Informazione
Putin come Mussolini ?
Zbigniew Brzezinski come Marco Pannella, Massimo D'Alema, Antonio
Moscato, Fausto Bertinotti, ...
L’UNITA’ on line - 27.09.2004
PUTIN COME MUSSOLINI
di Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sei così misera,/povera e addolorata,/ ma anche piena di grandi
tesori,/sei potente e forte,
Russia, madre mia!
Citando queste commoventi versi del poeta Nekrasov, il 12 marzo del
1918 Vladimir Ilich Lenin spiegò pubblicamente perché aveva deciso di
spostare la sede del governo russo da San Pietroburgo a Mosca.
In mezzo al caos, alla confusione e alla violenza di quelle giornate
rivoluzionarie, Lenin - che era arrivato al Cremlino solo cinque giorni
prima - affermava: «La Russia diventerà potente e prospera solo
abbandonando la sua debolezza e tutte le parole vane, e solo se,
stringendo i denti, chiamerà a raccolta tutte le sue forze e tenderà
ogni nervo e ogni muscolo per raggiungere i suoi scopi… se lavorerà con
lena per stabilire la disciplina, rafforzando ovunque l'organizzazione,
l'ordine, l'efficienza e la cooperazione armoniosa del popolo,
introducendo un controllo sulla produzione e la distribuzione. Solo
così sarà possibile costruire una potenza militare e socialista».
Fu così che Mosca tornò ad essere l'epicentro della Russia.
Alcuni secoli prima era stata la capitale di Ivan il terribile, ma era
retrocessa a città di provincia quando Pietro il Grande aveva deciso di
aprire una finestra sull'Europa costruendo San Pietroburgo e
scegliendola come nuova capitale. Mosca è capitale ancora oggi: gli
slogan di Lenin sono una stupefacente premonizione dei discorsi che
Putin ha fatto in questi ultimi tempi per giustificare la
centralizzazione del potere.
È importante sottolineare che per i russi il Cremlino è ben più della
sede del governo: rappresenta la lunga tradizione di accentramento dei
poteri dell'autocrazia, contraria a ogni sorta di autonomia regionale e
a ogni decentramento, favorevole invece ad alimentare la paranoia
sciovinista secondo cui il pluralismo politico porterà inevitabilmente
al crollo della Russia. Una mentalità del genere si adattava
perfettamente all'idea stalinista di pianificazione centralizzata, e
oggi si adatta anche alla mentalità burocratica del Kgb, con un'etica
fondata sul sospetto e sulla disciplina gerarchica. Per degli uomini
provenienti dal Kgb come Putin non ci sono dubbi: per essere «potente e
forte» la Russia deve essere governata dall'alto.
Sono due le conseguenze di quanto detto: la prima è che Mosca è la sede
di un'élite politica parassita che identifica gli interessi della
Russia con i suoi stessi interessi. Subordinare un paese enorme con
undici fusi orari diversi alle decisioni prese dai governanti moscoviti
è una formula che incontra il favore istintivo della burocrazia
parassita. Il monopolio dell'élite di Mosca soffoca l'iniziativa locale
e impedisce alle regioni russe di sfruttare le proprie risorse e
capacità. Non è un caso che sotto Stalin Mosca sia stata la
beneficiaria privilegiata della modernizzazione e dello sviluppo -
d'altronde, lo è ancora oggi. Rispetto a Mosca le altre città russe
sono stagnanti, e la campagna continua a ricordare molto da vicino
quella descritta da Tolstoj. Ancora oggi quasi tutti gli investimenti
esteri sono fagocitati da Mosca (o riciclati all'estero) mentre in
molte altre città, come ad esempio Vladivostok, anche i servizi di base
- alloggi e sanità - sono a uno stadio quasi primitivo.
In secondo luogo, la mentalità parassita e autoreferenziale dell'élite
politica moscovita rallenta il processo di democratizzazione politica.
Putin è apprezzato dai burocrati perché favorisce gli interessi diffusi
di un gruppo al potere che ha nostalgia della Russia come grande
potenza imperialistica e che identifica il proprio benessere non solo
con il dominio di tutto il paese, ma persino degli ex stati dell'Unione
sovietica. Per l'élite al potere l'indipendenza dell'Ucraina, della
Georgia o dell'Uzbekistan è un'offesa storica; la resistenza dei ceceni
contro la dominazione russa è un crimine “terrorista”; l'autonomia di
venti milioni di cittadini di etnia non russa è una sfida contro i loro
privilegi.
La tendenza a un centralismo di stampo stalinista del regime di Putin
non va confusa con il ritorno a una certa forma di totalitarismo
comunista: ormai i governanti hanno capito che il comunismo equivale
alla stagnazione, e l'élite sa che tornare al regime comunista vorrebbe
anche dire rinunciare ad alcuni privilegi. Perciò il capitalismo di
stato, soggetto a un controllo del centro, oltre ai vantaggi della
ricchezza e ai viaggi all'estero rappresenta la formula migliore per
ricevere gratificazioni e vedere realizzate le aspirazioni
nazionalistiche.
Il regime di Putin per molti versi è simile al fascismo di Mussolini.
Il Duce riuscì a far funzionare i treni in orario; centralizzò il
potere politico in nome del nazionalismo; prese il controllo
dell'economia senza nazionalizzarla o eliminare gli oligarchi e le loro
mafie. Il regime fascista parlava della grandezza della nazione
italiana e della disciplina, esaltando il mito di un passato pieno di
gloria. Anche Putin sta cercando di unire le tradizioni della Cheka (la
gestapo di Lenin, dove suo nonno ha cominciato la sua carriera), la
leadership di Stalin, le rivendicazioni dell'ortodossia russa di una
Terza Roma e i sogni slavofili di un unico grande stato guidato dal
Cremlino.
È una combinazione che può attirare il consenso della gente per un po'
di tempo, ma alla fine - probabilmente nel giro di una decina di anni -
non funzionerà più. La generazione di russi più giovane, con
un'educazione migliore e una mentalità più aperta, entrerà gradualmente
a far parte dell'élite al potere. A questa generazione non andrà bene
vivere in uno stato fascista fondato sul petrolio in cui è solo il
Cremlino a brillare, mentre il resto del paese rimane più indietro, non
solo rispetto all'Europa, ma anche alla Cina. I più giovani sono
consapevoli del fatto che la decentralizzazione è la chiave di una
società moderna. Questa realtà non potrà essere nascosta per sempre
dagli slogan sul terrorismo usati per giustificare l'imposizione di una
soffocante politica di accentramento.
Già oggi la vicina Ucraina, con i suoi circa cinquanta milioni di
abitanti, sta cominciando a mostrare delle differenze in due ambiti: il
suo progresso economico è diversificato ed evidente in molte città, e
non solo nella capitale; la sua politica (seppure vulnerabile alle
manipolazioni) ha dato origine a due elezioni presidenziali reali.
Ancora oggi nessuno può dare per scontato l'esito delle elezioni in
Ucraina previste per la fine di ottobre, in netto contrasto con le
“elezioni” russe dove si è candidato Putin.
Purtroppo negli ultimi anni la Casa Bianca ha appoggiato il culto di
Putin, danneggiando i democratici russi, già molto isolati. Ma la loro
causa ha bisogno di essere appoggiata. Ci sono stati dei russi che
hanno avuto il coraggio di farsi sentire e di opporsi al progressivo
silenzio imposto ai mezzi di comunicazione liberi del paese,che hanno
espresso la loro preoccupazione per la democrazia in Russia e hanno
protestato contro i massacri disumani e il genocidio dei ceceni.
Nessuno di loro ha ricevuto mai appoggio dalla leadership del paese,
che pure una volta teneva alto lo stendardo dei diritti umani contro la
tirannia comunista.
Inoltre, l'amministrazione Bush dovrebbe rendersi conto una volta per
tutte del fatto che quello che accade in Russia ha delle conseguenze
anche su quanto succede nello spazio dell'ex Unione Sovietica. Oggi,
sono in molti negli stati postsovietici ad aver paura che, nel nome di
una guerra contro il terrorismo, gli Stati Uniti decidano di ignorare
gli sforzi di Putin per manipolare le elezioni in Ucraina, per
promuovere il separatismo in Georgia (mentre si oppone duramente ai
ceceni che lo vogliono) e per isolare l'Asia centrale dall'economia
internazionale.
Il fatto è che le prospettive della democrazia russa sono strettamente
legate all'esistenza del pluralismo nazionale nello spazio della ex
Unione sovietica e alla diffusione del pluralismo politico all'interno
della Russia stessa.
Possiamo trarre una lezione da tutto questo: perché la democrazia si
rafforzi in Russia, i paesi vicini devono sentirsi davvero sicuri, i
diritti delle minoranze non russe devono essere protetti, e i
democratici del paese devono essere appoggiati.
traduzione di Sara Bani
(ringraziamo Mauro Gemma per la segnalazione)
Zbigniew Brzezinski come Marco Pannella, Massimo D'Alema, Antonio
Moscato, Fausto Bertinotti, ...
L’UNITA’ on line - 27.09.2004
PUTIN COME MUSSOLINI
di Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sei così misera,/povera e addolorata,/ ma anche piena di grandi
tesori,/sei potente e forte,
Russia, madre mia!
Citando queste commoventi versi del poeta Nekrasov, il 12 marzo del
1918 Vladimir Ilich Lenin spiegò pubblicamente perché aveva deciso di
spostare la sede del governo russo da San Pietroburgo a Mosca.
