The latter are largely inconsistent with the
widely held Western belief—based, perhaps, on faith or missionary
zeal—that proceedings in The Hague are inherently fair.
Scharf’s preoccupation with graffiti adorning the buses and
buildings of Belgrade is perhaps an expression of concern for the
environment. However, any threat posed by "Slobo Hero!" pales in
comparison to the effects of NATO’s bombing, and in particular, with
the presence of depleted uranium in the soil and groundwater of Serbia
and Montenegro. It may be that "Serb" public opinion has not yet been
sufficiently educated by the "court of law" to lose sight of this
disturbing reality, which will remain with it for decades, and possibly
centuries. Perhaps this reality and the ever-present reminders of
NATO’s bombing in the streets of Belgrade have had some influence on
the public perception of the ICTY’s "fairness."
Scharf’s assault on Mr. Milosevic’s right to self-representation,
while in line with Scheffer’s demand that the "leash be pulled in
permanently," presents one significant difference in approach. Where
Scheffer depicted the late judge May as an uncompromising animal-tamer
of sorts, Scharf presents him as a misguided fool. Rather than invoke
his capacity for discipline, he accuses him—in an eloquent
demonstration of the reification of the ICTY’s functionaries, in
particular the deceased—of having been lax and in error by having
granted the right to self-representation to Milosevic in the first
place. He writes: "Virtually everything that has gone wrong with the
Milosevic trial can be traced back to that erroneous ruling."
And what has "gone wrong" is that Milosevic made "disparaging
remarks about the court" and "browbeat" witnesses. He doesn’t recognize
the ICTY, and he has said so. As for the "browbeating" of witnesses,
that is to a certain extent, whether we like it or not, part of the art
of cross-examination. But Scharf’s emphasis is placed not so much on
these complaints as on his wild claims about Mr. Milosevic’s growing
popularity in Serbia and Montenegro.
Scharf makes plain that the ICTY was created for political reasons,
yet advocates imposing counsel on Slobodan Milosevic to prevent him
from making precisely the same point. The only difference is that
Milosevic is "disparaging," while Scharf argues that the ICTY’s evident
political objectives are somehow valid:
"In creating the Yugoslavia tribunal statute, the U.N. Security
Council set three objectives: first, to educate the Serbian people, who
were long misled by Milosevic’s propaganda, about the acts of
aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by his
regime; second, to facilitate national reconciliation by pinning prime
responsibility on Milosevic and other top leaders and disclosing the
ways in which the Milosevic regime had induced ordinary Serbs to commit
atrocities; and third, to promote political catharsis while enabling
Serbia’s newly elected leaders to distance themselves from the
repressive policies of the past. May’s decision to allow Milosevic to
represent himself has seriously undercut these aims."
The idea that affording the right of self-representation to
Milosevic had "seriously undercut" the "aims" of the ICTY’s very
establishment strains credulity. However, if those aims were, and
continue to be, "to pin" responsibility on Slobodan Milosevic, and to
"educate" Serbs about how bad he was—or, ultimately, how bad Yugoslavia
was—then these aims are assuredly not shared by the defendant. Indeed,
Milosevic has no intention of assisting the ICTY in "convincing Serbs"
that acts of aggression committed against Yugoslavia were justified.
Furthermore, whether or not the political aims set out by Scharf are
valid, morally correct, or politically expedient, they cannot make
legal what is illegal, they cannot make legitimate what is
illegitimate, and they cannot, most crucially, turn a political body
into a court.
As was perhaps inevitable, the ICTY did impose counsel. On
September 2nd, two of the former amici curiae were "assigned"—the Trial
Chamber pointedly insisted on the use of this term, instead of the
apparently indelicate "imposed"—to represent Slobodan Milosevic, and
given full responsibility over his defense, including the formation of
his strategy and choice of witnesses. The prerogatives granted to
imposed counsel were far more intrusive than what had been expected;
even, apparently, by the prosecution’s senior trial attorney who had
appeared during the hearings to envisage a "standby counsel" prepared
to step in should Milosevic’s health prevent him from acting. Instead,
the defense was handed over to strangers, who in addition to receiving
no instructions from their "client" happened to have acted as another
party in these proceedings, as "friends" of a "court" the defendant
does not recognize.
That this imposition of counsel constitutes a conflict of interest,
that it violates the International Covenant for Civil and Political
Rights, that neither the South African Apartheid regime nor Nazi
Germany imposed counsel against Mandela or Dimitrov, respectively, and
that imposition has actually caused more delay of the proceedings
(while Milosevic is healthy) does not deter those who defend the ICTY’s
decision to strip President Milosevic of the right to call his
witnesses, and present his defense. And his defense is the problem, as
it is candidly presented as a political defense, before a political
body.
Imposed counsel struggled in vain to present more than five
witnesses since early September, and were confronted with the refusal
of experts, diplomats, officers and dozens of others to participate in
a defense that was not the defense they had agreed to support. (Of
note, here, is that before a normal judiciary, witnesses have no say in
whether or not they wish to participate in the workings of justice. The
etymology of the word "subpoena"—"under penalty"—makes clear that legal
courts also have legal authority) This latest crisis before the ICTY
prompted new intervention in the media, for the sake of the ICTY’s
credibility. But the political nature of the claims has had the
opposite effect.
Judith Armatta, a lawyer acting as trial observer for the US-based
Coalition for International Justice (Justice, not Political Platform
for Milosevic, IHT, October 7th), much like her predecessors, Scheffer
and Scharf, betrays the true reason for imposition of counsel on
Slobodan Milosevic. Clearly neither Armatta nor the ICTY appreciates
his "political defense". Armatta implies that Milosevic—and others
before the ad hoc Security Council bodies, such as the ICTR in Arusha,
Tanzania—are simply capricious accused who refuse to respect
established court procedure, while these embattled courts struggle to
provide fair trials in the face of obstructionism from "unreasonable"
defendants. This is a mischaracterization both of Slobodan Milosevic’s
position (and that of Rwandan accused at the ICTR) and of the ad hoc
tribunals' legitimacy.
Armatta writes that the "trial of Slobodan Milosevic before the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has reached a
standoff, where the will of the UN-established court is pitted against
the will of one individual, the accused."
This depiction of the Milosevic case as a battle of wills is
peculiar, to say the least, as it falsely presents ICTY as an underdog
in this "standoff" requiring some assistance and encouragement. What
could possibly disadvantage the ICTY—which enjoys the full support of
the only super power—in its "test of wills" with Milosevic? The message
sent by ICTY supporters, such as Armatta, is that the ICTY’s handicap
is its tendency to go overboard with fairness. Trying to be as fair as
possible creates difficulties for the forces of justice. Thus calls on
ICTY like this one: "It is incumbent on this tribunal to stand up to
Milosevic, assert its authority and bring the world one step closer to
the rule of law." But is accomplishing fairness the ICTY’s central
concern? And how does "standing up" to Milosevic bring anybody any
closer to the Rule of law, in particular when international human
rights instruments are violated in the process?
The problem is what Milosevic has to say. That the ICTY pointedly
imposed counsel for "health reasons" is a secondary consideration for
Armatta, as it might well have been for the Chamber who disregarded the
fact that Slobodan Milosevic has defended himself quite ably for the
past three years, and suffered from hypertension for ten. In fact,
since counsel was imposed, the health reasons that justified the
measure have gradually been replaced by suggestions that Milosevic
lacks sufficient "respect for the court."
Armatta’s criticism of Slobodan Milosevic’s behavior suggests she
has privileged access to his mind. She not only chastises him for not
cooperating with the ongoing violation of his rights, but reveals why
he embarks on such a baffling course: "the accused refuses to
communicate with counsel or assist in selecting and securing witnesses
or developing a defense strategy, since he seeks not to defend himself
but to use the trial as a platform to advance his political agenda. "
Were it acceptable to apply such psychoanalysis to the ICTY,
instead of Milosevic, the inquiry could address the wholly predictable
consequences of imposition of counsel. Armatta describes the situation
in the following manner: "Nearly half the witnesses initially scheduled
to testify on his behalf have followed his example by refusing to
appear in court if Milosevic is not allowed to represent himself." If
we wanted to speculate, we could posit that the reason for imposition
of counsel had nothing to do with his health or fairness. On the
contrary, the reason might be that the ICTY wanted to prevent the
appearance of most of his witnesses, as they would expose the illegal
nature of ICTY. So, while in the realm of speculation, one could
imagine that they correctly predicted that by imposing counsel on
Milosevic they would bring about a boycott by those witnesses and bring
the proceedings to a quick conclusion without most of them ever
appearing.
But this type of speculation is deemed improper. And it is
inconsistent with Armatta’s depiction of the current situation as a
battle of the wills, which provides absolute clarity as to where the
good and the bad wills lie. And what better way to expose the unsavory
intent of the one deemed to have bad will than to point to his
consistent opposition to the process that is assumed to be inherently
fair? Armatta states, as if this established his bad faith, that Mr.
Milosevic: "has consistently maintained, he does not recognize the
legitimacy of the tribunal but will use whatever opportunity is
provided to make his political case to the public."
It should be obvious by now that if Slobodan Milosevic maintains
that the ICTY is illegal, he will naturally take every opportunity he
gets to let the world know about that fact. Is Armatta suggesting that
those who contend, relying on reasonable legal arguments, that the
institution is illegal should nonetheless quietly succumb to it and
personally contribute to the illegal activities undertaken against
them? Armatta—as well as Scheffer and Scharf—express concern about the
deleterious effects of self-representation in other cases. Scharf fears
Saddam Hussein could use "the unique opportunity of self-representation
to launch daily attacks against the legitimacy of the proceedings and
the U.S. invasion of Iraq." Is it then that all targets of aggression
are to be denied the right to self-representation? Or does the very
creation of the ICTY, by the Security Council, (who then proceeded to
establish the ICTR, a body without jurisdiction to consider the
invasion of Rwanda by US-supported "rebels", which aggression sparked
that country’s tragic war) send another message? Could it be that there
is no right of self-defense when the US, or their clients, are the
aggressors?
The essence of Armatta’s complaint against Milosevic, whose will
must not be allowed to prevail over the will of the ICTY, comes from a
flawed view of the ICTY and its process. She states:
"As a legitimate court, it is charged with seeing justice done
for the heinous crimes, including genocide, committed throughout the
territory of the former Yugoslavia during the 1990s. Its fundamental
responsibility, as that of all courts, is to justice."
It is probably no accident the court is here described as
"legitimate." Since the institution’s legality is dubious, the goal is
to portray it as "legitimate" instead. This is the same well known
gambit employed by Antonio Cassese, the former President of the ICTY,
whose unequivocal assertion that the US war against Yugoslavia (by
means of NATO) in 1999 was illegal, but a good ("legitimate"?) thing
since it might lead to the emergence of a new legal principle. Could it
be that even Armatta agrees with Milosevic on the illegality of the
ICTY? This minor problem of illegality can be totally overlooked,
however, since "the court’s fundamental responsibility is to justice".
The picture emerges of an illegal but legitimate court dispensing
justice! If one finds it baffling that an illegal court could be
legitimate, it is all the more challenging to conclude that the ICTY
dispenses justice. For how can a court dispense justice without
observing due process?
Nonetheless, Armatta, reacting to the boycott of the proceedings by
many of Slobodan Milosevic’s witnesses, argues that they have some kind
of duty towards the process: "Witnesses who can testify on those issues
owe it to the accused, the public and the victims to participate in the
trial." But if the trial is essentially unfair, and the court is
illegal, there is no one to whom the witnesses owe anything.
The need to preserve the Rule of law is advocated by Armatta in
support of her contention that the ICTY is correct in refusing to be
"highjacked" or "blackmailed" by President Milosevic. But the "Rule of
law" means something quite different from the process Armatta seeks to
legitimate. A.V. Dicey, the celebrated British constitutional scholar,
offers the classic definition:
"We mean, in the first place, that no man is punishable or can
be made to suffer in body or goods except for a distinct breach of law
established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of
the land."
Slobodan Milosevic is by no means being tried "in the ordinary
legal manner before the ordinary courts of the land." The ICTY was not
established by treaty or by a vote of the UN General Assembly. The
Constitutional court of Yugoslavia found that Milosevic had been
"transferred" to The Hague in violation of Yugoslav and international
law. The concept of "joint criminal enterprise", which does not require
the prosecution to establish genocidal intent in some instances, is a
recent jurisprudential development. (Not all would consider this
caselaw consistent with the idea that the requisite intent for genocide
must reflect the gravity of the crime, and that it must therefore be
special. The first judgment of an ad hoc court defining genocide,
Prosecutor v. Akayesu, called this dolus specialis. Most, however,
would argue that the relaxed requirements are "good". Again, perhaps a
manifestation of "illegal but good.") Dicey also defines Rule of Law as
a system that adheres to equality before the law. The ICTY’s Prosecutor
(an actual "organ" of the body, as per its Statute) did not consider it
necessary to bring a single charge as a result of the myriad breaches
of international law alleged as a result of NATO’s 78-day bombing
campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999.
Michael Scharf argues that the ICTY’s aims are to "educate" the
Serbian people, and to promote "reconciliation" in the Balkans. But
these are not judicial functions, and Slobodan Milosevic should have
the right to point out what the ICTY’s creators—Scharf is considered to
have been instrumental in the adoption of Security Council Resolution
827, which adopted the ICTY’s Statute—unhesitatingly state themselves.
To argue that the ICTY is not violating fundamental rights and
international law, but is rather protecting the "Rule of Law" is not
only false, but debases the very idea.
On October 21st, the ICTY’s Appeals Chamber heard the parties on
assigned counsels’ appeal against the Trial Chamber’s decision to
impose them as Milosevic’s lawyers. Slobodan Milosevic argued that
imposition of counsel and the violation of the right to defend oneself
in person is the province of political courts, such as the 17th century
Star Chamber, and pointed to Scharf’s statement that the ICTY’s
objectives were transparently political, not judicial, in nature.
Hence, Milosevic stated that given the fact the process was political,
he required a political defense, which could only be achieved through
self-representation. (Indeed, recent amendments to the ICTY’s Code of
Conduct for defense lawyers state that lawyers:
"must not have engaged in conduct, whether in pursuit of his
profession or otherwise (...) likely to diminish public confidence in
the International Tribunal (...) or otherwise bring the International
Tribunal into disrepute.")
The ICTY’s President, Theodor Meron, responded by saying:
"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."
While we note that President Meron’s remarks constitute an implicit
disavowal of Scharf’s conception of the ICTY’s aims, the fact remains
that the ICTY did not clearly indicate that it would not tolerate such
claims. For who and what endangers the ICTY’s credibility? President
Milosevic, who is prevented from arguing that the ICTY is a political
body, or people like Scheffer, Scharf and Armatta, who make plain that
it is? Could it simply be that the ICTY is in fact a political body,
whose creation, as well as its conclusion—in other words, whose birth
and death—are the result of political decisions?
That political reality eloquently reveals "the nature of the
beast." And the fact that not everyone is entitled to make that very
point only reinforces Slobodan Milosevic's arguments, even if he is
stripped of the right to articulate them.
Tiphaine Dickson is a Montreal-based criminal defense lawyer and
was lead counsel in one of the first UN genocide trials before the ICTR
in Arusha, Tanzania. She can be reached at tiphainedickson @
videotron.ca
Aleksandar Jokic is Professor of Philosophy at Portland State
University, and Director of the Center for Philosophical Education in
Santa Barbara. He can be reached at ajokic @ sbceo.org
******************************************************************
© Copyright Tiphaine Dickson an Aleksandar Jokic, CRG 2004 .
================================================
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM www.icdsm.org Sofia-New York-Moscow
SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - Member of the World Peace Council
www.sloboda.org.yu Belgrade
*********************************************************
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.
***************************************************************
For truth and human rights against aggression!
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
Freedom and equality for people!
On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,
Vladimir Krsljanin,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic
*************************************************************
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
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
[ Mentre la causa che contrappone i parenti delle vittime ed i
sopravvissuti al raid NATO sul paesino serbo di Varvarin, da una parte,
al governo federale tedesco, dall'altra, viene avviata alla Corte
Suprema di Colonia (udienza il prossimo 24 febbraio) e poi forse alla
Corte Suprema federale e fino alla Corte Europea, l'avvocato delle
vittime si vede recapitare dallo Stato tedesco un "conto" provvisorio
di 16370 euro di spese legali, per il cui pagamento sarebbe stata
fissata la data (ormai trascorsa) del 30 settembre 2004.
Si tratta chiaramente di una intimidazione nei confronti delle tante
famiglie di origine jugoslava coinvolte, le quali hanno insormontabili
difficolta' a pagare qualsivoglia cifra -- come se non avessero gia'
dovuto pagare, e senza motivo, con la vita e con la salute dei loro
cari!
Ricordiamo che nel bombardamento del ponte a Varvarin, il 30 maggio
1999, dieci persone rimasero uccise, 17 riportarono ferite gravi e
altre 30 rimasero ferite lievemente. Il ponte non era un obbiettivo
militare: furono centinaia gli obbiettivi civili colpiti, e circa 1500
le vittime civili di quella aggressione criminale. Gli aerei Nato
colpirono il ponte di Varvarin in due attacchi consecutivi: la
maggiorparte delle vittime furono abitanti accorsi per soccorrere i
feriti del primo raid.
Teniamo anche presente che tutte le altre denunce, presentate a
numerose istanze, di vari paesi o sovranazionali, sui crimini di guerra
della Nato in Jugoslavia sono state INSABBIATE, tranne (per ora) quella
presentata dalla Jugoslavia alla Corte Internazionale dell'Aia (da non
confondere con il "Tribunale ad hoc", che pure ha sede all'Aia ma che
si rifiuta di procedere contro la Nato): ma e' noto che la stessa Nato
ha chiesto alla nuova leadership filoatlantica di Belgrado che, se
vuole diventare partner, deve ritirare anche quella.
LE VITTIME DI VARVARIN hanno urgente bisogno del nostro sostegno. Per
contribuire, si puo' versare sul conto tedesco:
Vereinigung deutscher Juristen,
Berliner Sparkasse,
BLZ 100 500 00, Kto.: 33 52 20 14
Sulla causa intentata in Germania per il bombardamento di Varvarin vedi
anche, ad esempio:
NATO - Kriegsopfer klagen gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Memoria d'appello indirizzata alla Corte Suprema di Colonia)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3770
Primo processo per i raid del 1999 (16 Ott 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2867
Varvarin 30/5/1999 (30 Ott 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2910
Varvarin-Bürger gegen Deutschland (9 Dic 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3000
Varvarin/Germania: sancito il diritto di ammazzare i civili ?