In mezzo al caos, alla confusione e alla violenza di quelle giornate
rivoluzionarie, Lenin - che era arrivato al Cremlino solo cinque giorni
prima - affermava: «La Russia diventerà potente e prospera solo
abbandonando la sua debolezza e tutte le parole vane, e solo se,
stringendo i denti, chiamerà a raccolta tutte le sue forze e tenderà
ogni nervo e ogni muscolo per raggiungere i suoi scopi… se lavorerà con
lena per stabilire la disciplina, rafforzando ovunque l'organizzazione,
l'ordine, l'efficienza e la cooperazione armoniosa del popolo,
introducendo un controllo sulla produzione e la distribuzione. Solo
così sarà possibile costruire una potenza militare e socialista».
Fu così che Mosca tornò ad essere l'epicentro della Russia.
Alcuni secoli prima era stata la capitale di Ivan il terribile, ma era
retrocessa a città di provincia quando Pietro il Grande aveva deciso di
aprire una finestra sull'Europa costruendo San Pietroburgo e
scegliendola come nuova capitale. Mosca è capitale ancora oggi: gli
slogan di Lenin sono una stupefacente premonizione dei discorsi che
Putin ha fatto in questi ultimi tempi per giustificare la
centralizzazione del potere.
È importante sottolineare che per i russi il Cremlino è ben più della
sede del governo: rappresenta la lunga tradizione di accentramento dei
poteri dell'autocrazia, contraria a ogni sorta di autonomia regionale e
a ogni decentramento, favorevole invece ad alimentare la paranoia
sciovinista secondo cui il pluralismo politico porterà inevitabilmente
al crollo della Russia. Una mentalità del genere si adattava
perfettamente all'idea stalinista di pianificazione centralizzata, e
oggi si adatta anche alla mentalità burocratica del Kgb, con un'etica
fondata sul sospetto e sulla disciplina gerarchica. Per degli uomini
provenienti dal Kgb come Putin non ci sono dubbi: per essere «potente e
forte» la Russia deve essere governata dall'alto.
Sono due le conseguenze di quanto detto: la prima è che Mosca è la sede
di un'élite politica parassita che identifica gli interessi della
Russia con i suoi stessi interessi. Subordinare un paese enorme con
undici fusi orari diversi alle decisioni prese dai governanti moscoviti
è una formula che incontra il favore istintivo della burocrazia
parassita. Il monopolio dell'élite di Mosca soffoca l'iniziativa locale
e impedisce alle regioni russe di sfruttare le proprie risorse e
capacità. Non è un caso che sotto Stalin Mosca sia stata la
beneficiaria privilegiata della modernizzazione e dello sviluppo -
d'altronde, lo è ancora oggi. Rispetto a Mosca le altre città russe
sono stagnanti, e la campagna continua a ricordare molto da vicino
quella descritta da Tolstoj. Ancora oggi quasi tutti gli investimenti
esteri sono fagocitati da Mosca (o riciclati all'estero) mentre in
molte altre città, come ad esempio Vladivostok, anche i servizi di base
- alloggi e sanità - sono a uno stadio quasi primitivo.
In secondo luogo, la mentalità parassita e autoreferenziale dell'élite
politica moscovita rallenta il processo di democratizzazione politica.
Putin è apprezzato dai burocrati perché favorisce gli interessi diffusi
di un gruppo al potere che ha nostalgia della Russia come grande
potenza imperialistica e che identifica il proprio benessere non solo
con il dominio di tutto il paese, ma persino degli ex stati dell'Unione
sovietica. Per l'élite al potere l'indipendenza dell'Ucraina, della
Georgia o dell'Uzbekistan è un'offesa storica; la resistenza dei ceceni
contro la dominazione russa è un crimine “terrorista”; l'autonomia di
venti milioni di cittadini di etnia non russa è una sfida contro i loro
privilegi.
La tendenza a un centralismo di stampo stalinista del regime di Putin
non va confusa con il ritorno a una certa forma di totalitarismo
comunista: ormai i governanti hanno capito che il comunismo equivale
alla stagnazione, e l'élite sa che tornare al regime comunista vorrebbe
anche dire rinunciare ad alcuni privilegi. Perciò il capitalismo di
stato, soggetto a un controllo del centro, oltre ai vantaggi della
ricchezza e ai viaggi all'estero rappresenta la formula migliore per
ricevere gratificazioni e vedere realizzate le aspirazioni
nazionalistiche.
Il regime di Putin per molti versi è simile al fascismo di Mussolini.
Il Duce riuscì a far funzionare i treni in orario; centralizzò il
potere politico in nome del nazionalismo; prese il controllo
dell'economia senza nazionalizzarla o eliminare gli oligarchi e le loro
mafie. Il regime fascista parlava della grandezza della nazione
italiana e della disciplina, esaltando il mito di un passato pieno di
gloria. Anche Putin sta cercando di unire le tradizioni della Cheka (la
gestapo di Lenin, dove suo nonno ha cominciato la sua carriera), la
leadership di Stalin, le rivendicazioni dell'ortodossia russa di una
Terza Roma e i sogni slavofili di un unico grande stato guidato dal
Cremlino.
È una combinazione che può attirare il consenso della gente per un po'
di tempo, ma alla fine - probabilmente nel giro di una decina di anni -
non funzionerà più. La generazione di russi più giovane, con
un'educazione migliore e una mentalità più aperta, entrerà gradualmente
a far parte dell'élite al potere. A questa generazione non andrà bene
vivere in uno stato fascista fondato sul petrolio in cui è solo il
Cremlino a brillare, mentre il resto del paese rimane più indietro, non
solo rispetto all'Europa, ma anche alla Cina. I più giovani sono
consapevoli del fatto che la decentralizzazione è la chiave di una
società moderna. Questa realtà non potrà essere nascosta per sempre
dagli slogan sul terrorismo usati per giustificare l'imposizione di una
soffocante politica di accentramento.
Già oggi la vicina Ucraina, con i suoi circa cinquanta milioni di
abitanti, sta cominciando a mostrare delle differenze in due ambiti: il
suo progresso economico è diversificato ed evidente in molte città, e
non solo nella capitale; la sua politica (seppure vulnerabile alle
manipolazioni) ha dato origine a due elezioni presidenziali reali.
Ancora oggi nessuno può dare per scontato l'esito delle elezioni in
Ucraina previste per la fine di ottobre, in netto contrasto con le
“elezioni” russe dove si è candidato Putin.
Purtroppo negli ultimi anni la Casa Bianca ha appoggiato il culto di
Putin, danneggiando i democratici russi, già molto isolati. Ma la loro
causa ha bisogno di essere appoggiata. Ci sono stati dei russi che
hanno avuto il coraggio di farsi sentire e di opporsi al progressivo
silenzio imposto ai mezzi di comunicazione liberi del paese,che hanno
espresso la loro preoccupazione per la democrazia in Russia e hanno
protestato contro i massacri disumani e il genocidio dei ceceni.
Nessuno di loro ha ricevuto mai appoggio dalla leadership del paese,
che pure una volta teneva alto lo stendardo dei diritti umani contro la
tirannia comunista.
Inoltre, l'amministrazione Bush dovrebbe rendersi conto una volta per
tutte del fatto che quello che accade in Russia ha delle conseguenze
anche su quanto succede nello spazio dell'ex Unione Sovietica. Oggi,
sono in molti negli stati postsovietici ad aver paura che, nel nome di
una guerra contro il terrorismo, gli Stati Uniti decidano di ignorare
gli sforzi di Putin per manipolare le elezioni in Ucraina, per
promuovere il separatismo in Georgia (mentre si oppone duramente ai
ceceni che lo vogliono) e per isolare l'Asia centrale dall'economia
internazionale.
Il fatto è che le prospettive della democrazia russa sono strettamente
legate all'esistenza del pluralismo nazionale nello spazio della ex
Unione sovietica e alla diffusione del pluralismo politico all'interno
della Russia stessa.
Possiamo trarre una lezione da tutto questo: perché la democrazia si
rafforzi in Russia, i paesi vicini devono sentirsi davvero sicuri, i
diritti delle minoranze non russe devono essere protetti, e i
democratici del paese devono essere appoggiati.
traduzione di Sara Bani
(ringraziamo Mauro Gemma per la segnalazione)
Liste de diffusion : Damnés du Kosovo
http://www.gael.ch/collectif/damnes/inscriptions.html
Depuis 5 ans :
plus de 80 000 personnes confinées dans des "ghettos ethniques"
plus de 250 000 personnes chassées du Kosovo
plus de 150 églises de très grande valeur historique détruites ou
endommagées
Le 23 octobre 2004, des élections générales vont avoir lieu au
Kosovo. Des renforts militaires supplémentaires sont actuellement
déployés en vue de cette échéance. L'enjeu est d'importance : il s'agit
pour la communauté internationale de donner l'image de la mise en place
progressive d'un Kosovo démocratique et multiethnique.
Un Kosovo démocratique et multiethnique, nous le souhaitons tous,
mais aujourd'hui, les faits nous obligent à constater l'échec de
l'action de la communauté internationale : depuis 5 ans, les
populations minoritaires du Kosovo, sont confinées dans des ghettos.
Plus de 250 000 personnes ont été chassées de leurs foyers lors de
l'entrée des forces de l'OTAN en juin 1999. Elles ne peuvent toujours
pas rentrer chez elles dans des conditions de sécurité acceptables.
Un signal fort doit être donné à nos autorités pour que les
engagements pris en 1999 soient tenus. N'oublions pas que ces
engagements avaient permis de justifier aux yeux de l'opinion publique
la légitimité de l'intervention militaire illégale de l'OTAN.
N'oublions pas également que cette brèche ouverte dans le Droit
international a servi de modèle pour les interventions qui ont suivi en
Afghanistan puis en Irak.
Nous proposons donc, à toutes les personnes qui souhaitent faire
passer un signal à nos autorités respectives, de signer, faire signer
et soutenir la déclaration ci-dessous afin de manifester notre
solidarité avec les populations du Kosovo dont le sort a été placé, de
fait et depuis l'intervention de 1999, sous notre responsabilité
collective directe.
A Genève, le Comité pour la paix en Yougoslavie vous invite à
participer à un réunion
le jeudi 21 octobre à 20 heures,
à la Brasserie Tivoli
Rampe Quidort 2
1227 Acacias - Genève
pour organiser les actions de soutien
et assister à une présentation de la situation constatée au Kosovo
Comité pour la paix en Yougoslavie (Genève) - Home Hope Active Network
(Genève)
Contacts : Philippe Scheller 41 (0)78 852 22 80 - Michel Berthet 41
(0)22 752 17 58
Signez et soutenez la déclaration pour le Kosovo
Déclaration :
(version PDF imprimable :
http://www.gael.ch/collectif/pdf/declaration_k.pdf)
L'intervention militaire du 24 mars 1999 en Yougoslavie, baptisée
Opération Forces Alliées, nous avait été présentée comme une opération
humanitaire ayant pour objectif d'empêcher la réalisation d'un
nettoyage ethnique au Kosovo. Or, depuis le déploiement des forces de
l'OTAN en juin 1999 et la mise sur pied d'une administration provisoire
onusienne au Kosovo, un mur de silence masque la terrible réalité qui
prévaut dans cette province.
Les élections générales du 23 octobre, mises sur pied sous haute
surveillance, ne doivent tromper personne, elles sont principalement
destinées à donner l'apparence d'une transition démocratique
harmonieuse valorisant l'action de la communauté internationale alors
que la situation sur le terrain est toute autre. Sous le ballet
incessant des hélicoptères militaires, le territoire est littéralement
quadrillé par des forces militaires et policières de la KFOR, de la
MINUK et de la KPS auxquels s'ajoutent les agents des services secrets
de toutes les puissances impliquées. Pour les populations des ethnies
minoritaires qui n'ont pas été chassées lors de l'entrée des forces de
l'OTAN, leur survie se poursuit dans des ghettos, sans travail, sans
avenir et contraints de recourir à des véhicules blindés pour leurs
déplacements. Le taux de chômage dépasse les 60% et les coupures
d'électricité sont quotidiennes dans cette province qui exportait son
électricité avant l'intervention de 1999.
Les soussignés :
1. considèrent que la présence, au XXIe siècle, de ghettos ethniques au
Kosovo, dans un territoire sous administration onusienne est
inacceptable ;
2. dénoncent la politique de silence qui tente de camoufler depuis plus
de cinq ans cette situation et constitue un véritable déni de
responsabilité, alors que le HCR rappelle que la résolution du Conseil
de sécurité 1244 du 10 juin 1999 « mentionne de manière spécifique le
retour sauf et sans entraves de toutes les personnes déplacées et des
réfugiés 'dans leurs foyers au Kosovo' » ;
3. s’opposent au renvoi des réfugiés dans cette province aussi
longtemps que la sécurité de leur vie et de leurs biens, ainsi que leur
liberté de mouvement ne seront pas assurées ;
4. rappellent à nos autorités que la charge de quelques centaines de
réfugiés, dont certains souhaiteraient accélérer le départ, n'est rien
en comparaison de la charge des 228 000 personnes (chiffres officiels
du CICR) chassées du Kosovo suite à l'intervention de l’OTAN en 1999 et
ayant trouvé refuge en Serbie et Monténégro ;
5. exigent que les revendications légitimes de l'ensemble des victimes
de l'intervention militaire de 1999 soient prises en compte ; en
premier lieu, le droit à la sécurité, mais également le droit à des
réparations pour l’ensemble des dégâts causés par les puissances
responsables ou complices de cette intervention initiée sans l'accord
du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU ;
6. exigent que les négociations sur le statut de cette province
prennent en compte les intérêts légitimes de l'ensemble des populations
concernées pour parvenir dans les meilleurs délais à la restauration de
leur souveraineté démocratique ;
7. rappellent que cette responsabilité nous incombe collectivement par
le biais de notre appartenance à l'ONU et de notre participation au
dispositif militaire de la KFOR, sous commandement OTAN;
8. dénoncent la politique d'ingérence systématique des puissances et
superpuissances devenues parties au conflit et constituant de fait,
l'un des principaux obstacles aux négociations directes entre
l'ensemble des populations réellement concernées.
Premières organisations signataires : Comité de Surveillance OTAN
(Bruxelles) - Comité pour la paix en Yougoslavie (Genève) - Home Hope
Active Network (Genève)
Pour envoyez vos soutiens, individuels ou collectifs, à cette
déclaration,
merci d'utiliser l'adresse e-mail :
kosovo@...
Avec votre nom, prénom, ville et s'il y a lieu, qualité ou appartenance
à une identité collective.
Pour les organisations, merci d'indiquer une adresse e-mail officielle
de contact pour vérification de l'accord.
Merci de faire suivre cette déclaration aussi largement que possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Comité pour la paix en Yougoslavie
http://www.gael.ch/collectif/
CP 915 - 1264 St-Cergue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Inscription - désinscription et historique des messages envoyés à la
liste de diffusion Damnés du Kosovo
http://www.gael.ch/collectif/damnes/inscriptions.html
---
A VOIR AUSSI, DANS LE SITE PRO-SECESSIONISTE ET ANTI-YOUGOSLAVE
"COURRIER DE BALKANS":
Portrait : Slavisa Petkovic, nouveau venu sur la scène politique serbe
du Kosovo
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4645.html
Kosovo : quand la vie commune reste possible
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4659.html
Comment faire revivre les villages serbes du Kosovo ?
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4662.html
Kosovo : le Président Boris Tadic appelle les Serbes à participer aux
élections
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4646.html
Une journaliste d’investigation blessée au Kosovo
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4628.html
Relations Albanie-Kosovo : Ibrahim Rugova fait son retour à Tirana
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4605.html
http://www.gael.ch/collectif/damnes/inscriptions.html
Depuis 5 ans :
plus de 80 000 personnes confinées dans des "ghettos ethniques"
plus de 250 000 personnes chassées du Kosovo
plus de 150 églises de très grande valeur historique détruites ou
endommagées
Le 23 octobre 2004, des élections générales vont avoir lieu au
Kosovo. Des renforts militaires supplémentaires sont actuellement
déployés en vue de cette échéance. L'enjeu est d'importance : il s'agit
pour la communauté internationale de donner l'image de la mise en place
progressive d'un Kosovo démocratique et multiethnique.
Un Kosovo démocratique et multiethnique, nous le souhaitons tous,
mais aujourd'hui, les faits nous obligent à constater l'échec de
l'action de la communauté internationale : depuis 5 ans, les
populations minoritaires du Kosovo, sont confinées dans des ghettos.
Plus de 250 000 personnes ont été chassées de leurs foyers lors de
l'entrée des forces de l'OTAN en juin 1999. Elles ne peuvent toujours
pas rentrer chez elles dans des conditions de sécurité acceptables.
Un signal fort doit être donné à nos autorités pour que les
engagements pris en 1999 soient tenus. N'oublions pas que ces
engagements avaient permis de justifier aux yeux de l'opinion publique
la légitimité de l'intervention militaire illégale de l'OTAN.
N'oublions pas également que cette brèche ouverte dans le Droit
international a servi de modèle pour les interventions qui ont suivi en
Afghanistan puis en Irak.
Nous proposons donc, à toutes les personnes qui souhaitent faire
passer un signal à nos autorités respectives, de signer, faire signer
et soutenir la déclaration ci-dessous afin de manifester notre
solidarité avec les populations du Kosovo dont le sort a été placé, de
fait et depuis l'intervention de 1999, sous notre responsabilité
collective directe.
A Genève, le Comité pour la paix en Yougoslavie vous invite à
participer à un réunion
le jeudi 21 octobre à 20 heures,
à la Brasserie Tivoli
Rampe Quidort 2
1227 Acacias - Genève
pour organiser les actions de soutien
et assister à une présentation de la situation constatée au Kosovo
Comité pour la paix en Yougoslavie (Genève) - Home Hope Active Network
(Genève)
Contacts : Philippe Scheller 41 (0)78 852 22 80 - Michel Berthet 41
(0)22 752 17 58
Signez et soutenez la déclaration pour le Kosovo
Déclaration :
(version PDF imprimable :
http://www.gael.ch/collectif/pdf/declaration_k.pdf)
L'intervention militaire du 24 mars 1999 en Yougoslavie, baptisée
Opération Forces Alliées, nous avait été présentée comme une opération
humanitaire ayant pour objectif d'empêcher la réalisation d'un
nettoyage ethnique au Kosovo. Or, depuis le déploiement des forces de
l'OTAN en juin 1999 et la mise sur pied d'une administration provisoire
onusienne au Kosovo, un mur de silence masque la terrible réalité qui
prévaut dans cette province.
Les élections générales du 23 octobre, mises sur pied sous haute
surveillance, ne doivent tromper personne, elles sont principalement
destinées à donner l'apparence d'une transition démocratique
harmonieuse valorisant l'action de la communauté internationale alors
que la situation sur le terrain est toute autre. Sous le ballet
incessant des hélicoptères militaires, le territoire est littéralement
quadrillé par des forces militaires et policières de la KFOR, de la
MINUK et de la KPS auxquels s'ajoutent les agents des services secrets
de toutes les puissances impliquées. Pour les populations des ethnies
minoritaires qui n'ont pas été chassées lors de l'entrée des forces de
l'OTAN, leur survie se poursuit dans des ghettos, sans travail, sans
avenir et contraints de recourir à des véhicules blindés pour leurs
déplacements. Le taux de chômage dépasse les 60% et les coupures
d'électricité sont quotidiennes dans cette province qui exportait son
électricité avant l'intervention de 1999.