(11 Dic 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3009
Varvarin citizens to appeal to Higher Court in Cologne
(19 Dic 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3037
Projekt "NATO-Kriegsopfer klagen auf Schadenersatz"
(13 Feb 2004)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3192
nonche' larga parte del libro di Jürgen Elsässer
Kriegslügen ("Menzogne di guerra"),
specialmente nell'edizione aggiornata tedesca (2004):
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/sanja.htm
L’ultimo giorno di Sanja - Cosa racconterebbe della guerra una una
ragazza serba perita nel bombardamento di Varvarin ]
junge Welt (Berlin) - 20.10.2004
Inland
Peter Wolter
Kostenknebel aus Berlin für Varvarin-Kläger
Bundesregierung fordert horrende Anwaltsgebühren von bettelarmen
Bombenopfern aus Serbien. »Projektrat Varvarin« will bis zum
Europäischen Gerichtshof gehen
Die Bundesregierung will weitere Schadensersatzforderungen serbischer
Opfer der NATO-Angriffe offenbar dadurch unterbinden, daß sie den
Klägern ihre horrenden Anwaltskosten in Rechnung stellt. Harald
Kampffmeyer vom »Projektrat Varvarin« erklärte der jW, den Anwälten der
Kläger aus der Kleinstadt Varvarin sei eine Rechnung über 16 370 Euro
Anwaltsgebühren zugestellt worden. Diese Summe werde jetzt
möglicherweise mit Hilfe eines serbischen Gerichts eingetrieben, die
Zahlungsfrist sei am 30. September abgelaufen.
»Die Kläger, die zum Teil schwer verletzt sind oder ihre
Familienangehörigen verloren haben, sind bettelarm«, sagte Kampffmeyer.
»Denen kann man bestenfalls die Kohlrabi im Vorgarten pfänden. Der
Bundesregierung geht es aber weniger um Geld als um die
Einschüchterung. Damit sollen die Geschädigten davon abgeschreckt
werden, den Rechtsweg weiter zu verfolgen.«
Während des Krieges gegen Jugoslawien hatten NATO-Jagdflugzeuge am 30.
Mai 1999 die strategisch unbedeutende Brücke von Varvarin mit Raketen
beschossen. Dabei waren zehn Zivilisten ums Leben gekommen, 17 wurden
schwerverletzt. Der »Projektrat Varvarin« hatte sich für die
Bombenopfer eingesetzt und mit Spendensammlungen eine
Schadensersatzklage vor dem Landgericht Bonn angestrengt. Der Richter
sprach den Opfern zwar sein »volles Mitgefühl« aus, wies aber die Klage
als unbegründet zurück. Die Geschädigten haben Berufung eingelegt – sie
soll am 24. Februar 2005 vor dem Oberlandesgericht Köln verhandelt
werden soll.
»Das Kölner Gericht wird der Bundesregierung wahrscheinlich recht
geben«, sagte Kampffmeyer. »Interessant wird es aber in der 3. Instanz
beim Bundesgerichtshof. Der hatte im Fall der Opfer aus dem
griechischen Ort Distomo, in dem die Waffen-SS 1944 218 Menschen
massakriert hatte, einen anderen Rechtsstandpunkt für die heutige Zeit
angedeutet. Und dann bleibt uns noch der Europäische Gerichtshof. Wir
werden den Rechtsweg bis zur letzten Instanz gehen. Jedenfalls, solange
wir es finanzieren können«.
Moralisch gesehen sei das Verhalten der Bundesregierung »ein Tiefschlag
der bösesten Sorte«, kommentiert der ehemalige DDR-Botschafter in
Belgrad, Ralph Hartmann, in der Zweiwochenzeitschrift Ossietzky (Nr.
21). »Offenkundig ist der Bundesregierung jedes Mittel recht, um die
serbischen Kläger vor weiteren Schritten zur Durchsetzung ihrer
Ansprüche abzuschrecken und die eigene Kasse aufzufüllen.«
Bekannt sei, daß die deutschen »ECR-Tornados mit ihren HARM-Raketen
unter anderem die Radarstellungen der jugoslawischen Luftwaffe außer
Gefecht setzten und den Weg für die nachfolgenden Bomber frei machten.
Immerhin flogen allein die deutschen Tornados rund 450 Einsätze, jede
Flugstunde kostete ohne Personalausgaben 10 000 Mark und jede
abgefeuerte HARM-Rakete rund 400 000 Mark. Im Vergleich dazu sind die
16 000 Euro, die die Opfer des Terrorangriffs auf die Brücke von
Varvarin zahlen sollen, »Peanuts«.« Peter Wolter
* Spenden für die juristische Unterstützung der Opfer von Varvarin an:
Vereinigung deutscher Juristen, Berliner Sparkasse, BLZ 100 500 00,
Kto.: 33 52 20 14
http://www.jungewelt.de/2004/10-20/016.php
sopravvissuti al raid NATO sul paesino serbo di Varvarin, da una parte,
al governo federale tedesco, dall'altra, viene avviata alla Corte
Suprema di Colonia (udienza il prossimo 24 febbraio) e poi forse alla
Corte Suprema federale e fino alla Corte Europea, l'avvocato delle
vittime si vede recapitare dallo Stato tedesco un "conto" provvisorio
di 16370 euro di spese legali, per il cui pagamento sarebbe stata
fissata la data (ormai trascorsa) del 30 settembre 2004.
Si tratta chiaramente di una intimidazione nei confronti delle tante
famiglie di origine jugoslava coinvolte, le quali hanno insormontabili
difficolta' a pagare qualsivoglia cifra -- come se non avessero gia'
dovuto pagare, e senza motivo, con la vita e con la salute dei loro
cari!
Ricordiamo che nel bombardamento del ponte a Varvarin, il 30 maggio
1999, dieci persone rimasero uccise, 17 riportarono ferite gravi e
altre 30 rimasero ferite lievemente. Il ponte non era un obbiettivo
militare: furono centinaia gli obbiettivi civili colpiti, e circa 1500
le vittime civili di quella aggressione criminale. Gli aerei Nato
colpirono il ponte di Varvarin in due attacchi consecutivi: la
maggiorparte delle vittime furono abitanti accorsi per soccorrere i
feriti del primo raid.
Teniamo anche presente che tutte le altre denunce, presentate a
numerose istanze, di vari paesi o sovranazionali, sui crimini di guerra
della Nato in Jugoslavia sono state INSABBIATE, tranne (per ora) quella
presentata dalla Jugoslavia alla Corte Internazionale dell'Aia (da non
confondere con il "Tribunale ad hoc", che pure ha sede all'Aia ma che
si rifiuta di procedere contro la Nato): ma e' noto che la stessa Nato
ha chiesto alla nuova leadership filoatlantica di Belgrado che, se
vuole diventare partner, deve ritirare anche quella.
LE VITTIME DI VARVARIN hanno urgente bisogno del nostro sostegno. Per
contribuire, si puo' versare sul conto tedesco:
Vereinigung deutscher Juristen,
Berliner Sparkasse,
BLZ 100 500 00, Kto.: 33 52 20 14
Sulla causa intentata in Germania per il bombardamento di Varvarin vedi
anche, ad esempio:
NATO - Kriegsopfer klagen gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland
(Memoria d'appello indirizzata alla Corte Suprema di Colonia)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3770
Primo processo per i raid del 1999 (16 Ott 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2867
Varvarin 30/5/1999 (30 Ott 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/2910
Varvarin-Bürger gegen Deutschland (9 Dic 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3000
Varvarin/Germania: sancito il diritto di ammazzare i civili ?
(11 Dic 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3009
Varvarin citizens to appeal to Higher Court in Cologne
(19 Dic 2003)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3037
Projekt "NATO-Kriegsopfer klagen auf Schadenersatz"
(13 Feb 2004)
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3192
nonche' larga parte del libro di Jürgen Elsässer
Kriegslügen ("Menzogne di guerra"),
specialmente nell'edizione aggiornata tedesca (2004):
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/sanja.htm
L’ultimo giorno di Sanja - Cosa racconterebbe della guerra una una
ragazza serba perita nel bombardamento di Varvarin ]
junge Welt (Berlin) - 20.10.2004
Inland
Peter Wolter
Kostenknebel aus Berlin für Varvarin-Kläger
Bundesregierung fordert horrende Anwaltsgebühren von bettelarmen
Bombenopfern aus Serbien. »Projektrat Varvarin« will bis zum
Europäischen Gerichtshof gehen
Die Bundesregierung will weitere Schadensersatzforderungen serbischer
Opfer der NATO-Angriffe offenbar dadurch unterbinden, daß sie den
Klägern ihre horrenden Anwaltskosten in Rechnung stellt. Harald
Kampffmeyer vom »Projektrat Varvarin« erklärte der jW, den Anwälten der
Kläger aus der Kleinstadt Varvarin sei eine Rechnung über 16 370 Euro
Anwaltsgebühren zugestellt worden. Diese Summe werde jetzt
möglicherweise mit Hilfe eines serbischen Gerichts eingetrieben, die
Zahlungsfrist sei am 30. September abgelaufen.
»Die Kläger, die zum Teil schwer verletzt sind oder ihre
Familienangehörigen verloren haben, sind bettelarm«, sagte Kampffmeyer.
»Denen kann man bestenfalls die Kohlrabi im Vorgarten pfänden. Der
Bundesregierung geht es aber weniger um Geld als um die
Einschüchterung. Damit sollen die Geschädigten davon abgeschreckt
werden, den Rechtsweg weiter zu verfolgen.«
Während des Krieges gegen Jugoslawien hatten NATO-Jagdflugzeuge am 30.
Mai 1999 die strategisch unbedeutende Brücke von Varvarin mit Raketen
beschossen. Dabei waren zehn Zivilisten ums Leben gekommen, 17 wurden
schwerverletzt. Der »Projektrat Varvarin« hatte sich für die
Bombenopfer eingesetzt und mit Spendensammlungen eine
Schadensersatzklage vor dem Landgericht Bonn angestrengt. Der Richter
sprach den Opfern zwar sein »volles Mitgefühl« aus, wies aber die Klage
als unbegründet zurück. Die Geschädigten haben Berufung eingelegt – sie
soll am 24. Februar 2005 vor dem Oberlandesgericht Köln verhandelt
werden soll.
»Das Kölner Gericht wird der Bundesregierung wahrscheinlich recht
geben«, sagte Kampffmeyer. »Interessant wird es aber in der 3. Instanz
beim Bundesgerichtshof. Der hatte im Fall der Opfer aus dem
griechischen Ort Distomo, in dem die Waffen-SS 1944 218 Menschen
massakriert hatte, einen anderen Rechtsstandpunkt für die heutige Zeit
angedeutet. Und dann bleibt uns noch der Europäische Gerichtshof. Wir
werden den Rechtsweg bis zur letzten Instanz gehen. Jedenfalls, solange
wir es finanzieren können«.
Moralisch gesehen sei das Verhalten der Bundesregierung »ein Tiefschlag
der bösesten Sorte«, kommentiert der ehemalige DDR-Botschafter in
Belgrad, Ralph Hartmann, in der Zweiwochenzeitschrift Ossietzky (Nr.
21). »Offenkundig ist der Bundesregierung jedes Mittel recht, um die
serbischen Kläger vor weiteren Schritten zur Durchsetzung ihrer
Ansprüche abzuschrecken und die eigene Kasse aufzufüllen.«
Bekannt sei, daß die deutschen »ECR-Tornados mit ihren HARM-Raketen
unter anderem die Radarstellungen der jugoslawischen Luftwaffe außer
Gefecht setzten und den Weg für die nachfolgenden Bomber frei machten.
Immerhin flogen allein die deutschen Tornados rund 450 Einsätze, jede
Flugstunde kostete ohne Personalausgaben 10 000 Mark und jede
abgefeuerte HARM-Rakete rund 400 000 Mark. Im Vergleich dazu sind die
16 000 Euro, die die Opfer des Terrorangriffs auf die Brücke von
Varvarin zahlen sollen, »Peanuts«.« Peter Wolter
* Spenden für die juristische Unterstützung der Opfer von Varvarin an:
Vereinigung deutscher Juristen, Berliner Sparkasse, BLZ 100 500 00,
Kto.: 33 52 20 14
http://www.jungewelt.de/2004/10-20/016.php
(srpskohrvatski / english / francais / italiano)
ASSEDIARE LA RUSSIA (3)
1. TADIC I BELORUSIJA (O. Vulovic / ARTEL)
2. BUSH INASPRISCE LE SANZIONI CONTRO LA BIELORUSSIA (M. Gemma)
3. Il leader della organizzazione giovanile Serba OTPOR espulso
dall'Ucraina / I supporter di Yanukovych mettono in guardia sulle
rivoluzioni nei sondaggi per le elezioni / La "Rivoluzione delle
castagne" si prepara a Kiev / Il Senato USA sostiene il BELARUS
DEMOCRACY ACT / La Bielorussia promette di proteggere la Russia dai
carri armati della NATO / Aerei NATO esplorano il territorio Russo /
Caccia inglesi prendono il controllo dello spazio aereo del Baltico
(Traduzioni di Alessandro Lattanzio)
4. NEWS:
- GERMANY: CDU/CSU MAKES PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY ON KALININGRAD. DUMA
DISAPPROVES
- Russian Media Report NATO Nuclear Weapons In Lithuania
- US Has 480 Nuclear Bombs In NATO Nations ...
- PORA/OTPOR: Ukrainians Fear A 'Georgian Scenario'
- Bush Signs Bill Passed Weeks Ago To Hit Belarus
- Russian Foreign Minister Opposes US Sanctions Against Belarus
- Russian Duma Leaders Criticize US Sanctions
- Final Report Of Russian Election Observers Of Referendum
- Belarus Not Frightened By US Sanctions
- Belarus GDP Grew By 10.8% In Nine Months, Wages Increased By 12-13%
- Head Of Russian Duma's International Affairs Committee: US Will
Penalize Ukraine For Voting Wrong Way
- Russians comment on stricter U.S. policy on Belarus
- Belarus Lashes Out At US Sanctions Threat
- Confrontation Reminiscent Of Cold War
- Russian Foreign Minister Opposed To Sanctions
- Central Elections Commission Declares Referendum Valid
- Belarus: USA Plotting Sanctions, 'Rose Revolution'
- Pora: Ukrainian Version Of Serbian Otpor, Georgian Kmara
- Belarus Dismisses West's Criticism, Threats
- Free, Open, Democratic, Legitimate: Russian Duma
Observers' Report On Belarus Election, Referendum
- Duma Reports Condemns West's "Interference In
Internal Affairs Of Sovereign State, Breach Of Norms
Of International Law"
- US-Annointed Yushchenko Gets 'Election Advice' From
Henry Kissinger
- Ukrainians Rally in Support of Yushchenko
- US denies entry to leading Ukrainian
- Russia Alarmed At Prospect Of NATO Nuclear Arms Stationed In Lithuania
- Chairman of the U.S. NATO Committee on Transdniester
(SOURCE: Rick Rozoff / ANTINATO @...)
VEDI ANCHE / SEE ALSO / VOIR AUSSI :
NATO Reinforces Position In Central Asia As Scheffer Tours Military
Bases
http://www.tass.ru/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1361323&PageNum=0
Nouvelle guerre froide: La stratégie anti-russe de Zbigniew Brzezinski
Zbigniew Brezinski, ancien conseiller du Président Carter, incarne la
continuité de la politique étrangère états-unienne, qui n'est ni
Démocrate ni Républicaine. Grand admirateur de Henry Kissinger, il a
toujours prôné le respect de deux concepts clés de la diplomatie du
« maître », l'équilibre des puissances théorisé par Metternich et la
doctrine de « containment » élaborée par George Kennan. Il préconise
ainsi aujourd'hui l'encerclement de la Russie grâce à la
déstabilisation de ses régions frontalières. Une politique
particulièrement écoutée au sein de l'équipe de John Kerry, qui a
recruté son fils Mark Brzezinski en tant que conseiller sur la
politique étrangère...
http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article15298.html
Besoin d’une révolution ? Appelez Otpor !
Après la Géorgie, l’Ukraine ? Les anciens militants du mouvement Otpor
(« Résistance »), artisan de la chute du régime de Slobodan Milosevic,
sont devenus des experts internationaux ès-révolutions. L’un d’eux,
Aleksandar Maric, vient cependant d’être expulsé d’Ukraine, où des
élections très sensibles sont convoquées le 31 octobre.
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4676.html
=== 1 ===
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/izbor/evropa/2004-10-25.html
Tadic I Belorucija
Oliver Vulovic
Beograd, 24 10 2004 gpd/
oliverv @ yubc.net
oliver_vulovic @ hotmail.com
Srpska teroristicka organizacija OTPOR koja deluje pod zastitom i
patronatom stranke predsednika drzave Srbije a koju (organizaciju
OTPOR) pri tome iz inostranstva finansiraju najveci neprijatelji
interesa iste te drzave Srbije, pokusala je poslednjih dana da u
koaliciji sa americkim MPRI, CIA, Sorosovim banditima i beloruskim
izdajnicima putem ulicnog nasilja, neprestanom represijom, novcem,
korupcijom, ucenama i manipulacijama u Minsku izvrsi drzavni udar i
protivno rezulatatima poslednjih izbora i upravo odrzanog referenduma,
na pucisticki nacin smeni legalnog predsednika i vladu te drzave, po
istom scenariju po kojem je u oktobru 2000-te godine isti posao uspesno
obavila u Srbiji. Vlada u Minsku je reagovala drzavnicki i sve
pripadnike te i ostalih inostranih teroristickih celija u svojoj drzavi
pohapsila i proterala a na ulicno nasilje domacih izdajnika odgovorila
umerenom i, srazmerno izazvanim neredima, adekvatnom policijskom silom.