Les soussignés :
1. considèrent que la présence, au XXIe siècle, de ghettos ethniques au
Kosovo, dans un territoire sous administration onusienne est
inacceptable ;
2. dénoncent la politique de silence qui tente de camoufler depuis plus
de cinq ans cette situation et constitue un véritable déni de
responsabilité, alors que le HCR rappelle que la résolution du Conseil
de sécurité 1244 du 10 juin 1999 « mentionne de manière spécifique le
retour sauf et sans entraves de toutes les personnes déplacées et des
réfugiés 'dans leurs foyers au Kosovo' » ;
3. s’opposent au renvoi des réfugiés dans cette province aussi
longtemps que la sécurité de leur vie et de leurs biens, ainsi que leur
liberté de mouvement ne seront pas assurées ;
4. rappellent à nos autorités que la charge de quelques centaines de
réfugiés, dont certains souhaiteraient accélérer le départ, n'est rien
en comparaison de la charge des 228 000 personnes (chiffres officiels
du CICR) chassées du Kosovo suite à l'intervention de l’OTAN en 1999 et
ayant trouvé refuge en Serbie et Monténégro ;
5. exigent que les revendications légitimes de l'ensemble des victimes
de l'intervention militaire de 1999 soient prises en compte ; en
premier lieu, le droit à la sécurité, mais également le droit à des
réparations pour l’ensemble des dégâts causés par les puissances
responsables ou complices de cette intervention initiée sans l'accord
du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU ;
6. exigent que les négociations sur le statut de cette province
prennent en compte les intérêts légitimes de l'ensemble des populations
concernées pour parvenir dans les meilleurs délais à la restauration de
leur souveraineté démocratique ;
7. rappellent que cette responsabilité nous incombe collectivement par
le biais de notre appartenance à l'ONU et de notre participation au
dispositif militaire de la KFOR, sous commandement OTAN;
8. dénoncent la politique d'ingérence systématique des puissances et
superpuissances devenues parties au conflit et constituant de fait,
l'un des principaux obstacles aux négociations directes entre
l'ensemble des populations réellement concernées.
Premières organisations signataires : Comité de Surveillance OTAN
(Bruxelles) - Comité pour la paix en Yougoslavie (Genève) - Home Hope
Active Network (Genève)
Pour envoyez vos soutiens, individuels ou collectifs, à cette
déclaration,
merci d'utiliser l'adresse e-mail :
kosovo@...
Avec votre nom, prénom, ville et s'il y a lieu, qualité ou appartenance
à une identité collective.
Pour les organisations, merci d'indiquer une adresse e-mail officielle
de contact pour vérification de l'accord.
Merci de faire suivre cette déclaration aussi largement que possible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Comité pour la paix en Yougoslavie
http://www.gael.ch/collectif/
CP 915 - 1264 St-Cergue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Inscription - désinscription et historique des messages envoyés à la
liste de diffusion Damnés du Kosovo
http://www.gael.ch/collectif/damnes/inscriptions.html
---
A VOIR AUSSI, DANS LE SITE PRO-SECESSIONISTE ET ANTI-YOUGOSLAVE
"COURRIER DE BALKANS":
Portrait : Slavisa Petkovic, nouveau venu sur la scène politique serbe
du Kosovo
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4645.html
Kosovo : quand la vie commune reste possible
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4659.html
Comment faire revivre les villages serbes du Kosovo ?
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4662.html
Kosovo : le Président Boris Tadic appelle les Serbes à participer aux
élections
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4646.html
Une journaliste d’investigation blessée au Kosovo
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4628.html
Relations Albanie-Kosovo : Ibrahim Rugova fait son retour à Tirana
http://www.balkans.eu.org/article4605.html
(english / italiano)
ASSEDIARE LA RUSSIA (2)
1. USA presents Ukraine ultimatum (by Alexandra Kirichenko, Pravda.RU)
/ Ultimatum USA all'Ucraina
2. LUKASHENKO A FIANCO DI PUTIN / West doesn't want independent Belarus
- Novitsky
3. I PRIMI PASSI DEL “FRONTE UNITO” CONTRO PUTIN ...
ALTRI LINK / MORE LINKS:
ZBIGNEW BRZEZINSKI: Ecco l'uomo che sta dietro il giornale russo
che ispira le campagne "progressiste" sulla Cecenia e che gode di così
grande prestigio nella redazione di "Liberazione"
http://2004.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2004/76n/n76n-s10.shtml
The Action Ukraine Report: Kissinger speaks in Ukraine next week (by E.
Morgan Williams)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1247636/posts
=== 1 ===
http://english.pravda.ru/printed.html?news_id=14455
http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/92/370/14455_ukraine.html
USA presents Ukraine ultimatum
10/16/2004 13:03
US administration urged the Ukrainian government to put an end to
violations of democratic norms
The US Department of State has recently released rather a harsh
statement. The official spokesman for the department, Richard Boucher,
demanded Ukraine should conduct the forthcoming presidential election
without any violations. Otherwise, Boucher stated, Ukraine would be
deprived of the political support from the States. According to the US
official, America would closely cooperate with any politician, who
would win the honest and free election.
The Department of State reminded that Washington was grateful to
Ukraine for its support of the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq,
although it did not relieve the Ukrainian administration of the
responsibility to Ukrainian citizens to protect democracy and human
rights in the country and hold the election in compliance with
international standards. Boucher emphasized that the US administration
urged the Ukrainian government to put an end to violations of
democratic norms and to let Ukrainians vote freely.
The USA is concerned about the fact that the Ukrainian government tries
to restrict freedom of speech and mass media. In addition, the American
officials do not like the fact that Ukrainian politicians often use
state resources to support one of the nominees for the presidential
post, RUpor news agency said. If the election in Ukraine does not meet
democratic standards, the USA will have to revise the relations with
those people, who manipulate the elections, Richard Boucher promised.
The US Department of State believes that the forthcoming election will
be the most important presidential election in the history of Ukraine.
OSCE will send 600 international observers to Ukraine to observe the
election process. Ukraine will have 10,000 of its own observers too.
The observers will not be able to prevent all violations, although they
will register the most blatant ones of them.
American and European officials believe that Ukrainian authorities may
not let international observers access the polls on the voting day. In
addition, they may not be allowed to observe the process of vote
calculation.
Alexandra Kirichenko
(Translated by: Dmitry Sudakov)
Pravda.Ru
=== 2 ===
LUKASHENKO A FIANCO DI PUTIN
Il presidente della Bielorussia accusa gli USA e l’Occidente di
esercitare pesanti pressioni sulla Russia
http://www.gazeta.ru/2004/10/13/kz_m136414.shtml
13 ottobre 2004
Il presidente della Bielorussia Aleksandr Lukashenko, nel corso di una
conferenza stampa a Minsk, ha approvato le ultime iniziative del
governo russo per il rafforzamento delle strutture statali. Egli ha
avvertito che la Russia dovrà aspettarsi un aumento della pressione
esterna, durante il processo di introduzione della riforma del potere.
“Non appena il presidente della Russia Vladimir Putin ha fatto
allusione alla necessità di una riforma del potere nel paese,
immediatamente le pressioni nei suoi confronti sono state pesantissime.
Essi non hanno certo bisogno di una Russia forte”, - ha aggiunto
Lukashenko. Faceva sicuramente riferimento agli USA e all’Occidente,
con cui non intrattiene certo rapporti amichevoli.
Traduzione dal russo di Mauro Gemma
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10711966
Interfax - October 15, 2004
West doesn't want independent Belarus - Novitsky
MINSK - Gennady Novitsky, chairman of the Belarussian
Republic said that the independence of Belarus is a
major irritating factor for the Western countries.
"In the West, many issues relating to Belarus's
internal policy are perceived in a special, to be more
exact, in a negative way. The reasons for that are
known. It is the independent policy pursued by the
young Belarussian state under the leadership of the
president of the country. This policy contradicts big
capital," Novitsky said in an exclusive interview with
Interfax.
"Belarus has not been sold and dragged apart. The
republic is run by a government elected by people, not
sharks of capitalism," Novitsky said.
=== 3 ===
I PRIMI PASSI DEL “FRONTE UNITO” CONTRO PUTIN
di Elena Zemskova
http://www.strana.ru
7 ottobre 2004
Il sito internet russo “strana.ru” ha pubblicato la cronaca della
“storica” conferenza che ha visto confrontarsi, ai massimi livelli, gli
esponenti dell’opposizione a Putin, alla ricerca di una singolare
piattaforma comune di “sinistra-destra”. Tralasciamo ogni commento,
lasciando ai lettori le conclusioni. (MG)
Oggi a Mosca si è svolta la conferenza dal titolo “La riforma del
potere in Russia: che fare?”, in cui gli esponenti di “Mela” (è il più
vecchio partito liberale russo, diretto da G. Javlinskij, che ha
operato una spettacolare, quanto insidiosa, apertura nei confronti del
PCFR, nota del traduttore), Unione delle forze di destra (SPS), PCFR,
insieme ai leader delle organizzazioni sociali “Libera Russia” e “Per
una vita dignitosa” Irina Khakamada e Serghey Glazyev (recentemente
uscito dal Partito “Rodina”, che, insieme al suo attuale leader
Rogozin, aveva contribuito a fondare e a posizionare su una linea non
pregiudizialmente ostile a Putin, nota del traduttore) hanno nuovamente
affrontato le prospettive dell’unità tra le forze di opposizione, senza
peraltro concludere un accordo definitivo.
Coprendo abbondantemente di critiche il nuovo corso politico, i
rappresentanti dell’opposizione si sono posti il secolare interrogativo
russo “che fare?”. Anche se tutti si sono richiamati alla necessità
dell’unità, hanno comunque suscitato grande discussione le diverse
forme che potrebbe assumere l’azione comune. Il “numero due” di “Mela”
Serghey Mitrokhin ha posto la questione del modo come sopravvivere
nelle nuove condizioni. “Ormai da tempo viviamo in condizioni diverse,
ma continuiamo ad agire come nel passato”, - ha affermato. I metodi di
contrapposizione al potere preferiti dai democratici – gli appelli alle
istanze superiori della magistratura – danno solo visibilità alla
lotta. Mitrokhin ha invitato l’opposizione a ricordare e a utilizzare
come arma l’esperienza del movimento dissidente. “Le azioni comuni
dell’opposizione devono fondarsi su due principi: l’assistenza e il
sostegno reciproci, - ha chiarito. I democratici devono trasformarsi in
opposizione extraparlamentare e utilizzare attivamente nel loro
arsenale i metodi “della piazza”, lavorando a diretto contatto con la
popolazione (C’è da dire che, pochi giorni dopo, queste
raccomandazioni di stampo “sorosiano” venivano messe in pratica,
attraverso la convocazione, il 14 ottobre, di una provocazione davanti
all’ambasciata a Mosca della Bielorussia antimperialista: ben 20
manifestanti russi e bielorussi di gruppi filoccidentali e
“alternativi”, convocati proprio dal partito “Mela”, invocavano a gran
voce l’intervento delle “democrazie” occidentali per “estirpare dal
corpo dell’Europa” il “dittatore Lukashenko” alleato della Russia e del
“tiranno Putin”, nota del traduttore).
Il segretario del consiglio politico dell’Unione delle forze di destra
(l’SPS che raccoglie i più screditati e odiati personaggi del decennio
eltsiniano, come Ciubays, Gaydar, Nemtsov e quello che resta della
“famiglia”, nota del traduttore) Boris Nadezhdin si è dichiarato in
disaccordo con il collega di “Mela”. A suo parere, l’opposizione
dovrebbe agire con trasparenza e chiarezza. Ciò significa che il
compito principale dell’opinione pubblica democratica dovrebbe essere
quello di elaborare una strategia alternativa per la Russia nel
contesto delle minacce del XXI secolo. Secondo Nadezhdin, i democratici
e le sinistre potrebbero trovare l’unità su tre valori fondamentali: la
democrazia, intesa come potere popolare, la competizione politica e le
libertà civili. Egli ha dichiarato la necessità di convocare un “forum
nazionale delle forze di opposizione” allo scopo di preparare una
risposta “sul piano concettuale” alle minacce del nuovo secolo. “Il
risultato del lavoro del forum dovrebbe essere la stesura delle tesi,
che potrebbero essere sottoscritte da tutte le forze di opposizione”, -
ha detto Nadezhdin.
A parere della presidentessa del comitato organizzativo di “Libera
Russia” Irina Khakamada, la coalizione di opposizione potrebbe essere
formata sulla base di un progetto sociale liberale. “L’asse portante di
tale progetto dovrebbe essere costituito dall’offerta di eguali
opportunità a tutti i cittadini”, - ha chiarito Khakamada, che ha poi
dichiarato di essere pronta ad unirsi con qualsiasi partito
d’opposizione a qualsiasi condizione. “Limoni” e “mele” devono crescere
su un unico albero”, - ha affermato.
Il leader di “Nuove Destre” Vladimir Shmeliov ha cercato invece di
raffreddare l’ardore pseudorivoluzionario dei colleghi dello
schieramento democratico. “I richiami ad unirsi con sinistre e destre
estreme assumono il significato di un appello alla rivoluzione
“leninista”, che, in fin dei conti, è peggio della “verticale” del
potere”, - ha dichiarato. Shmeliov ha sottolineato che i democratici
dovrebbero tenersi alla larga da piani che prevedono la formazione di
una coalizione, ma semmai avviarsi sulla strada della creazione di un
“partito unificato nazionale di destra”. A definire la piattaforma del
nuovo partito concorrerebbero le idee “di destra”. Secondo Shmeliov,
metà dei cittadini russi sostiene inconsapevolmente “opinioni di
destra”. “Dobbiamo aiutare la popolazione a raggiungere la
consapevolezza dei suoi autentici interessi, e per ottenere ciò
dobbiamo lavorare maggiormente “sul campo”, - ha detto. Inoltre,
Shmeliov ha rilevato che nella nuova struttura potrebbero entrare i
rappresentanti dei più svariati movimenti politici.
Anche il segretario del C.C. del Partito Comunista della Federazione
Russa Vadim Solovyev ha sostenuto l’idea della formazione di una
coalizione delle forze d’opposizione. “I comunisti e i democratici
hanno orientamenti ideologici differenti, ma noi non desideriamo certo
che si ripeta l’esperienza della Germania del ’33, dove l’incapacità a
raggiungere un’intesa, dimostrata da comunisti e socialdemocratici, ha
portato al potere gli “hitleriani”, - ha affermato.
Secondo il deputato della Duma di Stato Serghey Glazyev, una forma di
autorganizzazione delle forze di opposizione potrebbe essere
rappresentata dalla convocazione di un referendum in difesa degli
interessi dei cittadini russi. Secondo il deputato, al referendum
dovrebbero essere proposti tre quesiti di fondo: sul mantenimento delle
garanzie sociali, sulla realizzazione dei diritti politici e sulla
confisca delle rendite derivanti dalle risorse naturali. “La necessità
della confisca delle rendite da risorse naturali non piace a tutti, ma
tale idea è sostenuta fortemente dal popolo”, - ha fatto notare
Glazyev. Ha poi preso la parola Boris Nadezhdin: “Ma non si potrebbe
escludere il quesito sulla rendita da risorse naturali, proponendo solo
quello relativo ai diritti politici?”. Glazyev ha insistito: “Senza
tale proposta il referendum si trasformerebbe in un’iniziativa
populistica”.
Nei corridoi Seghey Glazyev ha dichiarato ai giornalisti di avere già
avviato trattative per unire le forze di diversi partiti politici, in
vista della convocazione del referendum. “Ci sono possibilità di
ottenere il sostegno del PCFR (che ha poi rifiutato, probabilmente per
non pregiudicare il dialogo con le forze liberali, nota del traduttore)
e “Mela”. Non contiamo sull’Unione delle forze di destra, sapendo quali
sono i nostri rapporti con Ciubays”. Secondo il deputato, il referendum
dovrebbe essere convocato nell’autunno del prossimo anno.
Traduzione dal russo di Mauro Gemma
ASSEDIARE LA RUSSIA (2)
1. USA presents Ukraine ultimatum (by Alexandra Kirichenko, Pravda.RU)
/ Ultimatum USA all'Ucraina
2. LUKASHENKO A FIANCO DI PUTIN / West doesn't want independent Belarus
- Novitsky
3. I PRIMI PASSI DEL “FRONTE UNITO” CONTRO PUTIN ...
ALTRI LINK / MORE LINKS:
ZBIGNEW BRZEZINSKI: Ecco l'uomo che sta dietro il giornale russo
che ispira le campagne "progressiste" sulla Cecenia e che gode di così
grande prestigio nella redazione di "Liberazione"
http://2004.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2004/76n/n76n-s10.shtml
The Action Ukraine Report: Kissinger speaks in Ukraine next week (by E.
Morgan Williams)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1247636/posts
=== 1 ===
http://english.pravda.ru/printed.html?news_id=14455
http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/92/370/14455_ukraine.html
USA presents Ukraine ultimatum
10/16/2004 13:03
US administration urged the Ukrainian government to put an end to
violations of democratic norms
The US Department of State has recently released rather a harsh
statement. The official spokesman for the department, Richard Boucher,
demanded Ukraine should conduct the forthcoming presidential election
without any violations. Otherwise, Boucher stated, Ukraine would be
deprived of the political support from the States. According to the US
official, America would closely cooperate with any politician, who
would win the honest and free election.
The Department of State reminded that Washington was grateful to
Ukraine for its support of the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq,
although it did not relieve the Ukrainian administration of the
responsibility to Ukrainian citizens to protect democracy and human
rights in the country and hold the election in compliance with
international standards. Boucher emphasized that the US administration
urged the Ukrainian government to put an end to violations of
democratic norms and to let Ukrainians vote freely.
The USA is concerned about the fact that the Ukrainian government tries
to restrict freedom of speech and mass media. In addition, the American
officials do not like the fact that Ukrainian politicians often use
state resources to support one of the nominees for the presidential
post, RUpor news agency said. If the election in Ukraine does not meet
democratic standards, the USA will have to revise the relations with
those people, who manipulate the elections, Richard Boucher promised.
The US Department of State believes that the forthcoming election will
be the most important presidential election in the history of Ukraine.
OSCE will send 600 international observers to Ukraine to observe the
election process. Ukraine will have 10,000 of its own observers too.
The observers will not be able to prevent all violations, although they
will register the most blatant ones of them.
American and European officials believe that Ukrainian authorities may
not let international observers access the polls on the voting day. In
addition, they may not be allowed to observe the process of vote
calculation.
Alexandra Kirichenko
(Translated by: Dmitry Sudakov)
Pravda.Ru
=== 2 ===
LUKASHENKO A FIANCO DI PUTIN
Il presidente della Bielorussia accusa gli USA e l’Occidente di
esercitare pesanti pressioni sulla Russia
http://www.gazeta.ru/2004/10/13/kz_m136414.shtml
13 ottobre 2004
Il presidente della Bielorussia Aleksandr Lukashenko, nel corso di una
conferenza stampa a Minsk, ha approvato le ultime iniziative del
governo russo per il rafforzamento delle strutture statali. Egli ha
avvertito che la Russia dovrà aspettarsi un aumento della pressione
esterna, durante il processo di introduzione della riforma del potere.