Scenario koji su Amerikanci uspesno primenili u Slovackoj, Srbiji I
Gruziji, posle Kube doziveo je svoj debakl i u Belorusiji. Frustrirana
americka administracija je na novonastalu situaciju reagovala po vec
ustaljenom sablonu te je ekspresno Belorusiji uvela ekonomske i
politicke sankcije. Eventualni nastavci cele price su nam svima u
Srbiji dobro poznati, bar sto se tice buducih manevara americke i
briselske administracije, ali su ovog puta zbog okruzenja i specificnog
politickog, vojnog I ekonomskog polozaja Belorusije kao I zbog visoke
patriotske svesti naroda u Belorusiji, osudjeni na propast. Da su
neprijatelji Belorusije shvatili da ce rasparcavanje I kolonizacija ove
drzave ici mnogo teze nego sa ostalim pacijentima koje je ,
kisinderovski receno, zahvatio virus patriotizma, vidimo I tako sto se
uopste nije tako dugo cekalo sa prelaskom na sledecu fazu
destabilizacije I stanizacije jedne drzave I njenog rukovodstva, na
politicka ubistva. U svom stanu u Minsku mrtva je pronadjena Veronica
Cerkasova, britko pero opozicije. Naravno pre nego sto je istraga I
pocela, u medijima pod briselskom I americkom kontrolom u Belorusiji
kao I u velikoj vecini americkih I evropskih medija, vec se spremno
prstom pokazuje na gospodina Lukasenka I njegove saradnike kao na
ispiratore tog odvratnog I gnusnog dela. Indikativno je da su se i u
Srbiji desavala politicka ubistva ali da su prve vece politicke poene
nasi neprijatelji poceli da sticu tek kada su pocele da padaju i
novinarske glave, cije se smrti, zbog nesposobnosti policije da ih
rasvetli I dan danas eksploatisu u dnevnopoliticke svrhe . U oba
slucaja, I srpskom I beloruskom, glatko se prelazi preko cinjenice da
je, kako tada Milosevicu, tako I sada Lukasenku najmanje trebalo
nestajanje nekog od njihovih najjacih kriticara. Iz dva razloga
najmanje-Prvog, jer ti ljudi sami po sebi nisu politicke ubice I drugog
– stvorila bi se situacija koja bi se kao refren neprestano povlacila
kroz kolumne opozicionih I zpadnih novina I koristila za neprestanu
destabilizaciju drzave I vlade. Na Zapadu sada prosto cupaju kose zbog
toga sto se Belorusima ne moze nametnuti nikakav Hag niti izvrsiti
denacifikacija I debelorusizacija kao I zbog cinjenice da je Rusija tu,
odmah pored, ali I u Savetu bezbednosti OUN a do Belorusije se ne mora
leteti preko drugih drzava . Dakle, prostora za manipulacije koje su
obilato koriscene protiv Srbije nema puno, ostaje samo pokusaj da se
nesto vise ucini na domacem beloruskom razjedinjavanju I podelama i sto
je moguce vise insistirati na incidentnim situacijama u glavnom gradu
do eventualnog krvoprolica. Eto, u takvu se pricu ukljucio OTPOR na
ponos I srecu srpskog naroda, vlade I predsednika. Smrt Veronike
Cerkasove, Curuvije, Dusana Jovanovica kao I mnoge druge smrti koje su
nastale na tragovima tzv “plisanih revolucija”, “milosrdnih andjela” I
ostalih akcija koje su ih ovako tepajuci im nazivali i organizovali
americki imperijalisti u drugim drzavama radi ostvarivanja svojih
interesa, su smrti koje ce ostati da budu otkrivene u nekim buducim
vremenima I sa nekim drugim ljudima na vlasti koje nece dovesti
americki pucevi. U medjuvremenu se postavlja pitanje imal li u ovoj
drzavi krivicne odgovornosti za ljude, drzavljane Republike Srbije,
koji u ime jedne domace politicke partije (pokret – partija –
Demokratska stranka) a za racun stranih faktora svesno odlaze u druge
drzave sa namerom I ciljem da obaraju njihove vlade, izazivaju nerede I
doprinose njihovoj nestabilnosti I izazivanju gradjanskog rata? Zar
takve akcije OTPORA nisu krsenje I samog njihovog Statuta, statuta
Demokratske stranke ciji su kolektivni clan I Zakona o radu politickih
partija I kao takve protivustavne ? Nema u javnosti uvek spremnog
gospodina Vucetica da da svoje misljenje I o ovoj situaciji I pre
zasedanja suda I ako je to mnogo puta do sada radio. Gde je u celoj
ovoj situaciji odgovornost gospodina Tadica kao celnika tih ljudi I
partije I kakve to kasnije negativne posledice moze imati I po drzavu
Srbiju uzimajuci u obzir da je isti covek I njen predsednik ? Gospodinu
Tadicu je mnogo lakse da prizna legitimitet izbora na okupiranom
Kosmetu gde je planirano da njegovi sunarodnici glasaju pod zastitom
oruzanih snaga NATO pakta (ako bi ih iko I od cega stitio), nego da
prizna legitimitet izbora I referenduma koji su na legalan nacin
obavljeni u jednoj slobodnoj I nezavisnoj drzavi kao sto je Belorusija.
OTPOR I Tadic su se borili da dodju na vlast jer “Srbija vise nije
imala prijatelja u svetu”. Da li je Tadiceva politika prema Belorusiji
a time I posredno prema Rusiji stvaranje novih prijateljstava I veza
izmedju drzava I naroda ? Kosmetsko pitanje na kome su Tadic I njegovi
ratnohuskacki kolektivni clanovi pali pre nego sto su I poceli da
krckaju novi mandat je odlican pokazatelj da se na njihovoj antisrpskoj
politici ogleda I njihova ukupna antislovenska politika te I uopste
politika sa pozicija bespogovornog saveznika amerikanaca u svim
ratovima I akcijama koje ovi budu sprovodili u svetu. Bese li to onaj
isti covek koji je hteo da salje nasu vojsku da okupira Irak ?
=== 2 ===
BUSH INASPRISCE LE SANZIONI CONTRO LA BIELORUSSIA
Il presidente degli Stati Uniti definisce per la prima volta Lukashenko
“un dittatore”. L’Europa si allinea velocemente. Ferma, ma composta la
reazione bielorussa. Polemiche le prime reazioni ufficiali russe.
22 ottobre 2004
Il presidente USA Bush, il 21 ottobre, ha firmato la legge “sulla
democrazia in Bielorussia”, già approvata dal Congresso. Nel decreto
vengono ulteriormente inasprite le sanzioni precedentemente adottate
nei confronti della repubblica ex sovietica. In particolare, viene
stabilito il divieto di concedere al governo di Minsk “ogni assistenza,
garanzia creditizia, copertura assicurativa, finanziamento o qualsiasi
aiuto” ad esclusione di quello umanitario: una gravissima forma di
embargo. Naturalmente, anche gli altri paesi vengono invitati “ad
adottare analoghe misure nei confronti della Repubblica di Belarus”.
Bush ha contestualmente rilasciato una dichiarazione scritta, in cui,
per la prima volta in modo ufficiale, Aleksandr Lukashenko viene
definito “un dittatore” e si sottolinea, con toni che suonano come un
incitamento al rovesciamento violento del presidente bielorusso, che
“il destino della Bielorussia” da oggi è riposto “solo nelle mani degli
studenti, dei sindacati, dei leader civili e religiosi, dei giornalisti
e di tutti i cittadini della Bielorussia, che esigono la libertà per il
proprio paese”. In tal modo, la Bielorussia viene ufficialmente inclusa
tra i “paesi canaglia” facenti parte del cosiddetto “asse del male”.
La pesante dichiarazione del presidente americano è stata raccolta, nel
giro di poche ore, dagli ambienti ufficiali europei (a cominciare dal
Consiglio d’Europa e dalla sua Assemblea parlamentare), che hanno
rilasciato note di contenuto analogo. Si è particolarmente distinta la
Lituania (la cui affidabilità in fatto di “diritti umani” è
testimoniata dal carcere duro a cui sono sottoposti da oltre un
decennio molti militanti comunisti) che, con un’iniziativa del
presidente del parlamento nazionale, ha deciso “di interrompere
immediatamente qualsiasi collaborazione con l’organo legislativo
bielorusso non democraticamente eletto”.
Immediata è arrivata la ferma, seppur composta, reazione della
Bielorussia. In una nota, diffusa dal Ministero degli esteri
(http://www.mfa.gov.by) si esprime “profondo rammarico” per “questo
evidente passo ostile”, le cui responsabilità “ricadono in pieno sugli
USA”. La pretesa della legge USA di imporre il proprio modello di
sovranità e di indipendenza, “contrasta con l’aspirazione del popolo
bielorusso alla creazione di uno stabile stato sovrano, in cui la
libertà individuale dei cittadini si combini organicamente con la
giustizia sociale”. Gli USA, in realtà, secondo la nota, intenderebbero
solo “inasprire consapevolmente i rapporti con la Repubblica di
Belarus, spingendo i propri alleati a fare altrettanto”. E’ questo un
“approccio tipico del periodo della “guerra fredda”. Quanto al presunto
carattere non democratico del recente processo elettorale, la nota
bielorussa fa notare che “ moltissimi osservatori internazionali hanno
confermato che le elezioni e il referendum si sono svolti in piena
corrispondenza con gli standard internazionali” e che “la dirigenza
bielorussa ha agito e continuerà ad agire, sul piano della politica
interna, nell’ambito dei principi democratici di garanzia dei diritti e
delle libertà dei cittadini e di crescita del benessere del popolo
bielorusso”. La legge adottata dagli USA appare allora come “una
violazione della dichiarazione dell’ONU sul non ricorso all’intervento
e all’ingerenza negli affari interni degli stati del dicembre 1981” e
di altri obblighi internazionali presi dagli Stati Uniti. La nota del
Ministero degli Esteri conclude rivendicando il “diritto a promuovere
passi di risposta” ai diktat e alle pressioni del governo americano.
La prima reazione ufficiale russa è stata la dichiarazione dello
speaker della Duma di Stato e dirigente del partito di Putin “Russia
Unita” Boris Gryzlov, che prende nettamente posizione contro le
sanzioni USA. In qualità di osservatore internazionale che ha potuto
intervenire nel corso del referendum bielorusso, egli sostiene che “non
ci può essere alcun dubbio sulla piena correttezza del referendum” e
annuncia una presa di posizione del parlamento russo che confermerebbe
le conclusioni del lavoro degli osservatori della Federazione Russa e
della CSI. E in effetti, il giorno seguente, la Duma ha approvato una
risoluzione di sostanziale avallo degli esiti sia del referendum che
delle elezioni bielorusse.
E non è neppure privo di significato il fatto che l’autorevole sito
“strana.ru” notoriamente molto vicino all’amministrazione presidenziale
russa, abbia pubblicato con grande rilievo una lunga intervista ad uno
dei maggiori specialisti di questioni latinoamericane, Kharen
Khaciaturov (http://www.strana.ru , 22 ottobre 2004), il quale, citando
un’ampia documentazione, dimostra le impressionanti analogie tra la
campagna scatenata negli ultimi anni contro la Bielorussia e quella
condotta contro Cuba, per provocarne l’isolamento internazionale.
MAURO GEMMA
=== 3 ===
( these texts in english:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3903 )
Da: alexlattanzio@ yahoo.it
Data: Sab 23 Ott 2004 21:09:41
A: "Coord. Naz. per la Jugoslavia"
Itar-Tass - October 13, 2004
<http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1343448&PageNum=1>
Il Leader della organizzazione giovanile Serba espulso
dall'Ukraina
KIEV - l'Ukraina ha espulso Mercoledì Alexander Maric,
della organizzazione giovanile Serba Otpor (rebuff).
Ha giocato un importante ruolo nel rovesciamento del
regime di Slobodan Milosevic e aiutato attivamente
l'organizzazione giovanile Georgiana Khmara.
Azioni di Protesta, organizzate da Khmara a Tbilisi,
divenute poi la "rivoluzione delle rose" che portò
alle dimissioni del Presidente Georgiano Eduard
Shevardnadze.
"Maric è stati espulso dall'Ukraina come 'persona non
grata' (in italiano nel testo originale) oggi" dice un
rappresentante della dogana Ukraina. Maric era
detenuto all'aeroporto Borispol di Kiev martedì.
Interfax - October 13, 2004
I supporter di Yanukovych mettono in guardia sulle
rivoluzioni nei sondaggi per le elezioni
KYIV - Il consiglio di coordinamento delle forze
democratiche in supporto al candidato presidenziale
Viktor Yanukovych ha messo in guardia sulla
possibilità di incidenti nel giorno delle elezioni.
L'allarme rivolto alla nazione, adottato in un meeting
del consiglio a Kyiv di mercoledì.
"La notte del 31 Ottobre, forze politiche guidate dai
candidati dell'opposizione pianificano una adunata di
mezzo milione di persone davanti all'edificio della
commissione per fare pressione sui membri della
commissione, e nel caso di risultati a loro
sfavorevoli, fare fallire il conteggio dei voti come
primo passo per la cosiddetta 'rivoluzione delle
castagne'" dice il messaggio. Il consiglio dichiara
che l'opposizione "pianifica l'applicazione delle
esperienze Serba o Georgiana di discordia pubblica e
di metodi di occupazione del potere con la forza sul
suolo Ukraino."
"E' una minaccia di golpe politico. Perciò, studenti
universitari sono stati soggiogati, gruppi di
militanti esperti formati, e la reputazione della
legge, delle forze di sicurezza e dell'esercito
minate. Simultaneamente, forze distruttive propongono
una massiccia campagna per discreditare l'intero
governo agli occhi dei votanti." Afferma il messaggio.
In risposta, il consiglio chiama per il mantenimento
di un forum delle forze democratiche.
Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - October 13, 2004
<http://en.rian.ru/rian/>
La "Rivoluzione delle castagne" si prepara a KIEV
Supporters del candidato presidenziale dell'Ukraina
Viktor Yanukovich affermano che i loro avversari
preparano una 'rivoluzione delle castagne' nel paese
in seguito alle elezioni presidenziali del 31 Ottobre.
Secondo il Consiglio di Coordinamento delle
organizzazioni elettorali che sostengono il candidato
del partito al potere, l'attuale primo ministro
Yanukovich, gli oppositori pianificano lo sviluppo di
un "altro scenario Serbo o Georgiano di presa del
potere".
Il Consiglio pubblica un messaggio che afferma che una
manifestazione di molte migliaia di persone davanti
l'edifico della Commissione Centrale Elettorale
Ukraina, prevista dagli oppositori allo scopo di
trasformare la notte delle elezioni nella prima fase
di tale scenario, se le elezioni dovessero essere
sfavorevoli per l'opposizione e il suo leader Viktor
Yuschenko.
"Ora, c'è la minaccia di un golpe politico nel paese"
affermano i rappresentanti di stato
dell'organizzazione di supporto a Yanukovich, nel
messaggio rivolto mercoledì.
"Possiamo chiedere al presidente Ukraino di fare ogni
sforzo per prevenire lo sviluppo della 'rivoluzione
delle castagne', rafforzando la legge e l'ordine
durante il processo elettorale. Chiederemo ai deputati
dell'Ukraina di far cessare l'infruttuosa ostilità
politica nel parlamento" afferma il documento.
Il termine 'rivoluzione delle castagne' è stato
introdotto in Ukraina dopo che a Febbraio il Wall
Street Journal pubblicasse un articolo intitolato "Una
rivoluzione delle castagne' a Kiev?", che speculava
sulla possibilità che l'Ukraina fosse testimone di
eventi simili alla Georgiana "rivoluzione delle rose",
che forzò il Presidente Edward Shevarnadze a ritirarsi
e spianare la via al potere all'attuale Presidente
Mikhail Saakashvili.
L'articolo diede tale nome perché Kiev é famosa per la
fioritura dei castagni in primavera. (...)
LINKS: Ukraine turns away from Europe, starts dreaming
of Russia (by Roman Melnikov)
<http://english.pravda.ru/printed.html?news_id=14443>
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - October 8, 2004
<http://www.rferl.org/newsline/3-cee.asp>
Il Senato USA sostiene il BELARUS DEMOCRACY ACT
Il 6 Ottobre il Senato USA unanimemente ha approvato
il Belarus Democracy Act del 2004, che è stato
adottato due giorni prima dal Congresso. Il RFE/RL per
la Bielorussia riportato il 7 Ottobre. La legge
autorizza assistenza per la costituzione di attività
democratiche come supporto per ong, media
indipendenti, e scambi internazionali.
Inoltre proibisce a tute le agenzie federali USA di
fornire prestiti o investimenti al governo Bielorusso
tranne i prodotti agricoli o medici.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - October 14, 2004
<http://www.rferl.org/newsline/3-cee.asp>
La Bielorussia promette di proteggere la Russia dai carri armati della
NATO
Il Presidente Lukashenko avverte i giornalisti Russi
il 13 Ottobre che "gli Americani stanno trasferendo i
loro più avanzati sistemi antiaerei in Polonia"
Belapan riporta.
"Perché lo fanno?" Lukashenko si domanda. "Forse hanno
degli interessi in Bielorussia o in Russia?"
Lukashenko promette di proteggere la Russia da un
possibile nemico esterno persino se tale paese non
aiutasse la Bielorussia a crearsi una sua difesa.
"Sarebbe immorale per noi non proteggere la Russia"
dice. "Non possiamo...lasciare che i tank attraversino
la Bielorussia, così che possano procedere verso Mosca
impunemente."
<http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10710102>
Interfax - October 11, 2004
Aerei NATO esplorano il territorio Russo
MOSCA - aerei da ricognizione stranieri hanno
attivamente esplorato il territorio Russo in molte
direzioni, dice una fonte, del Quartier Generale
dell'aviazione, a Interfax Lunedì.
"Aerei della NATO compiono annualmente 400 voli sul
Baltico e il Mar di Barents, e più di 300 voli annuali
sul Mar del Giappone e il Mare di Okhotsk" dice.
Aerei stranieri hanno violato lo spazio aereo russo 70
volte quest'anno. La difesa aerea a inseguito circa
200.000 target tra Gennaio e Settembre. Circa il 50%
di esse sono jet stranieri, inclusi più di 4.000
velivoli militari.
Agence France-Presse - October 14, 2004
Caccia inglesi prendono il controllo dello spazio
aereo del Baltico
VILNIUS - Due caccia Tornado F-3 sono atterrati
Giovedì in Lituania per sorvegliare lo spazio aereo
dei tre stati Baltici, dice il ministro della difesa
del paese.
"I due caccia sono atterrati, altri due sono attesi
per questo mese" dice il portavoce del ministero della
difesa Jovita Bazeviciute a AFP.
"circa 100 militari inglesi sono schierati adesso in
Lituania e il numero potrebbe arrivare a 120"
aggiunge.
I paesi membri della NATO hanno inviato a turno i loro
caccia per pattugliare lo spazio aereo della Lituania,
della Lettonia e dell'Estonia da quando i tre si sono
uniti al blocco a Marzo, e che non hanno aerei propri.
I caccia inglesi hanno sostituito gli F-16 Danesi il
1° Ottobre, ma è stato detto che gli inglesi si
rifiutano di inviare i propri caccia poiché la pista
della base di Zokniai in Lituania è troppo corta.
Il ministro della difesa della Lituania Linas
Linkevicius, ha già detto alla AFP che dopo l'esame
dell'aeroporto con esperti inglesi, alcuni
miglioramenti sono stati fatti per rispondere alle
necessità dei caccia inglesi. Il ministro della difesa
ha detto che gli inglesi potranno pattugliare lo
spazio aereo del Baltico fino a gennaio e saranno
sostituiti dalla Norvegia.
Traduzioni di Alessandro Lattanzio
E-mail: alexlattanzio @ yahoo.it
URL-Sito Generale:
http://www.aurora03.da.ru
http://aurora03.cjb.net/
Sito sull'11 settembre e Dintorni:
http://sitoaurora.cjb.net/
Atlante sulla Politica Internazionale:
http://atlante.cjb.net/
L'Italidiota, sulla tragicommedia italiota:
http://italidiota.cjb.net/
Archivio Bollettini:
http://archivio.cjb.net
http://digilander.libero.it/Archiviaurora/
=== 4 ===
http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=4986560&startrow=11&date=2004-10-
19&do_alert=0
Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - October 19, 2004
GERMANY: CDU/CSU MAKES PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY ON KALININGRAD. DUMA
DISAPPROVES: KOSACHEV
MOSCOW - The Bundestag CDU/CSU group recently made an
official inquiry to Germany's federal government on
"the Konigsberg region's economic prospects with
European Union enlargement". Russian parliamentarians
harshly disapprove, MP Konstantin Kosachev said to the
media today. He leads the international affairs
committee of the State Duma, parliament's lower house.
The opposition inquiry cannot be considered to reflect
the stances of the entire Bundestag, let alone
Germany's official stance, points out a statement Mr.
Kosachev's press service is circulating.
"This is a very awkward moment for the inquiry - the
Duma is considering whether it is worthwhile at all to
ratify the protocol to the Russia-EU partnership
agreement, which spreads the effect of the instrument
to the ten new EU countries," says Kosachev. Smooth
contacts of the Kaliningrad Region, Russia's Baltic
exclave, with the Russian mainland is among top
priorities, Russian spokesmen stressed while signing
the protocol.
The inquirers have shown a great difference of their
stance on the exclave from what Russia-EU instruments
have. Characteristically, they refer to the
Kaliningrad Region as the Konigsberg. All that
certainly alarms the Russian parliament, Kosachev goes
on.
In fact, the inquiry galvanises doubts of Russia's and
other East European countries' sovereignty over their
particular areas, and of entire European settlement
after World War II. The inquirers have done their
country a bad turn just when Germany aspires to
permanent membership of the United Nations Security
Council, the Russian MP emphatically remarked.
He hopes the inquiry will find at the German top an
evaluation it deserves, one that will comply with the
spirit and the letter of international agreements to
which Germany is signatory.
---
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/19/content_2110008.htm
Xinhua News Agency (China) - October 19, 2004
NATO nuclear weapons deployment denied
BEIJING - Lithuanian Defense Minister Linas
Linkevicius says his country does not plan to deploy
nuclear weapons from NATO members on its own
territory.
Russian media reported that NATO is planning to store
ammunition in depots of a former Soviet strategic
aviation base in Siauliai, reported China Radio
International.
Linkevicius said he was surprised at the report,
adding that the rumors were absolutely groundless.
Linkevicius, however, said he would like to point out
that the base is being used to provide security for
Lithuania and NATO in strict compliance with
international law and Lithuania's international
obligations.
---
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1065495,00050001.htm
Press Trust Of India - October 19, 2004
US has 480 nuclear bombs deployed in Europe: Nuclear
expert
The United States still has 480 aerial tactical
nuclear bombs deployed at eight bases in seven
European countries, three times more than the
estimated figure, a US nuclear expert has said.
"There has been no reduction in the number of US
tactical nuclear bombs housed by NATO allies since
mid-1990s," Hans Kristensen, a consultant with
Washington-based National Resources Defence Council
said in Washington on Tuesday.
Of the 480 bombs, 110 are deployed at Britain's
Lakenheath air base and the others are housed at seven
bases in six non-nuclear NATO members - Belgium,
Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey,
Kristensen said.
The Ramstein air base in Germany houses 130, he added.
"Under the current system, upto 180 bombs are
earmarked for use by the host countries in the event
of contingencies," he said.
He also stressed the need for the US to reduce the
number of tactical bombs deployed in NATO countries,
especially those with non-nuclear members.
---
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/10/ed7a4b6f-562c-4028-a575-
9ef78733fcb0.html
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - October 20, 2004
Analysis: Do Ukrainian Authorities Fear A 'Georgian
Scenario'?
By Jan Maksymiuk
Yanukovych allies have warned of the threat of a
"chestnut revolution"
Earlier this month, the coalition of parties and
organizations backing the presidential bid of Prime
Minister Viktor Yanukovych issued a statement
suggesting the opposition is planning a "chestnut
revolution" in the event that its candidate, Viktor
Yushchenko, is defeated at the ballot box on 31
October. The statement accuses oppositionists of
planning to gather half a million Yushchenko
supporters near the Central Election Commission
headquarters on election night to prepare for such an
eventuality.
"We address the Ukrainian president with a request to
take all possible measures to prevent the
implementation of 'chestnut-revolution scenarios' and
to ensure law and order during the election process,"
the statement reads, in an apparent reference to
Georgia's so-called Rose Revolution, which peacefully
deposed President Eduard Shevardnadze in November 2003
following a disputed parliamentary ballot.
One of the movements with a keen interest in a
Yushchenko victory and a subsequent power swap in
Ukraine is the youth "civic campaign" Pora (It's
Time), which was reportedly modeled on Serbia's Otpor
and Georgia's Khmara [Kmara], the youth organizations
that were instrumental in toppling Slobodan
Milosevic's regime in October 2000 and the
Shevardnadze regime in November 2003 in their
respective countries. On 15 October, police searched
the Pora offices in Kyiv and, according to the
Prosecutor-General's Office, found a homemade
explosive device, 2.4 kilograms of TNT, electric
detonators, and a grenade. Prosecutors have opened a
criminal case under articles pertaining to terrorism
and the formation of illegal armed groups and arrested
Yaroslav Hodunok, a founder of Pora. (...)
The police officers also found a stock of purportedly
propagandistic materials and an issue of the
organization's satirical newspaper, "Pro Ya. y tse."
(Its title is a pun best translated as either "About
Ya. and this" or "About an Egg," -- presumably a
reference to the much-publicized egg attack last month
on Prime Minister Yanukovych.) Kyiv Mayor Oleksandr
Omelchenko, who was also present at the search of the
Pora headquarters, commented that Pora's informational
materials are "even more terrible than the explosives
found there." (...)
The reaction of the authorities to the statement was
immediate. "The Interior Ministry pledges to forestall
a change of political power in the country through
civil disobedience actions after the presidential
election on 31 October," ITAR-TASS quoted Deputy
Interior Minister Mikhail Korniyenko as saying. "There
will be no Georgian scenario in Ukraine." (...)
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1371574&PageNum=1
Itar-Tass - October 21, 2004
US slaps sanctions on Belarus over human rights
violations
WASHINGTON - The United States clasped down economic
sanctions on Belarus, accusing the authorities of that
country again of violating democracy and human rights.
In compliance with a law, adopted by Congress and
signed on Wednesday by President George Bush, the US
federal departments will stop rendering any financial
aid to the Belarussian government, apart from
humanitarian aid.
Punitive measures against the former Soviet republic
can be lifted off only if its authorities take steps
towards democracy. (...)
Besides, the document, called “The Act of Democracy in
Belarus”, provides for rendering assistance to
political parties and non-government organizations (by
the US), championing the development of democracy and
protection of human rights in the republic.
The US also intends to help establish the independent
Belarussian mass media and to increase broadcasting in
Belarussian by the Voice of America radio station. The
law’s authors believe that all the above measures will
help Belarussian people to gain freedom and to join
the European community of democratic states.
The act lashes out at the Belarussian authorities and
personally at President Alexander Lukashenko. A
statement by Bush, circulated in connection with the
signing into law of the bill, also notes that a
repressive regime rules in the republic now, and it is
isolated from neighboring states.
Incidentally, the Belarussian leader already responded
to the new American law when it was still being
discussed by congressmen. Lukashenko called the US
demands “a factor of foolish pressure” on Belarus.
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1373005&PageNum=0
Itar-Tass - October 21, 2004
Russia opposes US sanctions against Belarus
ALMATY - Russia does not support the introduction of
sanctions against Belarus, Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov stated here on Thursday commenting on
the United States’ decision to impose sanctions on
Minsk.
“We oppose the application of the sanctions mechanism
in principle,” Lavrov stressed.
“Sanctions should be approved by the U.N. Security
Council, then they would reflect the consolidated
opinion of the international community,” the minister
said.
“The effect is achievable in this case,” he said.
“But even the U.N. sanctions are not perfect,” Lavrov
pointed out.
“Sanctions should be targeted and should not be
detrimental to the interests of the population,”
Lavrov said.
---
http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=4993954&startrow=11&date=2004-10-
21&do_alert=0
Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - October 21, 2994
WASHINGTON'S ASSESSMENT OF BELARUS REFERENDUM INADEQUATE
MOSCOW - State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov is negative
about the US intention to impose economic sanctions on
Belarus.
He has also said that parliamentary observers at the
Belarussian referendum had no doubts about the
legitimacy of the event.
This is how he commented on the trip of three groups
of parliamentary observers representing the
Russian-Belarussian parliamentary assembly, the CIS
parliamentary assembly and the State Duma.
The Duma speaker continued, "our observers will
provide a report about their activity by the end of
the day, which will be handed out at the plenary
session." Already now, Mr. Gryzlov said, it is obvious
that "the report will be positive and include no
wrongdoing."
The US appraisal of the referendum in Belarus is
one-sided, said Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the
Duma committee for international affairs.
"The US decision on economic sanctions will not mean
introducing but extending sanctions that the U.S.
already had imposed on Belarus for a few years," Mr.
Kosachev noted.
US President George Bush has signed the Belarus
Democracy Act of 2004, envisaging sanctions against
this country for democratic violations.
The Act implies that sanctions should remain valid
until the US president confirms to the respective
Congress committees that the Belarussian government
has made considerable progress on the points mentioned
in the document. (...)
The document contains a demand to put an end to all
forms of intimidation and repressions against
independent media, independent trade unions and
non-governmental and religious organizations, as well
as the political opposition in Belarus.
The last point is the demand to hold free and fair
presidential and parliamentary elections in Belarus.
The section concerning sanctions puts a ban on the US
loans, credit guarantees, insurance payments,
financing and any other financial aid to the
Belarussian government. US representatives in
international organizations such as the IMF, the WB
and others are supposed to vote down any aid to
Belarus from these organizations.
The US president is bound to report to the Congress on
Belarussian weapons and combat technologies provision
to countries supporting international terrorism,
within 90 days after the law comes into force, i.e.
before January 20, 2005. This report is to contain all
countries and cite all goods, services, loans and
other repayments that Belarus will receive in exchange
for its weapons and arm technologies.
The Act also requires that the US president's report
to the Congress include the information about the
personal fortune and property of Belarussian President
Alexander Lukashenko and the top Belarussian
officials.
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1372212&PageNum=1
Itar-Tass - October 21, 2004
Final report of RF observers on Belarus referendum to
be positive
MOSCOW - The final report of Russian observers on the
referendum in Belarus will be positive,
parliamentarians have no doubts about the legitimacy
of voting, State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov told
journalists on Thursday.
According to him, observers will present a report on
Thursday evening. “Three groups of parliamentarians
who have been to Belarus – from the State Duma, CIS
Parliamentary Assembly and the Parliamentary Assembly
of Russia and Belarus are preparing this document,”
the speaker of the lower house of parliament
emphasized.
“The report should be given to Duma deputies at the
plenary session on Friday,” Gryzlov emphasized.
“Observers have already informed that they found no
violations during the referendum,” he pointed out.
In reply to a query to comment on the US intention to
impose economic sanctions against Belarus Gryzlov
noted that he is certainly negative about it.
---
http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=4994025&startrow=11&date=2004-10-
21&do_alert=0
Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - October 21, 2004
US SANCTIONS AGAINST MINSK WILL NOT INSTANTLY AFFECT BELARUSSIAN ECONOMY
MINSK/MOSCOW - The economic sanctions the United
States imposed against Belarus on Wednesday will not
affect the Belarussian economy in the short term,
according to Belarussian government officials and
experts.
"We do not fear the US sanctions. The US accounts for
about 3% of exports. In any event, given the open
market with Russia, Ukraine and the Commonwealth as a
whole, the US sanctions will not make a dramatic
effect on our economy," said Andrei Tur, Belarus'
Deputy Economics Minister.
According to the law President George W. Bush signed
on Wednesday, the US federal agencies are halting any
financial assistance to the Belarussian government
except for humanitarian aid.
Eximbank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Abroad (OPIC), the US Trade and Development Agency
were disallowed to issue loans to or secure loans for
Minsk. American officials at the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank will seek to
have similar decisions with respect to Belarus adopted
by these organizations.
"The sanctions will not produce an immediate effect.
However, Washington that holds the controlling share
block in the IMF and the WB is likely to secure these
influential organizations' relevant support," said
Valery Dashkevich, an economist at the Independent
Institute of Socio-economic and Political Studies.
In that event, Minsk that is not implementing
financial programs in cooperation with the IMF may
lose International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development investors whom the said organizations will
dissuade from cooperating with Belarus.
Konstantin Kosachev believes the sanctions will not
hamper the development of relations between Russia and
Belarus.
"We will continue cooperation with the country. We do
not believe political developments in Belarus are
smooth, or the election campaign was ideal. We are not
very happy about the way the vote was arranged in
Belarus either. However, we believe we should help our
Belarussian friends build a real democratic system
through dialogue, rather than sanctions," said Mr.
Kosachev.
In his words, assessment of elections by different
countries is becoming more and more a political
instrument.
"Elections that are advantageous to this or that
country are declared democratic automatically, and it
is vice versa if the country does not like the
elections," said Mr. Kosachev.
The current volume of net direct investments stands at
zero, i.e. capital inflow is equal to capital flight,
according to Belarussian experts.
"Belarus is employing the mobilizing economic model
based on Soviet-time enterprises. It can demonstrate
growth indefinitely," said Mr. Dashkevich.
Minsk fears that the sanctions imposed by the U.S.,
President Alexander Lukashenko's fiercest critic, can
be supported by the European Union that accounts for
close to 25% of Belarussian exports. Indeed, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
has qualified the elections and the referendum in
Belarus as undemocratic.
"I believe, given competition among different powers
in the EU, the United States will not force the EU to
follow its lead with respect to Belarus... Even if
Europe approves the sanctions, Belarus will have to
halt up to 20% of its exports," said Mr. Tur.
Belarus is holding talks on quotas on textiles and
potassic fertilizer exports to Europe.
"The Belarussian economy will not collapse, but these
measures will lie on the US' conscience. The sanctions
are the measures aimed against the Belarussian nation
as a whole," said Mikhail Myasnikov, head of the
National Academy of Sciences.
---
http://www.interfax.com/com?item=Bela&pg=0&id=5763889&req=
Interfax - October 21, 2004
Belarus says GDP grew 10.8% in 9 months
Minsk - The Belarussian government made an upbeat
economic report on Wednesday for January-September
2004, saying that GDP grew by 10.8% and that wages
went up 12%-13%.
"Inflation amounted to 9%, which is the best indicator
for the past 10 years," the presidential press service
quoted Prime Minister Sergei Sidorsky as telling
President Alexander Lukashenko.
"Economic growth in Belarus is taking place against
the background of rising labor productivity, which
grew 16% for the nine months, with the wage level
growing by between 12% and 13%," Sidorsky said.
More than 6 trillion Belarussian rubles ($2.76
billion) have been invested in the economy and exports
surged nearly 30% since the same period last year, he
said.
Agriculture also met its targets, Sidorsky said. "For
the first time, the country will be completely
supplied with its own sugar, which will make it
possible to stop importing this product," he said.
"The president demanded that the government strictly
fulfill the task of raising the average monthly wage
in the national economy to the level equivalent to 195
U.S. dollars before the year's end," the press service
said.
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10713503
Interfax - October 21, 2004
U.S. may criticize Ukrainian elections just like
Belarus elections - Kosachyov
MOSCOW - The head of the Russian State Duma
International Affairs committee Konstantin Kosachyov
said that the West's evaluation of the recent
parliamentary elections and referendum in Belarus is
becoming more and more of "a politically
pre-determined character."
"The evaluation of the elections is becoming more of a
political instrument. The U.S. evaluations of the
Belarus referendum are of a predetermined character.
It is unlikely that the recent elections in
Afghanistan were better or more democratically
organized than the Belarus elections, but the U.S.
gave the Afghan elections a positive evaluation,"
Kosachyov told journalists on Thursday, commenting on
the U.S. decision to bring economic sanctions against
Belarus.
Kosachyov said that in actuality sanctions are not
being introduced, but rather, "the existing sanctions
against Belarus are being extended."
The deputy said that one can assume that the U.S.
evaluation of the upcoming Ukrainian elections will
depend on which candidate wins.
"If it's the [candidate] who is suitable [for the
U.S.], the evaluation will be one way, if a different
candidate wins, the evaluation will be another. So we
are talking about the fact that if the candidate is
liked, the elections, beforehand, will be found to be
democratic, if he is not liked, the elections will be
undemocratic," said Kosachyov.
He said that the evaluation given by the U.S. will not
have any effect on Russia's relations with Belarus.
"We are not idealizing the situation in Belarus," said
Kosachyov.
He said, however, that relations should be developed
"through dialogue, not through sanctions."
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10713475
Interfax - October 21, 2004
Russian political scientists comment on stricter U.S.
policy on Belarus
MOSCOW - The Belarus Democracy Act signed by the U.S.
president confirms a policy which is actually aimed at
overthrowing the Belarussian authorities, Political
Research Institute Director Sergei Markov told
Interfax on Thursday.
"In fact, it is a systemic plan of large-scale actions
against Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko,"
he said.
"Obviously, financial and political support to
organizations and the media in opposition to the
authorities will now mount," he said. "EU pressure on
Belarus will grow as well."
"No less than half of Belarussians supported the
incumbent president in the referendum, but the active
minority can achieve success, especially if
large-scale actions are accompanied with a revolt in
the presidential team," he said.
Meanwhile, Political Science Professor Andranik
Migranian from the MGIMO Moscow State University of
International Relations does not think that Belarus
has any other alternative.
"Everything will depend on the position of Russia,"
Migranian told Interfax. "Lukashenko's dependence on
Moscow is becoming maximal."
The professor found it difficult to say what position
Russia might take in this situation.
"It is time for Russia to define its position, because
the West has done so, Lukashenko has done so, and the
opposition has done so," Migranian said.
---
http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=31345
Agence France-Presse - October 21, 2004
Belarus lashes out at US sanctions threat
MINSK - Belarus warned the United States it was
heading toward a Cold War-style confrontation after
President George W. Bush signed a law threatening
sanctions against the former Soviet republic for its
poor rights record.
Russia also rose to its Slavic neighbor's [sic]defense
and denounced Washington's move, leaving Moscow the
sole patron of Belarus President Alexander
Lukashenko's regime in the face of fury from both
Europe and Washington.
On Thursday, the 46-member pan-European rights
watchdog Council of Europe also branded Lukashenko's
regime as "undemocratic" and called on its member
states to slap "targeted sanctions" on his government.
The West has rounded on a weekend constitutional
referendum in Belarus that scrapped the country's
two-term presidential limit, clearing the way for
Lukashenko to extend his stay in power indefinitely.
Lukashenko has brushed aside similar attacks as
relations between the West and one of Europe's most
hermetic states - which still wields an imposing
Soviet-era military and now borders new European Union
members [and is nearly surrounded by NATO states] -
steadily deteriorate.
Having already served a decade at the helm, Lukashenko
had been due to step down in 2006 after introducing a
Soviet-style command system that centralized state
control over the economy and the media and frowned on
dissent.
Lukashenko also created an "us against them"
atmosphere that appeared to play well with his
struggling state's voters, saying he was keeping
Belarus safe from corrupt Western influences. (...)
It saw a reported turnout figure of 90.28 percent,
with 79.42 percent favoring extending Lukashenko's
stay in power for a possible lifetime.
Venting its fury at Washington, Lukashenko's
government called Bush's decision a hostile act that
interfered with Belarus' right to sovereignty.
"This openly hostile act leaves us with nothing but
great sorrow," the Belarus foreign ministry said in a
statement. "Now, the United States will be solely
responsible for repairing relations with Belarus."
It said Washington was "heading toward a confrontation
reminiscent of the Cold War era."
Aimed at encouraging the democratization of
institutions in Belarus [sic], the law stipulates that
sanctions such as a cutoff to direct government aide
should be imposed if the Belarus government fails to
improve its rights record, and demands regular US
checks of Minsk's progress.
It also provides for US financial aid to
non-governmental organizations working on
pro-democracy projects in Belarus - organizations
which have had frequent altercations with Lukashenko's
team.
Washington's decision was cheered by the Belarus
opposition, though its actual impact was uncertain as
Belarus already receives virtually no financial
assistance from the United States. (...)
Russia, which has been negotiating terms for a loose
union with Belarus for years and which sent its own
observers for the weekend poll, said the US action was
too stiff and could hurt the Belarus people rather
than Lukashenko himself.