“Non appena il presidente della Russia Vladimir Putin ha fatto
allusione alla necessità di una riforma del potere nel paese,
immediatamente le pressioni nei suoi confronti sono state pesantissime.
Essi non hanno certo bisogno di una Russia forte”, - ha aggiunto
Lukashenko. Faceva sicuramente riferimento agli USA e all’Occidente,
con cui non intrattiene certo rapporti amichevoli.
Traduzione dal russo di Mauro Gemma
---
http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/28.html?id_issue=10711966
Interfax - October 15, 2004
West doesn't want independent Belarus - Novitsky
MINSK - Gennady Novitsky, chairman of the Belarussian
Republic said that the independence of Belarus is a
major irritating factor for the Western countries.
"In the West, many issues relating to Belarus's
internal policy are perceived in a special, to be more
exact, in a negative way. The reasons for that are
known. It is the independent policy pursued by the
young Belarussian state under the leadership of the
president of the country. This policy contradicts big
capital," Novitsky said in an exclusive interview with
Interfax.
"Belarus has not been sold and dragged apart. The
republic is run by a government elected by people, not
sharks of capitalism," Novitsky said.
=== 3 ===
I PRIMI PASSI DEL “FRONTE UNITO” CONTRO PUTIN
di Elena Zemskova
http://www.strana.ru
7 ottobre 2004
Il sito internet russo “strana.ru” ha pubblicato la cronaca della
“storica” conferenza che ha visto confrontarsi, ai massimi livelli, gli
esponenti dell’opposizione a Putin, alla ricerca di una singolare
piattaforma comune di “sinistra-destra”. Tralasciamo ogni commento,
lasciando ai lettori le conclusioni. (MG)
Oggi a Mosca si è svolta la conferenza dal titolo “La riforma del
potere in Russia: che fare?”, in cui gli esponenti di “Mela” (è il più
vecchio partito liberale russo, diretto da G. Javlinskij, che ha
operato una spettacolare, quanto insidiosa, apertura nei confronti del
PCFR, nota del traduttore), Unione delle forze di destra (SPS), PCFR,
insieme ai leader delle organizzazioni sociali “Libera Russia” e “Per
una vita dignitosa” Irina Khakamada e Serghey Glazyev (recentemente
uscito dal Partito “Rodina”, che, insieme al suo attuale leader
Rogozin, aveva contribuito a fondare e a posizionare su una linea non
pregiudizialmente ostile a Putin, nota del traduttore) hanno nuovamente
affrontato le prospettive dell’unità tra le forze di opposizione, senza
peraltro concludere un accordo definitivo.
Coprendo abbondantemente di critiche il nuovo corso politico, i
rappresentanti dell’opposizione si sono posti il secolare interrogativo
russo “che fare?”. Anche se tutti si sono richiamati alla necessità
dell’unità, hanno comunque suscitato grande discussione le diverse
forme che potrebbe assumere l’azione comune. Il “numero due” di “Mela”
Serghey Mitrokhin ha posto la questione del modo come sopravvivere
nelle nuove condizioni. “Ormai da tempo viviamo in condizioni diverse,
ma continuiamo ad agire come nel passato”, - ha affermato. I metodi di
contrapposizione al potere preferiti dai democratici – gli appelli alle
istanze superiori della magistratura – danno solo visibilità alla
lotta. Mitrokhin ha invitato l’opposizione a ricordare e a utilizzare
come arma l’esperienza del movimento dissidente. “Le azioni comuni
dell’opposizione devono fondarsi su due principi: l’assistenza e il
sostegno reciproci, - ha chiarito. I democratici devono trasformarsi in
opposizione extraparlamentare e utilizzare attivamente nel loro
arsenale i metodi “della piazza”, lavorando a diretto contatto con la
popolazione (C’è da dire che, pochi giorni dopo, queste
raccomandazioni di stampo “sorosiano” venivano messe in pratica,
attraverso la convocazione, il 14 ottobre, di una provocazione davanti
all’ambasciata a Mosca della Bielorussia antimperialista: ben 20
manifestanti russi e bielorussi di gruppi filoccidentali e
“alternativi”, convocati proprio dal partito “Mela”, invocavano a gran
voce l’intervento delle “democrazie” occidentali per “estirpare dal
corpo dell’Europa” il “dittatore Lukashenko” alleato della Russia e del
“tiranno Putin”, nota del traduttore).
Il segretario del consiglio politico dell’Unione delle forze di destra
(l’SPS che raccoglie i più screditati e odiati personaggi del decennio
eltsiniano, come Ciubays, Gaydar, Nemtsov e quello che resta della
“famiglia”, nota del traduttore) Boris Nadezhdin si è dichiarato in
disaccordo con il collega di “Mela”. A suo parere, l’opposizione
dovrebbe agire con trasparenza e chiarezza. Ciò significa che il
compito principale dell’opinione pubblica democratica dovrebbe essere
quello di elaborare una strategia alternativa per la Russia nel
contesto delle minacce del XXI secolo. Secondo Nadezhdin, i democratici
e le sinistre potrebbero trovare l’unità su tre valori fondamentali: la
democrazia, intesa come potere popolare, la competizione politica e le
libertà civili. Egli ha dichiarato la necessità di convocare un “forum
nazionale delle forze di opposizione” allo scopo di preparare una
risposta “sul piano concettuale” alle minacce del nuovo secolo. “Il
risultato del lavoro del forum dovrebbe essere la stesura delle tesi,
che potrebbero essere sottoscritte da tutte le forze di opposizione”, -
ha detto Nadezhdin.
A parere della presidentessa del comitato organizzativo di “Libera
Russia” Irina Khakamada, la coalizione di opposizione potrebbe essere
formata sulla base di un progetto sociale liberale. “L’asse portante di
tale progetto dovrebbe essere costituito dall’offerta di eguali
opportunità a tutti i cittadini”, - ha chiarito Khakamada, che ha poi
dichiarato di essere pronta ad unirsi con qualsiasi partito
d’opposizione a qualsiasi condizione. “Limoni” e “mele” devono crescere
su un unico albero”, - ha affermato.
Il leader di “Nuove Destre” Vladimir Shmeliov ha cercato invece di
raffreddare l’ardore pseudorivoluzionario dei colleghi dello
schieramento democratico. “I richiami ad unirsi con sinistre e destre
estreme assumono il significato di un appello alla rivoluzione
“leninista”, che, in fin dei conti, è peggio della “verticale” del
potere”, - ha dichiarato. Shmeliov ha sottolineato che i democratici
dovrebbero tenersi alla larga da piani che prevedono la formazione di
una coalizione, ma semmai avviarsi sulla strada della creazione di un
“partito unificato nazionale di destra”. A definire la piattaforma del
nuovo partito concorrerebbero le idee “di destra”. Secondo Shmeliov,
metà dei cittadini russi sostiene inconsapevolmente “opinioni di
destra”. “Dobbiamo aiutare la popolazione a raggiungere la
consapevolezza dei suoi autentici interessi, e per ottenere ciò
dobbiamo lavorare maggiormente “sul campo”, - ha detto. Inoltre,
Shmeliov ha rilevato che nella nuova struttura potrebbero entrare i
rappresentanti dei più svariati movimenti politici.
Anche il segretario del C.C. del Partito Comunista della Federazione
Russa Vadim Solovyev ha sostenuto l’idea della formazione di una
coalizione delle forze d’opposizione. “I comunisti e i democratici
hanno orientamenti ideologici differenti, ma noi non desideriamo certo
che si ripeta l’esperienza della Germania del ’33, dove l’incapacità a
raggiungere un’intesa, dimostrata da comunisti e socialdemocratici, ha
portato al potere gli “hitleriani”, - ha affermato.
Secondo il deputato della Duma di Stato Serghey Glazyev, una forma di
autorganizzazione delle forze di opposizione potrebbe essere
rappresentata dalla convocazione di un referendum in difesa degli
interessi dei cittadini russi. Secondo il deputato, al referendum
dovrebbero essere proposti tre quesiti di fondo: sul mantenimento delle
garanzie sociali, sulla realizzazione dei diritti politici e sulla
confisca delle rendite derivanti dalle risorse naturali. “La necessità
della confisca delle rendite da risorse naturali non piace a tutti, ma
tale idea è sostenuta fortemente dal popolo”, - ha fatto notare
Glazyev. Ha poi preso la parola Boris Nadezhdin: “Ma non si potrebbe
escludere il quesito sulla rendita da risorse naturali, proponendo solo
quello relativo ai diritti politici?”. Glazyev ha insistito: “Senza
tale proposta il referendum si trasformerebbe in un’iniziativa
populistica”.
Nei corridoi Seghey Glazyev ha dichiarato ai giornalisti di avere già
avviato trattative per unire le forze di diversi partiti politici, in
vista della convocazione del referendum. “Ci sono possibilità di
ottenere il sostegno del PCFR (che ha poi rifiutato, probabilmente per
non pregiudicare il dialogo con le forze liberali, nota del traduttore)
e “Mela”. Non contiamo sull’Unione delle forze di destra, sapendo quali
sono i nostri rapporti con Ciubays”. Secondo il deputato, il referendum
dovrebbe essere convocato nell’autunno del prossimo anno.