"We think that sanctions do not resolve these
problems. We do not support the use of such measures
against any other government," Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov said while on a visit to the Kazakh capital
Almaty. (...)
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10713460
Interfax - October 21, 2004
Belarus blames U.S. for worsening relations
MINSK - Responsibility for complications in bilateral
relations between Belarus and the United States fully
lies with the U.S., a Belarussian Foreign Ministry
spokesman said in Minsk on Thursday, presenting a
ministry statement in reply to U.S. President George
W. Bush's signing of the Belarus Democracy Act.
"This openly unfriendly step cannot but produce deep
regret," Belarussian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei
Savinykh said. "Declaring the act's purpose as the
promotion of Belarus's sovereignty and independence,
the American authorities in fact deny the Belarussian
people's aspiration towards setting up a stable and
sovereign state in which the people's personal freedom
is organically combined with the guarantee of social
justice," Savinykh said.
The Belarussian Foreign Ministry views the U.S.
administration's steps as "deliberately exacerbating
relations with [Belarus] and encouraging its allies to
do the same," he said.
The U.S. president's statement has been made "in the
style of confrontational approaches of the Cold War
era," he said.
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10713388
Interfax - October 21, 2004
Russia opposed to sanctions against countries - Lavrov
ALMATY - Russia believes that sanctions do not solve
problems currently being experienced by some
countries, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said
after meeting with Kazakh President Nursultan
Nazarbayev in Almaty on Thursday.
"We believe that sanctions do not solve the problems
that arise and we do not back the use of such
instruments on any countries," Lavrov said in response
to a question from Interfax about the imposition of
economic sanctions on Belarus by the U.S.
---
http://www.interfax.com/com?item=Bela&pg=0&id=5764036&req=
Interfax - October 21, 2004
Belarussian referendum declared valid - commission
Minsk - The Belarussian Central Elections Commission
has announced that the recent referendum was valid and
confirmed the referendum results on the basis of
protocols from regional and Minsk referendum
commissions.
The referendum strictly complied with the election
laws, a source in the Central Elections Commission
told Interfax on Thursday. "79.42% of all voters
supported the referendum question," the source said.
The referendum question was the following: "Do you
permit Belarussian first president Alexander
Lukashenko to take part in the presidential election
and do you accept Part 1, Article 81 of the
Belarussian Constitution in this edition 'the
president shall be elected for the period of five
years directly by the people of Belarus in a
universal, free, equal, direct and secret ballot'?"
The source said that Belarus has 6,986,163 voters.
6,307,393 voters (90.28%) reportedly took part in the
referendum.
"5,548,477 voters said 'yes,' and 691,917 voters
(9.9%) objected to the referendum question. 67,001
voting papers were declared invalid," the source said.
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1375167&PageNum=2
Itar-Tass - October 22, 2004
US State Department considering sanctions against
Belarus government
WASHINGTON - The US State Department is considering
sanctions against the Belarussian government and help
to democratic forces in this country, the State
Department’s spokesman Richard Boucher said.
Commenting on a new 2004 law on democracy in Belarus
passed by Congress and signed by US President George
Bush on Wednesday, he told reporters that it envisaged
a stop to American economic assistance to Belarus,
except for humanitarian aid.
At the same time, the US is going to support political
parties, public groups and independent mass media that
advocate democracy and human rights in Belarus.
Boucher said the US mulled further steps toward
Belarus in these areas.
He reaffirmed that according to the new law, the US
administration would send to Congress a report on
Minsk’s military cooperation with states that the US
lists as ”sponsors of terrorism” and on money of
Belarus’ top officials, including President Alexander
Lukashenko.
Boucher harshly criticized Belarussian authorities,
accusing them of violations of human rights, and
expressed concern over arrests of political opposition
leaders during the latest protests in Minsk.
The Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(the Helsinki Commission) also expressed serious
concern over the referendum that allowed Lukashenko to
run for another presidential term.
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1376367&PageNum=1
Itar-Tass - October 22, 2004
Pora – Ukrainian version of Serb Otpor, Georgian Khmara
KIEV -Activists of the Pora (Proper Time/It's Time)
organisation of Ukraine do not deny the fact that they
maintain contacts with the Otpor (Rebuff) organisation
of Serbia and the Khmara/Kmara (Enough) organisation
of Georgia. Both were active participants in the
“velvet revolution” and the “revolution of roses” in
their respective countries. “We are not just
cooperating, we learned from Otpor, we attended their
seminars at which they told us about their
experience,” Olga, a member of Pora, told journalists.
She did not mention her surname for security purposes.
“We are willing to cooperate with any organisations,
which want the October 31 presidential elections in
Ukraine to be honest,” said Bogdan, another activist
of Pora. He added they had not received any
instructions either from the U.S. embassy or from the
electoral team of the opposition presidential
candidate Viktor Yushchenko. [sic]
In some Ukrainian regions the police confiscated from
Pora members explosive devices, counterfeit money with
which they paid students for their participation in
rallies, as well as printed matter in support for
Yushchenko.
Kiev Mayor Alexander Omelchenko said on Thursday that
Pora had submitted an application for holding a rally
in Kiev on October 31, in which 500,000 people are
expected to take part. “We shall not give the
permission to hold the rally, because there are no
places in Kiev, where such massive actions could be
held,” he explained.
Previously Valery Mishura, deputy to the Ukrainian
parliament, said that “some political forces,
supported from the outside, are preparing public
opinion for the idea that the elections will be held
in Ukraine in a non-transparent way, with massive
forging… Not only public opinion is being conditioned
in this way, but also certain public organisations,
which are to upset public and political stability. I
mean the Pora organisation, which is a clone of Otpor
and Khmara.”
According to Mishura, Alexander Maric, one of the
leaders of the Serb Otpor who was deported from
Ukraine, as well as some Georgian representatives,
gave instructions to Pora members on how to kindle
massive unrest.
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1378523&PageNum=0
Itar-Tass - October 22, 2004
Belarus dismisses West's criticism
MINSK - Belarussian authorities have dismissed the new
critical remarks some Western politicians made on
Thursday.
"It makes no sense to continue the dispute over each
separate statement," a high-placed official from the
Belarussian Foreign Ministry told Itar-Tass.
When asked to comment on the words by U.S. Department
of State's spokesman Richard Boucher that Washington
considers a possibility to introduce additional
sanctions against the government of Belarus, the
official said "the Belarussian Foreign Ministry's
response and comments on this account were quite
clear."
Minsk blamed the United States for the worsening of
Belarussian-American relations, and did not express
any special worry over possible U.S. sanctions.
The press service of the Belarussian Interior Ministry
described as "odd" the demand by EU foreign policy and
security chief Javier Solana that Belarussian
authorities release the detained participants in
opposition rallies.
These issues are resolved in court, in line with the
procedure established by law, not on someone's demand.
As for Solana's statement about the necessity to
investigate the latest events in Minsk, a criminal
case was opened for the study and juridical evaluation
of the offences committed during the unsanctioned
rallies on October 18-20, the press service said,
adding that a careful check is conducted on the media
reports about the journalists hurt during these events.
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10713990
Interfax - October 22, 2004
Belarussian elections democratic, legitimate - Russian Duma
MOSCOW - The parliamentary elections and the
referendum that have recently been held in Belarus
were "open, free, democratic and legitimate," the Duma
said in a statement issued on Friday.
The statement was adopted on a 416/8 vote. A decision
has been made to forward it to the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE), and other international organizations. A draft
version of the statement was prepared by Nikolai
Kondratenko, a representative of the Communist Party
faction, who was a member of the group of Russian
observers at the recent Belarussian elections and
referendum. The elections and referendum in Belarus
were conducted "in an atmosphere of unprecedented
external pressure campaign."
"The sharply negative evaluations of the referendum
held in Belarus voiced by officials and political
figures of a number of European countries and the U.S.
and the threats to take discriminatory measures cannot
be seen as anything but an attempt to interfere in the
internal affairs of a sovereign state, a violation of
the universal norms of international law," the
document says.
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1378899&PageNum=0
Itar-Tass - October 22, 2004
Duma calls Belarussian election free, democratic, open
MOSCOW - The State Duma lower house of the Russian
parliament said the election to the Belarussian
National Assembly and the republic's referendum were
"open, free, democratic and legitimate."
The voting stations at which Russian observers were
present, ensured the necessary conditions for a free
and equal expression of will by Belarussian citizens
in secret ballot, the Duma said in a statement on Friday.
It underlined that "in the course of the entire period
of its work, the Duma delegation was performing its
functions openly, independently, while being guided by
the principle of neutrality."
At the same time, the lawmakers expressed their
"justified concern over the information by its
observers who noted unprecedented outside pressure
during the election and the referendum."
"The sharply negative evaluations voiced by officials
and politicians in a number of European countries and
the United States with respect to the referendum
announced by Belarus, and the threats of
discriminatory measures cannot be judged other than an
attempt to interfere in internal affairs of a
sovereign states, and a breach of universal norms of
international laws," Russian parliamentarians said.
At the same time, certain Russian television
journalists who were covering the Belarussian
parliamentary election and referendum from
anti-Belarussian positions, thus playing into the hand
of a certain part of the Belarussian opposition, did
not "strengthen the prospects for expediting the
establishment of a stable and effective Union of
Russia and Belarus," the Duma said.
The State Duma "states its respect for the will of
citizens of the republic of Belarus and will continue
to make efforts towards the strengthening of
traditional friendship between the Russian and
Belarussian peoples and the establishment of an
effective Union of Belarus and Russia," the document
said.
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10713982
Interfax - October 22, 2004
Yushchenko, Kissinger discuss geopolitical role of Ukraine
KYIV - Presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko and
former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger met on
Friday to discuss Ukraine's relations with the U.S.
and Russia.
Yushchenko and Kissinger discussed geopolitical
issues, in particular, "Ukraine's geopolitical role on
the European continent," Yushchenko's press service
quoted Yushchenko as saying.
---
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-ukraine-
campaign,0,2594338.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
Associated Press - October 23, 2004
By ALEKSANDAR VASOVIC
Ukrainians Rally in Support of Yushchenko
KIEV, Ukraine - Tens of thousands of people supporting
opposition presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko
rallied in Ukraine's capital Saturday demanding that
next week's presidential election be free and fair.
Some in the crowd threw rocks and at least one smoke
grenade and were turned over to police.
The Oct. 31 presidential vote is considered a crucial
indicator of what lies ahead for this nation of nearly
50 million people that occupies a strategically
sensitive position between Russia and NATO's eastern
flank. Yushchenko faces Prime Minister Viktor
Yanukovych in a tight race.
The rally brought more than 50,000 people into
downtown Kiev, according to journalists at the scene.
Police estimated the number of protesters at only
20,000.
"Each vote counts so go to your friends and tell them
that. October 31 will be a great day for this nation,"
Yushchenko told the cheering crowd in the capital of
this former Soviet republic.
He said he feared election fraud in the vote, which is
being watched by Ukraine's neighbors as a crucial sign
of where this Eastern European nation is headed.
Yushchenko just returned to the campaign trail after
weeks off due to an ailment his allies attributed to
poisoning by political opponents. Although his health
has improved, he appeared haggard and his face looked
swollen and puffy.
During the rally, a small number of people threw rocks
and a smoke grenade at the Central Election
Commission's building, breaking several windows. A
policeman was slightly injured, officials said.
Yushchenko's security team seized several members of
the group and handed them over to the police.
Oleksandr Turchinov, an opposition lawmaker, called
the incident "a provocation" aimed at discrediting
Yushchenko and the rally.
Organizers had hoped for a crowd topping 100,000 but
blamed police interference for keeping the numbers
down. Traffic police set up roadblocks on the
outskirts of Kiev, preventing dozens of cars and buses
from entering the capital. Volodymyr Bondarenko, a
lawmaker and Yushchenko ally, accused authorities of
blocking the operations of several bus companies and
the national railway.
Volodymyr Tykhomirov, 42, a welder from the eastern
city of Kharkiv, said police tried to stop his group
in "at least four roadblocks."
"We were told by the policemen not to go to Kiev
because there might be violence," he said.
Yushchenko, a Western-leaning liberal, is running
neck-and-neck with Yanukovych, who has outgoing
President Leonid Kuchma's backing. The race is
expected to enter a runoff in November.
The campaign for president of this strategically
important nation has been turbulent, with the
opposition accusing authorities of violence and
possible election fraud and the government warning
opponents it will use force if civil unrest breaks out.
"No one will steal our votes, our dignity. We are not
afraid," said Yulia Vasylenko, 56, a doctor from Kiev.
Ahead of the rally, Yushchenko's supporters decorated
fence and trees near the country's parliament building
with thousands of his campaign's orange ribbons.
Western governments have repeatedly called on Ukraine
to conduct a free and fair vote.
Meanwhile, unidentified people set ablaze one of
Yushchenko's campaign tents in Luhansk in eastern
Ukraine, injuring two activists, the Unian news agency
reported.
Police officials there were not immediately available
for comment.
---
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36e18e28-2491-11d9-a110-00000e2511c8.html
Financial Times - October 23, 2004
By Tom Warner in Kiev
US denies entry to leading Ukrainian
The US has stepped up pressure on Ukraine to hold fair
presidential elections by announcing it had denied a
visa to a businessman closely linked to the chief of
Ukraine's presidential administration.
A US embassy spokesman in Kiev yesterday said a visa
had been denied to Grigory Surkis, head of Ukraine's
football federation and partner in business and
politics of Viktor Medvedchuk, preside<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
ASSEDIARE LA RUSSIA (3)
1. TADIC I BELORUSIJA (O. Vulovic / ARTEL)
2. BUSH INASPRISCE LE SANZIONI CONTRO LA BIELORUSSIA (M. Gemma)
3. Il leader della organizzazione giovanile Serba OTPOR espulso
dall'Ucraina / I supporter di Yanukovych mettono in guardia sulle
rivoluzioni nei sondaggi per le elezioni / La "Rivoluzione delle
castagne" si prepara a Kiev / Il Senato USA sostiene il BELARUS
DEMOCRACY ACT / La Bielorussia promette di proteggere la Russia dai
carri armati della NATO / Aerei NATO esplorano il territorio Russo /
Caccia inglesi prendono il controllo dello spazio aereo del Baltico
(Traduzioni di Alessandro Lattanzio)
4. NEWS:
- GERMANY: CDU/CSU MAKES PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY ON KALININGRAD. DUMA
DISAPPROVES
- Russian Media Report NATO Nuclear Weapons In Lithuania
- US Has 480 Nuclear Bombs In NATO Nations ...
- PORA/OTPOR: Ukrainians Fear A 'Georgian Scenario'
- Bush Signs Bill Passed Weeks Ago To Hit Belarus
- Russian Foreign Minister Opposes US Sanctions Against Belarus
- Russian Duma Leaders Criticize US Sanctions
- Final Report Of Russian Election Observers Of Referendum
- Belarus Not Frightened By US Sanctions
- Belarus GDP Grew By 10.8% In Nine Months, Wages Increased By 12-13%
- Head Of Russian Duma's International Affairs Committee: US Will
Penalize Ukraine For Voting Wrong Way
- Russians comment on stricter U.S. policy on Belarus
- Belarus Lashes Out At US Sanctions Threat
- Confrontation Reminiscent Of Cold War
- Russian Foreign Minister Opposed To Sanctions
- Central Elections Commission Declares Referendum Valid
- Belarus: USA Plotting Sanctions, 'Rose Revolution'
- Pora: Ukrainian Version Of Serbian Otpor, Georgian Kmara
- Belarus Dismisses West's Criticism, Threats
- Free, Open, Democratic, Legitimate: Russian Duma
Observers' Report On Belarus Election, Referendum
- Duma Reports Condemns West's "Interference In
Internal Affairs Of Sovereign State, Breach Of Norms
Of International Law"
- US-Annointed Yushchenko Gets 'Election Advice' From
Henry Kissinger
- Ukrainians Rally in Support of Yushchenko
- US denies entry to leading Ukrainian
- Russia Alarmed At Prospect Of NATO Nuclear Arms Stationed In Lithuania
- Chairman of the U.S. NATO Committee on Transdniester
(SOURCE: Rick Rozoff / ANTINATO @...)
VEDI ANCHE / SEE ALSO / VOIR AUSSI :
NATO Reinforces Position In Central Asia As Scheffer Tours Military
Bases
http://www.tass.ru/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1361323&PageNum=0
Nouvelle guerre froide: La stratégie anti-russe de Zbigniew Brzezinski
Zbigniew Brezinski, ancien conseiller du Président Carter, incarne la
continuité de la politique étrangère états-unienne, qui n'est ni
Démocrate ni Républicaine. Grand admirateur de Henry Kissinger, il a
toujours prôné le respect de deux concepts clés de la diplomatie du
« maître », l'équilibre des puissances théorisé par Metternich et la
doctrine de « containment » élaborée par George Kennan. Il préconise
ainsi aujourd'hui l'encerclement de la Russie grâce à la
déstabilisation de ses régions frontalières. Une politique
particulièrement écoutée au sein de l'équipe de John Kerry, qui a
recruté son fils Mark Brzezinski en tant que conseiller sur la
politique étrangère...
http://www.reseauvoltaire.net/article15298.html
Besoin d’une révolution ? Appelez Otpor !
Après la Géorgie, l’Ukraine ? Les anciens militants du mouvement Otpor
(« Résistance »), artisan de la chute du régime de Slobodan Milosevic,
sont devenus des experts internationaux ès-révolutions. L’un d’eux,
Aleksandar Maric, vient cependant d’être expulsé d’Ukraine, où des
élections très sensibles sont convoquées le 31 octobre.
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4676.html
=== 1 ===
http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/izbor/evropa/2004-10-25.html
Tadic I Belorucija
Oliver Vulovic
Beograd, 24 10 2004 gpd/
oliverv @ yubc.net
oliver_vulovic @ hotmail.com
Srpska teroristicka organizacija OTPOR koja deluje pod zastitom i
patronatom stranke predsednika drzave Srbije a koju (organizaciju
OTPOR) pri tome iz inostranstva finansiraju najveci neprijatelji
interesa iste te drzave Srbije, pokusala je poslednjih dana da u
koaliciji sa americkim MPRI, CIA, Sorosovim banditima i beloruskim
izdajnicima putem ulicnog nasilja, neprestanom represijom, novcem,
korupcijom, ucenama i manipulacijama u Minsku izvrsi drzavni udar i
protivno rezulatatima poslednjih izbora i upravo odrzanog referenduma,
na pucisticki nacin smeni legalnog predsednika i vladu te drzave, po
istom scenariju po kojem je u oktobru 2000-te godine isti posao uspesno
obavila u Srbiji. Vlada u Minsku je reagovala drzavnicki i sve
pripadnike te i ostalih inostranih teroristickih celija u svojoj drzavi
pohapsila i proterala a na ulicno nasilje domacih izdajnika odgovorila
umerenom i, srazmerno izazvanim neredima, adekvatnom policijskom silom.
Scenario koji su Amerikanci uspesno primenili u Slovackoj, Srbiji I
Gruziji, posle Kube doziveo je svoj debakl i u Belorusiji. Frustrirana
americka administracija je na novonastalu situaciju reagovala po vec
ustaljenom sablonu te je ekspresno Belorusiji uvela ekonomske i
politicke sankcije. Eventualni nastavci cele price su nam svima u
Srbiji dobro poznati, bar sto se tice buducih manevara americke i
briselske administracije, ali su ovog puta zbog okruzenja i specificnog
politickog, vojnog I ekonomskog polozaja Belorusije kao I zbog visoke
patriotske svesti naroda u Belorusiji, osudjeni na propast. Da su
neprijatelji Belorusije shvatili da ce rasparcavanje I kolonizacija ove
drzave ici mnogo teze nego sa ostalim pacijentima koje je ,
kisinderovski receno, zahvatio virus patriotizma, vidimo I tako sto se
uopste nije tako dugo cekalo sa prelaskom na sledecu fazu
destabilizacije I stanizacije jedne drzave I njenog rukovodstva, na
politicka ubistva. U svom stanu u Minsku mrtva je pronadjena Veronica
Cerkasova, britko pero opozicije. Naravno pre nego sto je istraga I
pocela, u medijima pod briselskom I americkom kontrolom u Belorusiji
kao I u velikoj vecini americkih I evropskih medija, vec se spremno
prstom pokazuje na gospodina Lukasenka I njegove saradnike kao na
ispiratore tog odvratnog I gnusnog dela. Indikativno je da su se i u
Srbiji desavala politicka ubistva ali da su prve vece politicke poene
nasi neprijatelji poceli da sticu tek kada su pocele da padaju i
novinarske glave, cije se smrti, zbog nesposobnosti policije da ih
rasvetli I dan danas eksploatisu u dnevnopoliticke svrhe . U oba
slucaja, I srpskom I beloruskom, glatko se prelazi preko cinjenice da
je, kako tada Milosevicu, tako I sada Lukasenku najmanje trebalo
nestajanje nekog od njihovih najjacih kriticara. Iz dva razloga
najmanje-Prvog, jer ti ljudi sami po sebi nisu politicke ubice I drugog
– stvorila bi se situacija koja bi se kao refren neprestano povlacila
kroz kolumne opozicionih I zpadnih novina I koristila za neprestanu
destabilizaciju drzave I vlade. Na Zapadu sada prosto cupaju kose zbog
toga sto se Belorusima ne moze nametnuti nikakav Hag niti izvrsiti
denacifikacija I debelorusizacija kao I zbog cinjenice da je Rusija tu,
odmah pored, ali I u Savetu bezbednosti OUN a do Belorusije se ne mora
leteti preko drugih drzava . Dakle, prostora za manipulacije koje su
obilato koriscene protiv Srbije nema puno, ostaje samo pokusaj da se
nesto vise ucini na domacem beloruskom razjedinjavanju I podelama i sto
je moguce vise insistirati na incidentnim situacijama u glavnom gradu
do eventualnog krvoprolica. Eto, u takvu se pricu ukljucio OTPOR na
ponos I srecu srpskog naroda, vlade I predsednika. Smrt Veronike
Cerkasove, Curuvije, Dusana Jovanovica kao I mnoge druge smrti koje su
nastale na tragovima tzv “plisanih revolucija”, “milosrdnih andjela” I
ostalih akcija koje su ih ovako tepajuci im nazivali i organizovali
americki imperijalisti u drugim drzavama radi ostvarivanja svojih
interesa, su smrti koje ce ostati da budu otkrivene u nekim buducim
vremenima I sa nekim drugim ljudima na vlasti koje nece dovesti
americki pucevi. U medjuvremenu se postavlja pitanje imal li u ovoj
drzavi krivicne odgovornosti za ljude, drzavljane Republike Srbije,
koji u ime jedne domace politicke partije (pokret – partija –
Demokratska stranka) a za racun stranih faktora svesno odlaze u druge
drzave sa namerom I ciljem da obaraju njihove vlade, izazivaju nerede I
doprinose njihovoj nestabilnosti I izazivanju gradjanskog rata? Zar
takve akcije OTPORA nisu krsenje I samog njihovog Statuta, statuta
Demokratske stranke ciji su kolektivni clan I Zakona o radu politickih
partija I kao takve protivustavne ? Nema u javnosti uvek spremnog
gospodina Vucetica da da svoje misljenje I o ovoj situaciji I pre
zasedanja suda I ako je to mnogo puta do sada radio. Gde je u celoj
ovoj situaciji odgovornost gospodina Tadica kao celnika tih ljudi I
partije I kakve to kasnije negativne posledice moze imati I po drzavu
Srbiju uzimajuci u obzir da je isti covek I njen predsednik ? Gospodinu
Tadicu je mnogo lakse da prizna legitimitet izbora na okupiranom
Kosmetu gde je planirano da njegovi sunarodnici glasaju pod zastitom
oruzanih snaga NATO pakta (ako bi ih iko I od cega stitio), nego da
prizna legitimitet izbora I referenduma koji su na legalan nacin
obavljeni u jednoj slobodnoj I nezavisnoj drzavi kao sto je Belorusija.
OTPOR I Tadic su se borili da dodju na vlast jer “Srbija vise nije
imala prijatelja u svetu”. Da li je Tadiceva politika prema Belorusiji
a time I posredno prema Rusiji stvaranje novih prijateljstava I veza
izmedju drzava I naroda ? Kosmetsko pitanje na kome su Tadic I njegovi
ratnohuskacki kolektivni clanovi pali pre nego sto su I poceli da
krckaju novi mandat je odlican pokazatelj da se na njihovoj antisrpskoj
politici ogleda I njihova ukupna antislovenska politika te I uopste
politika sa pozicija bespogovornog saveznika amerikanaca u svim
ratovima I akcijama koje ovi budu sprovodili u svetu. Bese li to onaj
isti covek koji je hteo da salje nasu vojsku da okupira Irak ?
=== 2 ===
BUSH INASPRISCE LE SANZIONI CONTRO LA BIELORUSSIA
Il presidente degli Stati Uniti definisce per la prima volta Lukashenko
“un dittatore”. L’Europa si allinea velocemente. Ferma, ma composta la
reazione bielorussa. Polemiche le prime reazioni ufficiali russe.
22 ottobre 2004
Il presidente USA Bush, il 21 ottobre, ha firmato la legge “sulla
democrazia in Bielorussia”, già approvata dal Congresso. Nel decreto
vengono ulteriormente inasprite le sanzioni precedentemente adottate
nei confronti della repubblica ex sovietica. In particolare, viene
stabilito il divieto di concedere al governo di Minsk “ogni assistenza,
garanzia creditizia, copertura assicurativa, finanziamento o qualsiasi
aiuto” ad esclusione di quello umanitario: una gravissima forma di
embargo. Naturalmente, anche gli altri paesi vengono invitati “ad
adottare analoghe misure nei confronti della Repubblica di Belarus”.
Bush ha contestualmente rilasciato una dichiarazione scritta, in cui,
per la prima volta in modo ufficiale, Aleksandr Lukashenko viene
definito “un dittatore” e si sottolinea, con toni che suonano come un
incitamento al rovesciamento violento del presidente bielorusso, che
“il destino della Bielorussia” da oggi è riposto “solo nelle mani degli
studenti, dei sindacati, dei leader civili e religiosi, dei giornalisti
e di tutti i cittadini della Bielorussia, che esigono la libertà per il
proprio paese”. In tal modo, la Bielorussia viene ufficialmente inclusa
tra i “paesi canaglia” facenti parte del cosiddetto “asse del male”.
La pesante dichiarazione del presidente americano è stata raccolta, nel
giro di poche ore, dagli ambienti ufficiali europei (a cominciare dal
Consiglio d’Europa e dalla sua Assemblea parlamentare), che hanno
rilasciato note di contenuto analogo. Si è particolarmente distinta la
Lituania (la cui affidabilità in fatto di “diritti umani” è
testimoniata dal carcere duro a cui sono sottoposti da oltre un
decennio molti militanti comunisti) che, con un’iniziativa del
presidente del parlamento nazionale, ha deciso “di interrompere
immediatamente qualsiasi collaborazione con l’organo legislativo
bielorusso non democraticamente eletto”.
Immediata è arrivata la ferma, seppur composta, reazione della
Bielorussia. In una nota, diffusa dal Ministero degli esteri
(http://www.mfa.gov.by) si esprime “profondo rammarico” per “questo
evidente passo ostile”, le cui responsabilità “ricadono in pieno sugli
USA”. La pretesa della legge USA di imporre il proprio modello di
sovranità e di indipendenza, “contrasta con l’aspirazione del popolo
bielorusso alla creazione di uno stabile stato sovrano, in cui la
libertà individuale dei cittadini si combini organicamente con la
giustizia sociale”. Gli USA, in realtà, secondo la nota, intenderebbero
solo “inasprire consapevolmente i rapporti con la Repubblica di
Belarus, spingendo i propri alleati a fare altrettanto”. E’ questo un
“approccio tipico del periodo della “guerra fredda”. Quanto al presunto
carattere non democratico del recente processo elettorale, la nota
bielorussa fa notare che “ moltissimi osservatori internazionali hanno
confermato che le elezioni e il referendum si sono svolti in piena
corrispondenza con gli standard internazionali” e che “la dirigenza
bielorussa ha agito e continuerà ad agire, sul piano della politica
interna, nell’ambito dei principi democratici di garanzia dei diritti e
delle libertà dei cittadini e di crescita del benessere del popolo
bielorusso”. La legge adottata dagli USA appare allora come “una
violazione della dichiarazione dell’ONU sul non ricorso all’intervento
e all’ingerenza negli affari interni degli stati del dicembre 1981” e
di altri obblighi internazionali presi dagli Stati Uniti. La nota del
Ministero degli Esteri conclude rivendicando il “diritto a promuovere
passi di risposta” ai diktat e alle pressioni del governo americano.
La prima reazione ufficiale russa è stata la dichiarazione dello
speaker della Duma di Stato e dirigente del partito di Putin “Russia
Unita” Boris Gryzlov, che prende nettamente posizione contro le
sanzioni USA. In qualità di osservatore internazionale che ha potuto
intervenire nel corso del referendum bielorusso, egli sostiene che “non
ci può essere alcun dubbio sulla piena correttezza del referendum” e
annuncia una presa di posizione del parlamento russo che confermerebbe
le conclusioni del lavoro degli osservatori della Federazione Russa e
della CSI. E in effetti, il giorno seguente, la Duma ha approvato una
risoluzione di sostanziale avallo degli esiti sia del referendum che
delle elezioni bielorusse.
E non è neppure privo di significato il fatto che l’autorevole sito
“strana.ru” notoriamente molto vicino all’amministrazione presidenziale
russa, abbia pubblicato con grande rilievo una lunga intervista ad uno
dei maggiori specialisti di questioni latinoamericane, Kharen
Khaciaturov (http://www.strana.ru , 22 ottobre 2004), il quale, citando
un’ampia documentazione, dimostra le impressionanti analogie tra la
campagna scatenata negli ultimi anni contro la Bielorussia e quella
condotta contro Cuba, per provocarne l’isolamento internazionale.
MAURO GEMMA
=== 3 ===
( these texts in english:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3903 )
Da: alexlattanzio@ yahoo.it
Data: Sab 23 Ott 2004 21:09:41
A: "Coord. Naz. per la Jugoslavia"
Itar-Tass - October 13, 2004
<http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1343448&PageNum=1>
Il Leader della organizzazione giovanile Serba espulso
dall'Ukraina
KIEV - l'Ukraina ha espulso Mercoledì Alexander Maric,
della organizzazione giovanile Serba Otpor (rebuff).
Ha giocato un importante ruolo nel rovesciamento del
regime di Slobodan Milosevic e aiutato attivamente
l'organizzazione giovanile Georgiana Khmara.
Azioni di Protesta, organizzate da Khmara a Tbilisi,
divenute poi la "rivoluzione delle rose" che portò
alle dimissioni del Presidente Georgiano Eduard
Shevardnadze.
"Maric è stati espulso dall'Ukraina come 'persona non
grata' (in italiano nel testo originale) oggi" dice un
rappresentante della dogana Ukraina. Maric era
detenuto all'aeroporto Borispol di Kiev martedì.
Interfax - October 13, 2004
I supporter di Yanukovych mettono in guardia sulle
rivoluzioni nei sondaggi per le elezioni
KYIV - Il consiglio di coordinamento delle forze
democratiche in supporto al candidato presidenziale
Viktor Yanukovych ha messo in guardia sulla
possibilità di incidenti nel giorno delle elezioni.
L'allarme rivolto alla nazione, adottato in un meeting
del consiglio a Kyiv di mercoledì.
"La notte del 31 Ottobre, forze politiche guidate dai
candidati dell'opposizione pianificano una adunata di
mezzo milione di persone davanti all'edificio della
commissione per fare pressione sui membri della
commissione, e nel caso di risultati a loro
sfavorevoli, fare fallire il conteggio dei voti come
primo passo per la cosiddetta 'rivoluzione delle
castagne'" dice il messaggio. Il consiglio dichiara
che l'opposizione "pianifica l'applicazione delle
esperienze Serba o Georgiana di discordia pubblica e
di metodi di occupazione del potere con la forza sul
suolo Ukraino."
"E' una minaccia di golpe politico. Perciò, studenti
universitari sono stati soggiogati, gruppi di
militanti esperti formati, e la reputazione della
legge, delle forze di sicurezza e dell'esercito
minate. Simultaneamente, forze distruttive propongono
una massiccia campagna per discreditare l'intero
governo agli occhi dei votanti." Afferma il messaggio.
In risposta, il consiglio chiama per il mantenimento
di un forum delle forze democratiche.
Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - October 13, 2004
<http://en.rian.ru/rian/>
La "Rivoluzione delle castagne" si prepara a KIEV
Supporters del candidato presidenziale dell'Ukraina
Viktor Yanukovich affermano che i loro avversari
preparano una 'rivoluzione delle castagne' nel paese
in seguito alle elezioni presidenziali del 31 Ottobre.
Secondo il Consiglio di Coordinamento delle
organizzazioni elettorali che sostengono il candidato
del partito al potere, l'attuale primo ministro
Yanukovich, gli oppositori pianificano lo sviluppo di
un "altro scenario Serbo o Georgiano di presa del
potere".
Il Consiglio pubblica un messaggio che afferma che una
manifestazione di molte migliaia di persone davanti
l'edifico della Commissione Centrale Elettorale
Ukraina, prevista dagli oppositori allo scopo di
trasformare la notte delle elezioni nella prima fase
di tale scenario, se le elezioni dovessero essere
sfavorevoli per l'opposizione e il suo leader Viktor
Yuschenko.
"Ora, c'è la minaccia di un golpe politico nel paese"
affermano i rappresentanti di stato
dell'organizzazione di supporto a Yanukovich, nel
messaggio rivolto mercoledì.
"Possiamo chiedere al presidente Ukraino di fare ogni
sforzo per prevenire lo sviluppo della 'rivoluzione
delle castagne', rafforzando la legge e l'ordine
durante il processo elettorale. Chiederemo ai deputati
dell'Ukraina di far cessare l'infruttuosa ostilità
politica nel parlamento" afferma il documento.
Il termine 'rivoluzione delle castagne' è stato
introdotto in Ukraina dopo che a Febbraio il Wall
Street Journal pubblicasse un articolo intitolato "Una
rivoluzione delle castagne' a Kiev?", che speculava
sulla possibilità che l'Ukraina fosse testimone di
eventi simili alla Georgiana "rivoluzione delle rose",
che forzò il Presidente Edward Shevarnadze a ritirarsi
e spianare la via al potere all'attuale Presidente
Mikhail Saakashvili.
L'articolo diede tale nome perché Kiev é famosa per la
fioritura dei castagni in primavera. (...)
LINKS: Ukraine turns away from Europe, starts dreaming
of Russia (by Roman Melnikov)
<http://english.pravda.ru/printed.html?news_id=14443>
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - October 8, 2004
<http://www.rferl.org/newsline/3-cee.asp>
Il Senato USA sostiene il BELARUS DEMOCRACY ACT
Il 6 Ottobre il Senato USA unanimemente ha approvato
il Belarus Democracy Act del 2004, che è stato
adottato due giorni prima dal Congresso. Il RFE/RL per
la Bielorussia riportato il 7 Ottobre. La legge
autorizza assistenza per la costituzione di attività
democratiche come supporto per ong, media
indipendenti, e scambi internazionali.
Inoltre proibisce a tute le agenzie federali USA di
fornire prestiti o investimenti al governo Bielorusso
tranne i prodotti agricoli o medici.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - October 14, 2004
<http://www.rferl.org/newsline/3-cee.asp>
La Bielorussia promette di proteggere la Russia dai carri armati della
NATO
Il Presidente Lukashenko avverte i giornalisti Russi
il 13 Ottobre che "gli Americani stanno trasferendo i
loro più avanzati sistemi antiaerei in Polonia"
Belapan riporta.
"Perché lo fanno?" Lukashenko si domanda. "Forse hanno
degli interessi in Bielorussia o in Russia?"
Lukashenko promette di proteggere la Russia da un
possibile nemico esterno persino se tale paese non
aiutasse la Bielorussia a crearsi una sua difesa.
"Sarebbe immorale per noi non proteggere la Russia"
dice. "Non possiamo...lasciare che i tank attraversino
la Bielorussia, così che possano procedere verso Mosca
impunemente."
<http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10710102>
Interfax - October 11, 2004
Aerei NATO esplorano il territorio Russo
MOSCA - aerei da ricognizione stranieri hanno
attivamente esplorato il territorio Russo in molte
direzioni, dice una fonte, del Quartier Generale
dell'aviazione, a Interfax Lunedì.
"Aerei della NATO compiono annualmente 400 voli sul
Baltico e il Mar di Barents, e più di 300 voli annuali
sul Mar del Giappone e il Mare di Okhotsk" dice.
Aerei stranieri hanno violato lo spazio aereo russo 70
volte quest'anno. La difesa aerea a inseguito circa
200.000 target tra Gennaio e Settembre. Circa il 50%
di esse sono jet stranieri, inclusi più di 4.000
velivoli militari.
Agence France-Presse - October 14, 2004
Caccia inglesi prendono il controllo dello spazio
aereo del Baltico
VILNIUS - Due caccia Tornado F-3 sono atterrati
Giovedì in Lituania per sorvegliare lo spazio aereo
dei tre stati Baltici, dice il ministro della difesa
del paese.
"I due caccia sono atterrati, altri due sono attesi
per questo mese" dice il portavoce del ministero della
difesa Jovita Bazeviciute a AFP.
"circa 100 militari inglesi sono schierati adesso in
Lituania e il numero potrebbe arrivare a 120"
aggiunge.
I paesi membri della NATO hanno inviato a turno i loro
caccia per pattugliare lo spazio aereo della Lituania,
della Lettonia e dell'Estonia da quando i tre si sono
uniti al blocco a Marzo, e che non hanno aerei propri.
I caccia inglesi hanno sostituito gli F-16 Danesi il
1° Ottobre, ma è stato detto che gli inglesi si
rifiutano di inviare i propri caccia poiché la pista
della base di Zokniai in Lituania è troppo corta.
Il ministro della difesa della Lituania Linas
Linkevicius, ha già detto alla AFP che dopo l'esame
dell'aeroporto con esperti inglesi, alcuni
miglioramenti sono stati fatti per rispondere alle
necessità dei caccia inglesi. Il ministro della difesa
ha detto che gli inglesi potranno pattugliare lo
spazio aereo del Baltico fino a gennaio e saranno
sostituiti dalla Norvegia.