Traduzione dal russo di Mauro Gemma
[ L'ex ambasciatore canadese in Jugoslavia (1992) James Bissett e l'ex
responsabile canadese della "Missione di verifica" OSCE in Kosovo
(1998-1999) Roland Keith smontano pezzo per pezzo alcuni dei miti che
sono serviti a "giustificare" la criminale aggressione NATO contro la
RF di Jugoslavia ]
1. Canadian Ambassador and Canadian Kosovo Commander explode Myths of
Yugoslav War
2. Canadian diplomat James Bissett claims NATO war crimes (B92 - May
20, 2004)
3. THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL: CHARGES AGAINST MILOSEVIC PURE FANTASY. Excerpts
from the interview with the former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia,
James Bissett
(September 27, 2004 - by Boba Borojevic / “Monday’s Encounter" /
http://ckcu.magma.ca/ )
=== 1 ===
http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/news-2004-10-14.html
CANADIAN AMBASSADOR AND CANADIAN KOSOVO COMMANDER EXPLODE MYTHS OF
YUGOSLAV WAR
1. AN EYEWITNESS TO THE BREAK UP OF YUGOSLAVIA
James Bissett, Former Canadian Ambassador to Belgrade
A Speech to 5,000 Canadian Serbs on the anniversary of the historic
battle of Kosovo. Niagara Falls, 29th June 2003
Honored guests ladies and gentlemen: I want at the outset to thank Bora
Dragasevich for inviting me to speak to you this afternoon. It is a
privilege and a sincere honor for me to be with you and to share your
Vidovdan celebrations. I recall that it was thirteen summers ago that I
set off to Belgrade to take up my post as the Canadian Ambassador to
Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia was then a strong and united country- more prosperous than
most of the Eastern Bloc countries. Yet there were emerging signs of
trouble. Urged on by the former Central Powers (Germany, Austria and
Hungary) Slovenia and Croatia were already planning to separate from
the Yugoslav Federation.
I became an eyewitness to the subsequent violence and break up of the
country. I also was a witness to the "historical amnesia" suffered by
the political leaders of France, Britain, the United States and my own
country, Canada. These countries were Serbia's old traditional allies
in two world wars yet they shamefully stood by and joined in the
betrayal of Yugoslavia.
The break up of Yugoslavia was a disaster for the Serbian people.
Thousands killed and many more thousands forced to flee their ancestral
homelands. Serbs have been humiliated and many have lost their
self-respect. Yet the greatest tragedy of all is that the Serbs have
been blamed for everything that has happened since the breakup. They
have been blamed for the breakup itself. They have been blamed for
starting the violence. They have been blamed for the ethnic cleansing
that occurred. They have been blamed for the massacres. They have been
blamed for genocide. Finally they have been blamed for the NATO bombing
of their own country!
These are lies! Lies! Lies! Hitler's propaganda Minister Joseph
Goebbels said if you tell a monstrous lie people will believe you
because they cannot imagine anyone making up such an outrageous
falsehood. Then if evidence is shown to contradict the lie, you dismiss
it as irrelevant or misguided. Finally when the truth is disclosed it
is too late. Nobody cares or wants to know.
So it has been with the dreadful lies told about the Serbs. President
Clinton and Tony Blair talked about genocide taking place in Kosovo.
The US Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, said there were over a
hundred thousand young Albanian men missing in Kosovo. Robin Cook the
British Foreign Minister and Clare Short his cabinet colleague both
made outrageous charges against the Serbs about non-existent rape
camps. Later it was reported by the UNHCR and even the anti-Serb,
(George Soros financed) Human Rights Watch, that these stories had no
foundation. Can you believe that these two hypocritical British Cabinet
Ministers actually resigned over the war against Iraq!
However, there is a striking difference between Kosovo and Iraq.
Despite all of Milosevic's faults he didn't compare with Saddam
Hussein. Milosevic, after all, obeyed all of the UN Resolutions -
including allowing troops from the Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) into Kosovo. He was no threat to his
neighbors. He did not aspire to, nor did he possess weapons of mass
destruction.
Although not a democrat he was not a psychopathic killer like Saddam
(nor a religious bigot like Croatia's Tudjman or Bosnia's Izetbegovic -
ed) nor was Serbia under his regime a totalitarian state, as was Iraq
(nor had he invaded another country like Saddam had attacked Kuwait and
Iran - ed). In reality he was trying to suppress an armed rebellion in
his own territory - a rebellion led by a Muslim terrorist organization
- and for this the NATO countries bombed his country.
I believe now that it is generally accepted by most of the informed
public in the West [with the exception of the main stream media in
Canada Britain and the United States] that the bombing of Yugoslavia
was deliberately contrived. It served as a means of providing NATO with
a reason for existence and President Clinton with a distraction from
his sexual embarrassments. The truth is gradually emerging from a
variety of reliable sources.
One of the most revealing has been the admission by the former British
Defense Minister, Lord Gilbert, who told the British House of Commons
in July 2000 that the terms that NATO sought to force upon Milosevic at
Rambouillet were deliberately designed to provoke war.
(Note the same strategy when Austria demanded terms from Serbia in 1914
as an alternative to war but then informed its ambassador in Belgrade
that he was on no account to accept the Serb response - whatever it
was! - ed)
So the truth is slowly coming out. Regretfully it is too late in itself
to restore to many Serbs their sense of pride and self-respect. This is
left to the Serbs as a people. However, knowing them as I do - and
mindful of their historic courage and heroism - I am confident you will
overcome this historic setback as you have done before. The main thing
is to ensure that your young people remain proud of their heritage and
do not accept the simplistic and biased accounts of the North American
media's account of the Yugoslav breakup. I want to end my speech today
on a positive note.
There are, believe it or not, some encouraging signs of reconciliation
and hope in the former Yugoslavia. A recent agreement signed in Lake
Ohrid by representatives of five Balkan countries: Serbia/Montenegro,
Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania will translate, if
all goes well, into a free trade agreement to become effective in 2007.
Moreover, Croatia and Serbia/Montenegro have agreed to declare both
countries "visa free" so that citizens of each country can travel back
and forth without visas. There is even some hope that under EU pressure
(ironic and cynical given the EU roll in the destruction of what they
now seek to sew together again! - ed) property rights might be restored
to those who have been displaced by the wars. The circle will become
closed - and once again in a different form - the former Yugoslavia
will emerge.
I will conclude on this upbeat note but not before adding a personal
warning. The history of Serbia has recorded heroic victories and
terrible defeats. The victories have come when Serbs have relied on
their own resources and inner strengths. The defeats have come when
their allies have betrayed them or let them down. There is a lesson
here that you must not forget. Do not put all of your trust or faith in
others, especially in multilateral organizations or in politicians. And
remember history does sometimes repeat itself as the Serbs know only
too well. Now not only Serbs have seen all too well that the horrors
that took place in the spring and summer of 1941 in Croatia and Bosnia
have repeated themselves in the 1990's.
PS I am happy that finally Naser Oric the Muslim commander at
Srebrenica has been indicted by the Hague Tribunal. Oric was
responsible for the killing of many elderly Serbs living in villages
around Srebrinica. He actually video taped some of the victims who had
been beheaded and the showed the video to a number of journalists...one
of whom was from the Toronto Star newspaper but I have not been able to
find out the reporters name.
James Bissett in letter to Freenations 27th September 2004
2. CANADIAN ARMY COMMANDER EXPLODES KOSOVO MYTHS
September 14, 2004
The third witness to testify in what is being called "Slobodan
Milosevic's defense" took the stand at the Hague Tribunal on Tuesday.
The witness, Roland Keith was the commander of the Kosovo Polje field
office in the OSCE's Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM). Mr. Keith
served for 32 years in the Canadian armed forces where he obtained the
rank of Captain. Keith is a veteran of UN observation missions. Before
coming to Kosovo, he served as a UN military observer and a UN troop
commander in the Middle East.
Keith arrived in Kosovo in the first week of February 1999, and he
remained in Kosovo all the way up until the KVM was withdrawn on March
20, 1999, four days ahead of the NATO bombing.
In his testimony, Keith described the training program that the OSCE
monitors underwent. According to Keith, the training was inadequate and
left the observers unprepared to competently carryout their mission.
According to Keith most of the observers had little or no military
background and couldn't understand, or properly report what they were
witnessing. Keith said that the structure of the OSCE observation
mission was flawed. He said that the observers were road bound, and
unable to see what was going on outside of the beaten path.
Keith described the KLA as a guerilla terrorist organization, and said
that the KVM's confinement to the roads kept them from being able to
effectively monitor the KLA's activities.
In direct contradiction of almost all of the prosecution's
Kosovo-Albanian witnesses, Keith said that the KLA had a detachment or
what he called a "home guard" in every village. He said that the KLA
even manned check-points at the entrances to the villages, which makes
it all the more amazing that so many the prosecution's Kosovo-Albanian
witnesses never saw the KLA.
Keith said that he never saw the MUP or the Yugoslav Army (VJ) mistreat
anybody, and that the MUP and VJ forces cooperated with him fully.
Keith said that the KLA was a different story. He said that the KLA
refused to cooperate with the KVM on many occasions. He also said that
the KLA violated the cease fire agreement regularly. Keith said that
the MUP and VJ abided by the cease-fire, and that the VJ mainly stayed
in its barracks. According to Keith's testimony, the format followed in
Kosovo was for the KLA to initiate an attack and for the authorities to
retaliate.
When Keith first arrived in Kosovo he was sent to the village of
Glogovac, where he witnessed a KLA sniper attack on the MUP.
One week later he was sent to Kosovo Polje where he established the
KVM's field office.
The village of Grabovac was in his area of responsibility and according
to Keith, a platoon of KLA terrorists was occupying a wooded area in
the environs of that village. He said that those KLA members were armed
with rocket-propelled grenades, assault rifles, machine guns, and
various other weapons. He said that this KLA platoon would engage in
sniper attacks against workers at a mine that operated in the vicinity
of the village.