Traduzioni di Alessandro Lattanzio
E-mail: alexlattanzio @ yahoo.it
URL-Sito Generale:
http://www.aurora03.da.ru
http://aurora03.cjb.net/
Sito sull'11 settembre e Dintorni:
http://sitoaurora.cjb.net/
Atlante sulla Politica Internazionale:
http://atlante.cjb.net/
L'Italidiota, sulla tragicommedia italiota:
http://italidiota.cjb.net/
Archivio Bollettini:
http://archivio.cjb.net
http://digilander.libero.it/Archiviaurora/
=== 4 ===
http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=4986560&startrow=11&date=2004-10-
19&do_alert=0
Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - October 19, 2004
GERMANY: CDU/CSU MAKES PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY ON KALININGRAD. DUMA
DISAPPROVES: KOSACHEV
MOSCOW - The Bundestag CDU/CSU group recently made an
official inquiry to Germany's federal government on
"the Konigsberg region's economic prospects with
European Union enlargement". Russian parliamentarians
harshly disapprove, MP Konstantin Kosachev said to the
media today. He leads the international affairs
committee of the State Duma, parliament's lower house.
The opposition inquiry cannot be considered to reflect
the stances of the entire Bundestag, let alone
Germany's official stance, points out a statement Mr.
Kosachev's press service is circulating.
"This is a very awkward moment for the inquiry - the
Duma is considering whether it is worthwhile at all to
ratify the protocol to the Russia-EU partnership
agreement, which spreads the effect of the instrument
to the ten new EU countries," says Kosachev. Smooth
contacts of the Kaliningrad Region, Russia's Baltic
exclave, with the Russian mainland is among top
priorities, Russian spokesmen stressed while signing
the protocol.
The inquirers have shown a great difference of their
stance on the exclave from what Russia-EU instruments
have. Characteristically, they refer to the
Kaliningrad Region as the Konigsberg. All that
certainly alarms the Russian parliament, Kosachev goes
on.
In fact, the inquiry galvanises doubts of Russia's and
other East European countries' sovereignty over their
particular areas, and of entire European settlement
after World War II. The inquirers have done their
country a bad turn just when Germany aspires to
permanent membership of the United Nations Security
Council, the Russian MP emphatically remarked.
He hopes the inquiry will find at the German top an
evaluation it deserves, one that will comply with the
spirit and the letter of international agreements to
which Germany is signatory.
---
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/19/content_2110008.htm
Xinhua News Agency (China) - October 19, 2004
NATO nuclear weapons deployment denied
BEIJING - Lithuanian Defense Minister Linas
Linkevicius says his country does not plan to deploy
nuclear weapons from NATO members on its own
territory.
Russian media reported that NATO is planning to store
ammunition in depots of a former Soviet strategic
aviation base in Siauliai, reported China Radio
International.
Linkevicius said he was surprised at the report,
adding that the rumors were absolutely groundless.
Linkevicius, however, said he would like to point out
that the base is being used to provide security for
Lithuania and NATO in strict compliance with
international law and Lithuania's international
obligations.
---
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1065495,00050001.htm
Press Trust Of India - October 19, 2004
US has 480 nuclear bombs deployed in Europe: Nuclear
expert
The United States still has 480 aerial tactical
nuclear bombs deployed at eight bases in seven
European countries, three times more than the
estimated figure, a US nuclear expert has said.
"There has been no reduction in the number of US
tactical nuclear bombs housed by NATO allies since
mid-1990s," Hans Kristensen, a consultant with
Washington-based National Resources Defence Council
said in Washington on Tuesday.
Of the 480 bombs, 110 are deployed at Britain's
Lakenheath air base and the others are housed at seven
bases in six non-nuclear NATO members - Belgium,
Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands and Turkey,
Kristensen said.
The Ramstein air base in Germany houses 130, he added.
"Under the current system, upto 180 bombs are
earmarked for use by the host countries in the event
of contingencies," he said.
He also stressed the need for the US to reduce the
number of tactical bombs deployed in NATO countries,
especially those with non-nuclear members.
---
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/10/ed7a4b6f-562c-4028-a575-
9ef78733fcb0.html
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - October 20, 2004
Analysis: Do Ukrainian Authorities Fear A 'Georgian
Scenario'?
By Jan Maksymiuk
Yanukovych allies have warned of the threat of a
"chestnut revolution"
Earlier this month, the coalition of parties and
organizations backing the presidential bid of Prime
Minister Viktor Yanukovych issued a statement
suggesting the opposition is planning a "chestnut
revolution" in the event that its candidate, Viktor
Yushchenko, is defeated at the ballot box on 31
October. The statement accuses oppositionists of
planning to gather half a million Yushchenko
supporters near the Central Election Commission
headquarters on election night to prepare for such an
eventuality.
"We address the Ukrainian president with a request to
take all possible measures to prevent the
implementation of 'chestnut-revolution scenarios' and
to ensure law and order during the election process,"
the statement reads, in an apparent reference to
Georgia's so-called Rose Revolution, which peacefully
deposed President Eduard Shevardnadze in November 2003
following a disputed parliamentary ballot.
One of the movements with a keen interest in a
Yushchenko victory and a subsequent power swap in
Ukraine is the youth "civic campaign" Pora (It's
Time), which was reportedly modeled on Serbia's Otpor
and Georgia's Khmara [Kmara], the youth organizations
that were instrumental in toppling Slobodan
Milosevic's regime in October 2000 and the
Shevardnadze regime in November 2003 in their
respective countries. On 15 October, police searched
the Pora offices in Kyiv and, according to the
Prosecutor-General's Office, found a homemade
explosive device, 2.4 kilograms of TNT, electric
detonators, and a grenade. Prosecutors have opened a
criminal case under articles pertaining to terrorism
and the formation of illegal armed groups and arrested
Yaroslav Hodunok, a founder of Pora. (...)
The police officers also found a stock of purportedly
propagandistic materials and an issue of the
organization's satirical newspaper, "Pro Ya. y tse."
(Its title is a pun best translated as either "About
Ya. and this" or "About an Egg," -- presumably a
reference to the much-publicized egg attack last month
on Prime Minister Yanukovych.) Kyiv Mayor Oleksandr
Omelchenko, who was also present at the search of the
Pora headquarters, commented that Pora's informational
materials are "even more terrible than the explosives
found there." (...)
The reaction of the authorities to the statement was
immediate. "The Interior Ministry pledges to forestall
a change of political power in the country through
civil disobedience actions after the presidential
election on 31 October," ITAR-TASS quoted Deputy
Interior Minister Mikhail Korniyenko as saying. "There
will be no Georgian scenario in Ukraine." (...)
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1371574&PageNum=1
Itar-Tass - October 21, 2004
US slaps sanctions on Belarus over human rights
violations
WASHINGTON - The United States clasped down economic
sanctions on Belarus, accusing the authorities of that
country again of violating democracy and human rights.
In compliance with a law, adopted by Congress and
signed on Wednesday by President George Bush, the US
federal departments will stop rendering any financial
aid to the Belarussian government, apart from
humanitarian aid.
Punitive measures against the former Soviet republic
can be lifted off only if its authorities take steps
towards democracy. (...)
Besides, the document, called “The Act of Democracy in
Belarus”, provides for rendering assistance to
political parties and non-government organizations (by
the US), championing the development of democracy and
protection of human rights in the republic.
The US also intends to help establish the independent
Belarussian mass media and to increase broadcasting in
Belarussian by the Voice of America radio station. The
law’s authors believe that all the above measures will
help Belarussian people to gain freedom and to join
the European community of democratic states.
The act lashes out at the Belarussian authorities and
personally at President Alexander Lukashenko. A
statement by Bush, circulated in connection with the
signing into law of the bill, also notes that a
repressive regime rules in the republic now, and it is
isolated from neighboring states.
Incidentally, the Belarussian leader already responded
to the new American law when it was still being
discussed by congressmen. Lukashenko called the US
demands “a factor of foolish pressure” on Belarus.
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1373005&PageNum=0
Itar-Tass - October 21, 2004
Russia opposes US sanctions against Belarus
ALMATY - Russia does not support the introduction of
sanctions against Belarus, Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov stated here on Thursday commenting on
the United States’ decision to impose sanctions on
Minsk.
“We oppose the application of the sanctions mechanism
in principle,” Lavrov stressed.
“Sanctions should be approved by the U.N. Security
Council, then they would reflect the consolidated
opinion of the international community,” the minister
said.
“The effect is achievable in this case,” he said.
“But even the U.N. sanctions are not perfect,” Lavrov
pointed out.
“Sanctions should be targeted and should not be
detrimental to the interests of the population,”
Lavrov said.
---
http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=4993954&startrow=11&date=2004-10-
21&do_alert=0
Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - October 21, 2994
WASHINGTON'S ASSESSMENT OF BELARUS REFERENDUM INADEQUATE
MOSCOW - State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov is negative
about the US intention to impose economic sanctions on
Belarus.
He has also said that parliamentary observers at the
Belarussian referendum had no doubts about the
legitimacy of the event.
This is how he commented on the trip of three groups
of parliamentary observers representing the
Russian-Belarussian parliamentary assembly, the CIS
parliamentary assembly and the State Duma.
The Duma speaker continued, "our observers will
provide a report about their activity by the end of
the day, which will be handed out at the plenary
session." Already now, Mr. Gryzlov said, it is obvious
that "the report will be positive and include no
wrongdoing."
The US appraisal of the referendum in Belarus is
one-sided, said Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the
Duma committee for international affairs.
"The US decision on economic sanctions will not mean
introducing but extending sanctions that the U.S.
already had imposed on Belarus for a few years," Mr.
Kosachev noted.
US President George Bush has signed the Belarus
Democracy Act of 2004, envisaging sanctions against
this country for democratic violations.
The Act implies that sanctions should remain valid
until the US president confirms to the respective
Congress committees that the Belarussian government
has made considerable progress on the points mentioned
in the document. (...)
The document contains a demand to put an end to all
forms of intimidation and repressions against
independent media, independent trade unions and
non-governmental and religious organizations, as well
as the political opposition in Belarus.
The last point is the demand to hold free and fair
presidential and parliamentary elections in Belarus.
The section concerning sanctions puts a ban on the US
loans, credit guarantees, insurance payments,
financing and any other financial aid to the
Belarussian government. US representatives in
international organizations such as the IMF, the WB
and others are supposed to vote down any aid to
Belarus from these organizations.
The US president is bound to report to the Congress on
Belarussian weapons and combat technologies provision
to countries supporting international terrorism,
within 90 days after the law comes into force, i.e.
before January 20, 2005. This report is to contain all
countries and cite all goods, services, loans and
other repayments that Belarus will receive in exchange
for its weapons and arm technologies.
The Act also requires that the US president's report
to the Congress include the information about the
personal fortune and property of Belarussian President
Alexander Lukashenko and the top Belarussian
officials.
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1372212&PageNum=1
Itar-Tass - October 21, 2004
Final report of RF observers on Belarus referendum to
be positive
MOSCOW - The final report of Russian observers on the
referendum in Belarus will be positive,
parliamentarians have no doubts about the legitimacy
of voting, State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov told
journalists on Thursday.
According to him, observers will present a report on
Thursday evening. “Three groups of parliamentarians
who have been to Belarus – from the State Duma, CIS
Parliamentary Assembly and the Parliamentary Assembly
of Russia and Belarus are preparing this document,”
the speaker of the lower house of parliament
emphasized.
“The report should be given to Duma deputies at the
plenary session on Friday,” Gryzlov emphasized.
“Observers have already informed that they found no
violations during the referendum,” he pointed out.
In reply to a query to comment on the US intention to
impose economic sanctions against Belarus Gryzlov
noted that he is certainly negative about it.
---
http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=4994025&startrow=11&date=2004-10-
21&do_alert=0
Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - October 21, 2004
US SANCTIONS AGAINST MINSK WILL NOT INSTANTLY AFFECT BELARUSSIAN ECONOMY
MINSK/MOSCOW - The economic sanctions the United
States imposed against Belarus on Wednesday will not
affect the Belarussian economy in the short term,
according to Belarussian government officials and
experts.
"We do not fear the US sanctions. The US accounts for
about 3% of exports. In any event, given the open
market with Russia, Ukraine and the Commonwealth as a
whole, the US sanctions will not make a dramatic
effect on our economy," said Andrei Tur, Belarus'
Deputy Economics Minister.
According to the law President George W. Bush signed
on Wednesday, the US federal agencies are halting any
financial assistance to the Belarussian government
except for humanitarian aid.
Eximbank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Abroad (OPIC), the US Trade and Development Agency
were disallowed to issue loans to or secure loans for
Minsk. American officials at the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank will seek to
have similar decisions with respect to Belarus adopted
by these organizations.
"The sanctions will not produce an immediate effect.
However, Washington that holds the controlling share
block in the IMF and the WB is likely to secure these
influential organizations' relevant support," said
Valery Dashkevich, an economist at the Independent
Institute of Socio-economic and Political Studies.
In that event, Minsk that is not implementing
financial programs in cooperation with the IMF may
lose International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development investors whom the said organizations will
dissuade from cooperating with Belarus.
Konstantin Kosachev believes the sanctions will not
hamper the development of relations between Russia and
Belarus.
"We will continue cooperation with the country. We do
not believe political developments in Belarus are
smooth, or the election campaign was ideal. We are not
very happy about the way the vote was arranged in
Belarus either. However, we believe we should help our
Belarussian friends build a real democratic system
through dialogue, rather than sanctions," said Mr.
Kosachev.
In his words, assessment of elections by different
countries is becoming more and more a political
instrument.
"Elections that are advantageous to this or that
country are declared democratic automatically, and it
is vice versa if the country does not like the
elections," said Mr. Kosachev.
The current volume of net direct investments stands at
zero, i.e. capital inflow is equal to capital flight,
according to Belarussian experts.
"Belarus is employing the mobilizing economic model
based on Soviet-time enterprises. It can demonstrate
growth indefinitely," said Mr. Dashkevich.
Minsk fears that the sanctions imposed by the U.S.,
President Alexander Lukashenko's fiercest critic, can
be supported by the European Union that accounts for
close to 25% of Belarussian exports. Indeed, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
has qualified the elections and the referendum in
Belarus as undemocratic.
"I believe, given competition among different powers
in the EU, the United States will not force the EU to
follow its lead with respect to Belarus... Even if
Europe approves the sanctions, Belarus will have to
halt up to 20% of its exports," said Mr. Tur.
Belarus is holding talks on quotas on textiles and
potassic fertilizer exports to Europe.
"The Belarussian economy will not collapse, but these
measures will lie on the US' conscience. The sanctions
are the measures aimed against the Belarussian nation
as a whole," said Mikhail Myasnikov, head of the
National Academy of Sciences.
---
http://www.interfax.com/com?item=Bela&pg=0&id=5763889&req=
Interfax - October 21, 2004
Belarus says GDP grew 10.8% in 9 months
Minsk - The Belarussian government made an upbeat
economic report on Wednesday for January-September
2004, saying that GDP grew by 10.8% and that wages
went up 12%-13%.
"Inflation amounted to 9%, which is the best indicator
for the past 10 years," the presidential press service
quoted Prime Minister Sergei Sidorsky as telling
President Alexander Lukashenko.
"Economic growth in Belarus is taking place against
the background of rising labor productivity, which
grew 16% for the nine months, with the wage level
growing by between 12% and 13%," Sidorsky said.
More than 6 trillion Belarussian rubles ($2.76
billion) have been invested in the economy and exports
surged nearly 30% since the same period last year, he
said.
Agriculture also met its targets, Sidorsky said. "For
the first time, the country will be completely
supplied with its own sugar, which will make it
possible to stop importing this product," he said.
"The president demanded that the government strictly
fulfill the task of raising the average monthly wage
in the national economy to the level equivalent to 195
U.S. dollars before the year's end," the press service
said.
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10713503
Interfax - October 21, 2004
U.S. may criticize Ukrainian elections just like
Belarus elections - Kosachyov
MOSCOW - The head of the Russian State Duma
International Affairs committee Konstantin Kosachyov
said that the West's evaluation of the recent
parliamentary elections and referendum in Belarus is
becoming more and more of "a politically
pre-determined character."
"The evaluation of the elections is becoming more of a
political instrument. The U.S. evaluations of the
Belarus referendum are of a predetermined character.
It is unlikely that the recent elections in
Afghanistan were better or more democratically
organized than the Belarus elections, but the U.S.
gave the Afghan elections a positive evaluation,"
Kosachyov told journalists on Thursday, commenting on
the U.S. decision to bring economic sanctions against
Belarus.
Kosachyov said that in actuality sanctions are not
being introduced, but rather, "the existing sanctions
against Belarus are being extended."
The deputy said that one can assume that the U.S.
evaluation of the upcoming Ukrainian elections will
depend on which candidate wins.
"If it's the [candidate] who is suitable [for the
U.S.], the evaluation will be one way, if a different
candidate wins, the evaluation will be another. So we
are talking about the fact that if the candidate is
liked, the elections, beforehand, will be found to be
democratic, if he is not liked, the elections will be
undemocratic," said Kosachyov.
He said that the evaluation given by the U.S. will not
have any effect on Russia's relations with Belarus.
"We are not idealizing the situation in Belarus," said
Kosachyov.
He said, however, that relations should be developed
"through dialogue, not through sanctions."
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10713475
Interfax - October 21, 2004
Russian political scientists comment on stricter U.S.
policy on Belarus
MOSCOW - The Belarus Democracy Act signed by the U.S.
president confirms a policy which is actually aimed at
overthrowing the Belarussian authorities, Political
Research Institute Director Sergei Markov told
Interfax on Thursday.
"In fact, it is a systemic plan of large-scale actions
against Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko,"
he said.
"Obviously, financial and political support to
organizations and the media in opposition to the
authorities will now mount," he said. "EU pressure on
Belarus will grow as well."
"No less than half of Belarussians supported the
incumbent president in the referendum, but the active
minority can achieve success, especially if
large-scale actions are accompanied with a revolt in
the presidential team," he said.
Meanwhile, Political Science Professor Andranik
Migranian from the MGIMO Moscow State University of
International Relations does not think that Belarus
has any other alternative.
"Everything will depend on the position of Russia,"
Migranian told Interfax. "Lukashenko's dependence on
Moscow is becoming maximal."
The professor found it difficult to say what position
Russia might take in this situation.
"It is time for Russia to define its position, because
the West has done so, Lukashenko has done so, and the
opposition has done so," Migranian said.
---
http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=31345
Agence France-Presse - October 21, 2004
Belarus lashes out at US sanctions threat
MINSK - Belarus warned the United States it was
heading toward a Cold War-style confrontation after
President George W. Bush signed a law threatening
sanctions against the former Soviet republic for its
poor rights record.
Russia also rose to its Slavic neighbor's [sic]defense
and denounced Washington's move, leaving Moscow the
sole patron of Belarus President Alexander
Lukashenko's regime in the face of fury from both
Europe and Washington.
On Thursday, the 46-member pan-European rights
watchdog Council of Europe also branded Lukashenko's
regime as "undemocratic" and called on its member
states to slap "targeted sanctions" on his government.
The West has rounded on a weekend constitutional
referendum in Belarus that scrapped the country's
two-term presidential limit, clearing the way for
Lukashenko to extend his stay in power indefinitely.
Lukashenko has brushed aside similar attacks as
relations between the West and one of Europe's most
hermetic states - which still wields an imposing
Soviet-era military and now borders new European Union
members [and is nearly surrounded by NATO states] -
steadily deteriorate.
Having already served a decade at the helm, Lukashenko
had been due to step down in 2006 after introducing a
Soviet-style command system that centralized state
control over the economy and the media and frowned on
dissent.
Lukashenko also created an "us against them"
atmosphere that appeared to play well with his
struggling state's voters, saying he was keeping
Belarus safe from corrupt Western influences. (...)
It saw a reported turnout figure of 90.28 percent,
with 79.42 percent favoring extending Lukashenko's
stay in power for a possible lifetime.
Venting its fury at Washington, Lukashenko's
government called Bush's decision a hostile act that
interfered with Belarus' right to sovereignty.
"This openly hostile act leaves us with nothing but
great sorrow," the Belarus foreign ministry said in a
statement. "Now, the United States will be solely
responsible for repairing relations with Belarus."
It said Washington was "heading toward a confrontation
reminiscent of the Cold War era."
Aimed at encouraging the democratization of
institutions in Belarus [sic], the law stipulates that
sanctions such as a cutoff to direct government aide
should be imposed if the Belarus government fails to
improve its rights record, and demands regular US
checks of Minsk's progress.
It also provides for US financial aid to
non-governmental organizations working on
pro-democracy projects in Belarus - organizations
which have had frequent altercations with Lukashenko's
team.
Washington's decision was cheered by the Belarus
opposition, though its actual impact was uncertain as
Belarus already receives virtually no financial
assistance from the United States. (...)
Russia, which has been negotiating terms for a loose
union with Belarus for years and which sent its own
observers for the weekend poll, said the US action was
too stiff and could hurt the Belarus people rather
than Lukashenko himself.
"We think that sanctions do not resolve these
problems. We do not support the use of such measures
against any other government," Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov said while on a visit to the Kazakh capital
Almaty. (...)
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10713460
Interfax - October 21, 2004
Belarus blames U.S. for worsening relations
MINSK - Responsibility for complications in bilateral
relations between Belarus and the United States fully
lies with the U.S., a Belarussian Foreign Ministry
spokesman said in Minsk on Thursday, presenting a
ministry statement in reply to U.S. President George
W. Bush's signing of the Belarus Democracy Act.
"This openly unfriendly step cannot but produce deep
regret," Belarussian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei
Savinykh said. "Declaring the act's purpose as the
promotion of Belarus's sovereignty and independence,
the American authorities in fact deny the Belarussian
people's aspiration towards setting up a stable and
sovereign state in which the people's personal freedom
is organically combined with the guarantee of social
justice," Savinykh said.
The Belarussian Foreign Ministry views the U.S.
administration's steps as "deliberately exacerbating
relations with [Belarus] and encouraging its allies to
do the same," he said.
The U.S. president's statement has been made "in the
style of confrontational approaches of the Cold War
era," he said.
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10713388
Interfax - October 21, 2004
Russia opposed to sanctions against countries - Lavrov
ALMATY - Russia believes that sanctions do not solve
problems currently being experienced by some
countries, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said
after meeting with Kazakh President Nursultan
Nazarbayev in Almaty on Thursday.
"We believe that sanctions do not solve the problems
that arise and we do not back the use of such
instruments on any countries," Lavrov said in response
to a question from Interfax about the imposition of
economic sanctions on Belarus by the U.S.
---
http://www.interfax.com/com?item=Bela&pg=0&id=5764036&req=
Interfax - October 21, 2004
Belarussian referendum declared valid - commission
Minsk - The Belarussian Central Elections Commission
has announced that the recent referendum was valid and
confirmed the referendum results on the basis of
protocols from regional and Minsk referendum
commissions.
The referendum strictly complied with the election
laws, a source in the Central Elections Commission
told Interfax on Thursday. "79.42% of all voters
supported the referendum question," the source said.
The referendum question was the following: "Do you
permit Belarussian first president Alexander
Lukashenko to take part in the presidential election
and do you accept Part 1, Article 81 of the
Belarussian Constitution in this edition 'the
president shall be elected for the period of five
years directly by the people of Belarus in a
universal, free, equal, direct and secret ballot'?"
The source said that Belarus has 6,986,163 voters.
6,307,393 voters (90.28%) reportedly took part in the
referendum.
"5,548,477 voters said 'yes,' and 691,917 voters
(9.9%) objected to the referendum question. 67,001
voting papers were declared invalid," the source said.
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1375167&PageNum=2
Itar-Tass - October 22, 2004
US State Department considering sanctions against
Belarus government
WASHINGTON - The US State Department is considering
sanctions against the Belarussian government and help
to democratic forces in this country, the State
Department’s spokesman Richard Boucher said.
Commenting on a new 2004 law on democracy in Belarus
passed by Congress and signed by US President George
Bush on Wednesday, he told reporters that it envisaged
a stop to American economic assistance to Belarus,
except for humanitarian aid.
At the same time, the US is going to support political
parties, public groups and independent mass media that
advocate democracy and human rights in Belarus.
Boucher said the US mulled further steps toward
Belarus in these areas.
He reaffirmed that according to the new law, the US
administration would send to Congress a report on
Minsk’s military cooperation with states that the US
lists as ”sponsors of terrorism” and on money of
Belarus’ top officials, including President Alexander
Lukashenko.
Boucher harshly criticized Belarussian authorities,
accusing them of violations of human rights, and
expressed concern over arrests of political opposition
leaders during the latest protests in Minsk.
The Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(the Helsinki Commission) also expressed serious
concern over the referendum that allowed Lukashenko to
run for another presidential term.
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1376367&PageNum=1
Itar-Tass - October 22, 2004
Pora – Ukrainian version of Serb Otpor, Georgian Khmara
KIEV -Activists of the Pora (Proper Time/It's Time)
organisation of Ukraine do not deny the fact that they
maintain contacts with the Otpor (Rebuff) organisation
of Serbia and the Khmara/Kmara (Enough) organisation
of Georgia. Both were active participants in the
“velvet revolution” and the “revolution of roses” in
their respective countries. “We are not just
cooperating, we learned from Otpor, we attended their
seminars at which they told us about their
experience,” Olga, a member of Pora, told journalists.
She did not mention her surname for security purposes.
“We are willing to cooperate with any organisations,
which want the October 31 presidential elections in
Ukraine to be honest,” said Bogdan, another activist
of Pora. He added they had not received any
instructions either from the U.S. embassy or from the
electoral team of the opposition presidential
candidate Viktor Yushchenko. [sic]
In some Ukrainian regions the police confiscated from
Pora members explosive devices, counterfeit money with
which they paid students for their participation in
rallies, as well as printed matter in support for
Yushchenko.
Kiev Mayor Alexander Omelchenko said on Thursday that
Pora had submitted an application for holding a rally
in Kiev on October 31, in which 500,000 people are
expected to take part. “We shall not give the
permission to hold the rally, because there are no
places in Kiev, where such massive actions could be
held,” he explained.
Previously Valery Mishura, deputy to the Ukrainian
parliament, said that “some political forces,
supported from the outside, are preparing public
opinion for the idea that the elections will be held
in Ukraine in a non-transparent way, with massive
forging… Not only public opinion is being conditioned
in this way, but also certain public organisations,
which are to upset public and political stability. I
mean the Pora organisation, which is a clone of Otpor
and Khmara.”
According to Mishura, Alexander Maric, one of the
leaders of the Serb Otpor who was deported from
Ukraine, as well as some Georgian representatives,
gave instructions to Pora members on how to kindle
massive unrest.
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1378523&PageNum=0
Itar-Tass - October 22, 2004
Belarus dismisses West's criticism
MINSK - Belarussian authorities have dismissed the new
critical remarks some Western politicians made on
Thursday.
"It makes no sense to continue the dispute over each
separate statement," a high-placed official from the
Belarussian Foreign Ministry told Itar-Tass.
When asked to comment on the words by U.S. Department
of State's spokesman Richard Boucher that Washington
considers a possibility to introduce additional
sanctions against the government of Belarus, the
official said "the Belarussian Foreign Ministry's
response and comments on this account were quite
clear."
Minsk blamed the United States for the worsening of
Belarussian-American relations, and did not express
any special worry over possible U.S. sanctions.
The press service of the Belarussian Interior Ministry
described as "odd" the demand by EU foreign policy and
security chief Javier Solana that Belarussian
authorities release the detained participants in
opposition rallies.
These issues are resolved in court, in line with the
procedure established by law, not on someone's demand.
As for Solana's statement about the necessity to
investigate the latest events in Minsk, a criminal
case was opened for the study and juridical evaluation
of the offences committed during the unsanctioned
rallies on October 18-20, the press service said,
adding that a careful check is conducted on the media
reports about the journalists hurt during these events.
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10713990
Interfax - October 22, 2004
Belarussian elections democratic, legitimate - Russian Duma
MOSCOW - The parliamentary elections and the
referendum that have recently been held in Belarus
were "open, free, democratic and legitimate," the Duma
said in a statement issued on Friday.
The statement was adopted on a 416/8 vote. A decision
has been made to forward it to the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE), and other international organizations. A draft
version of the statement was prepared by Nikolai
Kondratenko, a representative of the Communist Party
faction, who was a member of the group of Russian
observers at the recent Belarussian elections and
referendum. The elections and referendum in Belarus
were conducted "in an atmosphere of unprecedented
external pressure campaign."
"The sharply negative evaluations of the referendum
held in Belarus voiced by officials and political
figures of a number of European countries and the U.S.
and the threats to take discriminatory measures cannot
be seen as anything but an attempt to interfere in the
internal affairs of a sovereign state, a violation of
the universal norms of international law," the
document says.
---
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=1378899&PageNum=0
Itar-Tass - October 22, 2004
Duma calls Belarussian election free, democratic, open
MOSCOW - The State Duma lower house of the Russian
parliament said the election to the Belarussian
National Assembly and the republic's referendum were
"open, free, democratic and legitimate."
The voting stations at which Russian observers were
present, ensured the necessary conditions for a free
and equal expression of will by Belarussian citizens
in secret ballot, the Duma said in a statement on Friday.
It underlined that "in the course of the entire period
of its work, the Duma delegation was performing its
functions openly, independently, while being guided by
the principle of neutrality."
At the same time, the lawmakers expressed their
"justified concern over the information by its
observers who noted unprecedented outside pressure
during the election and the referendum."
"The sharply negative evaluations voiced by officials
and politicians in a number of European countries and
the United States with respect to the referendum
announced by Belarus, and the threats of
discriminatory measures cannot be judged other than an
attempt to interfere in internal affairs of a
sovereign states, and a breach of universal norms of
international laws," Russian parliamentarians said.
At the same time, certain Russian television
journalists who were covering the Belarussian
parliamentary election and referendum from
anti-Belarussian positions, thus playing into the hand
of a certain part of the Belarussian opposition, did
not "strengthen the prospects for expediting the
establishment of a stable and effective Union of
Russia and Belarus," the Duma said.
The State Duma "states its respect for the will of
citizens of the republic of Belarus and will continue
to make efforts towards the strengthening of
traditional friendship between the Russian and
Belarussian peoples and the establishment of an
effective Union of Belarus and Russia," the document
said.
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10713982
Interfax - October 22, 2004
Yushchenko, Kissinger discuss geopolitical role of Ukraine
KYIV - Presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko and
former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger met on
Friday to discuss Ukraine's relations with the U.S.
and Russia.
Yushchenko and Kissinger discussed geopolitical
issues, in particular, "Ukraine's geopolitical role on
the European continent," Yushchenko's press service
quoted Yushchenko as saying.
---
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-ukraine-
campaign,0,2594338.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines
Associated Press - October 23, 2004
By ALEKSANDAR VASOVIC
Ukrainians Rally in Support of Yushchenko
KIEV, Ukraine - Tens of thousands of people supporting
opposition presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko
rallied in Ukraine's capital Saturday demanding that
next week's presidential election be free and fair.
Some in the crowd threw rocks and at least one smoke
grenade and were turned over to police.
The Oct. 31 presidential vote is considered a crucial
indicator of what lies ahead for this nation of nearly
50 million people that occupies a strategically
sensitive position between Russia and NATO's eastern
flank. Yushchenko faces Prime Minister Viktor
Yanukovych in a tight race.
The rally brought more than 50,000 people into
downtown Kiev, according to journalists at the scene.
Police estimated the number of protesters at only
20,000.
"Each vote counts so go to your friends and tell them
that. October 31 will be a great day for this nation,"
Yushchenko told the cheering crowd in the capital of
this former Soviet republic.
He said he feared election fraud in the vote, which is
being watched by Ukraine's neighbors as a crucial sign
of where this Eastern European nation is headed.
Yushchenko just returned to the campaign trail after
weeks off due to an ailment his allies attributed to
poisoning by political opponents. Although his health
has improved, he appeared haggard and his face looked
swollen and puffy.
During the rally, a small number of people threw rocks
and a smoke grenade at the Central Election
Commission's building, breaking several windows. A
policeman was slightly injured, officials said.
Yushchenko's security team seized several members of
the group and handed them over to the police.
Oleksandr Turchinov, an opposition lawmaker, called
the incident "a provocation" aimed at discrediting
Yushchenko and the rally.
Organizers had hoped for a crowd topping 100,000 but
blamed police interference for keeping the numbers
down. Traffic police set up roadblocks on the
outskirts of Kiev, preventing dozens of cars and buses
from entering the capital. Volodymyr Bondarenko, a
lawmaker and Yushchenko ally, accused authorities of
blocking the operations of several bus companies and
the national railway.
Volodymyr Tykhomirov, 42, a welder from the eastern
city of Kharkiv, said police tried to stop his group
in "at least four roadblocks."
"We were told by the policemen not to go to Kiev
because there might be violence," he said.
Yushchenko, a Western-leaning liberal, is running
neck-and-neck with Yanukovych, who has outgoing
President Leonid Kuchma's backing. The race is
expected to enter a runoff in November.
The campaign for president of this strategically
important nation has been turbulent, with the
opposition accusing authorities of violence and
possible election fraud and the government warning
opponents it will use force if civil unrest breaks out.
"No one will steal our votes, our dignity. We are not
afraid," said Yulia Vasylenko, 56, a doctor from Kiev.
Ahead of the rally, Yushchenko's supporters decorated
fence and trees near the country's parliament building
with thousands of his campaign's orange ribbons.
Western governments have repeatedly called on Ukraine
to conduct a free and fair vote.
Meanwhile, unidentified people set ablaze one of
Yushchenko's campaign tents in Luhansk in eastern
Ukraine, injuring two activists, the Unian news agency
reported.
Police officials there were not immediately available
for comment.
---
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/36e18e28-2491-11d9-a110-00000e2511c8.html
Financial Times - October 23, 2004
By Tom Warner in Kiev
US denies entry to leading Ukrainian
The US has stepped up pressure on Ukraine to hold fair
presidential elections by announcing it had denied a
visa to a businessman closely linked to the chief of
Ukraine's presidential administration.
A US embassy spokesman in Kiev yesterday said a visa
had been denied to Grigory Surkis, head of Ukraine's
football federation and partner in business and
politics of Viktor Medvedchuk, preside<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
E NOI AUGURIAMO A LORO DI CREPARE PRESTO
E TRA INAUDITE SOFFERENZE
"Castro si è fatto male? Speriamo che muoia al più presto"
(Commissaria europea Loyola de Palacio)
"Nessun augurio di pronta guarigione"
(Richard Boucher - portavoce del dipartimento di stato USA)
(Fonte:
http://www.raiclicktv.it/raiclick/pc/website/0,4388,4-13-13-CTY15-
CID23149-0-0-0---1-83-ABB0,00.html
Segnalato da Gian)
<<... Terminato il suo emotivo discorso ai giovani diplomati come
Insegnanti d'Arte, pronunciato nella Piazza Ernesto Che Guevara di
Santa Clara, il Comandante in Capo Fidel Castro, mentre si dirigeva
verso il suo posto salutando la moltitudine presente e non accorgendosi
della presenza di uno scalino, cadeva in avanti con le braccia distese
proteggendosi istintivamente da quello che avrebbe potuto rappresentare
un forte impatto al suolo del viso e del capo... Con l'aiuto di vari
compagni tornava a sedersi sulla sua sedia e procedeva a chiedere un
microfono per parlare alla popolazione verso la quale si é esprimeva
con le seguenti parole:
"Cari diplomati, Cari abitanti di Villa Clara e invitati tutti,
Vi chiedo scusa per essere caduto (...) ho una frattura al ginocchio e
forse un'altra al braccio, forse... non é ancora sicuro, comunque sono
tutto intero (Risate) ... Ora verrà un'automobile, perché non voglio
andar via da qui in ambulanza, me ne andrò in una jeep, quella macchina
non mi piace (...) Non c'é la jeep? Va bene non me andrò con la jeep,
non mi potete fare contento... Mi congedo fa voi, e vi prego di non
interrompere questa cerimonia culturale, perché gli artisti hanno
lavorato molto e, per favore fatemi contento, non voglio facce tristi,
voglio allegria e felicità per tutti (Applausi prolungati)..." >>
(Fonte: GRANMA, L'Avana, 21 ottobre 2004)
E TRA INAUDITE SOFFERENZE
"Castro si è fatto male? Speriamo che muoia al più presto"
(Commissaria europea Loyola de Palacio)
"Nessun augurio di pronta guarigione"
(Richard Boucher - portavoce del dipartimento di stato USA)
(Fonte:
http://www.raiclicktv.it/raiclick/pc/website/0,4388,4-13-13-CTY15-
CID23149-0-0-0---1-83-ABB0,00.html
Segnalato da Gian)
<<... Terminato il suo emotivo discorso ai giovani diplomati come
Insegnanti d'Arte, pronunciato nella Piazza Ernesto Che Guevara di
Santa Clara, il Comandante in Capo Fidel Castro, mentre si dirigeva
verso il suo posto salutando la moltitudine presente e non accorgendosi
della presenza di uno scalino, cadeva in avanti con le braccia distese
proteggendosi istintivamente da quello che avrebbe potuto rappresentare
un forte impatto al suolo del viso e del capo... Con l'aiuto di vari
compagni tornava a sedersi sulla sua sedia e procedeva a chiedere un
microfono per parlare alla popolazione verso la quale si é esprimeva
con le seguenti parole:
"Cari diplomati, Cari abitanti di Villa Clara e invitati tutti,
Vi chiedo scusa per essere caduto (...) ho una frattura al ginocchio e
forse un'altra al braccio, forse... non é ancora sicuro, comunque sono
tutto intero (Risate) ... Ora verrà un'automobile, perché non voglio
andar via da qui in ambulanza, me ne andrò in una jeep, quella macchina
non mi piace (...) Non c'é la jeep? Va bene non me andrò con la jeep,
non mi potete fare contento... Mi congedo fa voi, e vi prego di non
interrompere questa cerimonia culturale, perché gli artisti hanno
lavorato molto e, per favore fatemi contento, non voglio facce tristi,
voglio allegria e felicità per tutti (Applausi prolungati)..." >>
(Fonte: GRANMA, L'Avana, 21 ottobre 2004)