Keith spoke of another instance of KLA violence when the KLA ambushed a
MUP patrol on the Pec-Pristina highway. According to Keith one Serb
police officer was killed and another was gravely wounded in the attack.
Keith said that in this instance the VJ came to assist the police, and
that a tank was used. But according to Keith the VJ showed restraint
and only used machine-guns and not the main armaments of the tank to
deal with the KLA attackers.
Keith repeatedly asserted the willingness of the Yugoslav authorities
to cooperate. He said that he had been working together with the
Serbian police to facilitate the return of Albanian villagers, who had
fled amid fighting in 1998, from the village of Donji Grabovac.
Keith said that the police had even offered to provide these villagers
with small arms so that they could defend themselves from whoever might
try and harm them. Unfortunately, he was evacuated from Kosovo before
he could see this effort bear fruit.
Keith said that the KVM's leadership had certain political objectives
and that it did not really seek the normalization of the situation in
Kosovo. It would appear that he had more to say on this topic, but
neither Mr. Kay nor Mr. Nice was particularly willing to discuss it and
so it went by the way side.
Keith also said that the villagers would wildly exaggerate claims of
displacement of population. He said that they would claim that hundreds
of people were chased from a given village, when in reality only a
handful of displaced persons would have left the village.
Of course that didn't stop Mr. Nice from reading out lengthy passages
from the OSCE's "Kosovo-Kosova: As Seen, As Told" book which relies
heavily on the accounts of the same unreliable villagers that Keith was
talking about.
Mr. Nice took great pains to waste as much time as possible. He read
out even more lengthy passages from the OSCE's "blue book." Nice asked
Keith to comment on things that were alleged to have happened in
Prizren and in other parts of Kosovo which were outside of his zone of
responsibility.
Mr. Keith behaved like the military professional that he is and
confined his testimony to places and events that he had direct
knowledge of.
Being unsuccessful in drawing Mr. Keith into a hypothetical discussion,
Mr. Nice tried insinuating that Keith had written irresponsible and
inaccurate articles about the Kosovo war, but Mr. Nice never quite got
around to actually challenging the veracity of any specific part of
Keith's work. Even though Mr Nice he has taken more time than Mr. Kay
with all of the witnesses, all three of the defense witnesses have
defeated him.
Slobodan Milosevic again demanded to have his right to self-defense
returned to him, and again Mr. Robinson turned off his microphone, and
in an added twist resorted to name-calling and accused Milosevic of
being "petulant and puerile."
For his part Milosevic responded by saying, "I wish, Mr. Robinson, to
say something to you in relation to the observation you made in view of
my attitude and position. I think that the right to defending oneself
is a right of principle -- " and again Robinson cut off the microphone.
Things are not going well for the tribunal. Mr. Kay announced that he
couldn't find any more witnesses who would agree to testify. The
witnesses have banded together and are boycotting the proceedings to
protest against the draconian conditions that the tribunal has imposed
though its denial of Milosevic's right to self-defense.
Mr. Kay is asking that the so-called "trial" be suspended until the
appeals chamber has made its ruling on the appeal that he has made
against his own appointment as Milosevic's defence.
There will be a hearing tomorrow to consider the future conduct of the
trial, but one thing is clear the tribunal has made this so-called
"trial" into a total farce. By denying Milosevic the right to
self-defense, they have brought all of these problems crashing down
onto their own heads.
=== 2 ===
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
b92_focus.php?yyyy=2004&mm=05&dd=20&nav_id=28447
B92 (Serbia-Montenegro)
May 20, 2004
Canadian diplomat claims NATO war crimes
Diplomat James Bissett was Canadian ambassador to
Yugoslavia from 1990 to 1992. During his tenure, he
watched as Yugoslavia began to break up and war broke
out, first in Slovenia, then in Croatia, finally in
Bosnia. During that time, Bissett met regularly with
Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic and other
leaders. He gave the following interview to Canada’s
Edmonton Journal on May 18, before making a speech at
the University of Alberta.
Canada participated in a series of NATO-sanctioned war
crimes against Yugoslavia, charges a former Canadian
ambassador to the Balkan country.
To this day, Canada has failed to admit the pretences
behind the bombing campaign that led to the NATO
occupation of Kosovo had no substance, James Bissett
said Tuesday in an interview before making a speech at
the University of Alberta.
NATO and the United States claimed that more than
100,000 ethnic Albanians had been killed as the result
of Serb genocide, Bissett said.
To stop that alleged genocide and ethnic cleansing,
NATO engaged in a 78-day bombing campaign against
Yugoslavia, which destroyed military and government
facilities before targeting factories, bridges, TV
stations and power grids. Finally, the Yugoslav
government gave in and allowed NATO troops to enter
Kosovo. Forensic investigation teams followed.
"The forensic experts found fewer than 2,000 graves
and many of the people in those graves were Serbs,"
Bissett said. "There were more civilians killed in
Serbia by the NATO bombing campaign."
Bissett claims there wasn't even a concerted campaign
of ethnic cleansing on the part of the Yugoslav
government. What actually happened was that 200,000
ethnic Albanians fled their homes as a result of
fighting between the Yugoslav army and the Kosovo
Liberation Army, Bissett said. The KLA was a terrorist
guerrilla organization that provoked reprisals against
Muslim Albanian villages by murdering Serb officials
and police officers, so it could tell the world the
Serbs were engaged in a genocidal campaign.
Today, the few remaining Serbs of Kosovo are paying
the price for that duplicity. Bissett said 2,000 Serbs
have been murdered in Kosovo and 1,300 Christian
churches and monasteries have been bombed, burned or
destroyed.
On March 17, another lie sparked more violence aimed
at Serbs. Three ethnic Albanian boys went swimming in
a river, and when two drowned, the third boy told his
parents the boys had been driven into the water by a
Serb man and his vicious dogs. By the time the boy
admitted his story was a lie, it was too late.
All this anti-Serb violence had taken place while an
army of 18,000 NATO troops stood by and did nothing to
protect the Serbs or their property, said Bissett, who
was an outspoken opponent of NATO action during the
run-up to the 1999 bombing campaign.
Bissett was Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia from
1990 to 1992. During his tenure, he watched as
Yugoslavia began to break up and war broke out, first
in Slovenia, then in Croatia, finally in Bosnia.
During that time, Bissett met regularly with Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic and other leaders.
"It's time to speak out about Kosovo but it seems to
be a forgotten place," he said. "Only Pakistan and a
few other nations have spoken out about it. Canada has
said nothing."
Bissett was brought to Edmonton by local members of
the Serb community. He admits he often speaks on
behalf of partisan groups but claims that helps
counterbalance stories that have demonized Serbs for
years.
=== 3 ===
Da: Boba
Data: Lun 4 Ott 2004 03:04:22 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: NEW on "Monday's Encounter"
"MONDAY"S ENCOUNTER" a bilingual Serbian Canadian radio program airing
every Monday on CKCU 93.1 FM in Ottawa and on line at www.ckcufm.com .
Monday, Oct. 4, 2004 at 6:00 P.M. EST on CKCU 93.1 FM in Ottawa
* JAMES BISSETT - former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia was one of
high ranking diplomats who had decided not to testify at The Hague. We
wanted to know if the UN is capable of adminitering justice? What has
been the biggest misconception of the war in the former Yugoslavia that
people in the West have? [*E] (Interview, Part II)
http://www.deltax.net/bissett/
Transcript: http://www.serbianna.com
http://f2.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/pertep
(...)
- FUNDING DRIVE for our radio station CKCU 93.1 FM starts on October 22
- Nov. 7, 2004. You can pre-pledge if you go to:
www.https://media6.magma.ca/ckcu.magma.ca/pledgeform.html
Do not forget the name of the Show that you are pledging to: Monday's
Encounter
(...)
(*E) - Comment in English
(*S) - Comment in Serbian
**To hear the whole show (after the airiring) please go to:
http://f2.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/pertep
Boba Borojevic, producer
Tel: (613) 852-1971
E-mail: CKCUBoba @ yahoo.ca
http://ckcu.magma.ca/audio.html
--------
THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL: CHARGES AGAINST MILOSEVIC PURE FANTASY
[Excerpts from the interview with the former Canadian Ambassador to
Yugoslavia, James Bissett, September 27, 2004]
Stalled by reluctant witnesses and an uncooperative defendant, judges
in Slobodan Milosevic's war crimes trial adjourned the proceedings for
a month Wednesday (15. September 2004) to give the former Yugoslav
president's court-appointed lawyers time to prepare their case. At
least 20 of Milosevic's witnesses, including high-level foreign
politicians, have refused to show up since the court limited
Milosevic's ability to mount his own defense. Milosevic faces 66 counts
of war crimes for his alleged criminal role in atrocities committed
during the violent breakup of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Those
are very serious charges with potential consequences for the whole
Serbian nation.
Mr. James Bissett, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia is one of
foreign politicians who refused to go to The Hague to testify. His
refusal to testify has prompted the media at home and abroad to ask him
to explain why he made this decision?
One of the fundamental principles of law is that if you are accused of
something that you have right to defend yourself. That is enshrined in
law and has been for many centuries. It is one of the core principles
of the law. Even the Constitution of the Tribunal itself makes it clear
that all of the defendants have right to defend themselves if they
choose to do so, including Mr. Milosevic.
Yet the Tribunal has now decided to take that right away from him. This
decision served to confirm my early suspicions that the Tribunal was
really a political court. It was the final straw that convinced me I
did not want to be a witness at the trial. It was my own decision. I
was surprised, but pleased, to see that most of the other witnesses
agreed not to appear.
Judges citing medical reports that Milosevic was unfit to take charge
of his defense. Is this right?
Anyone who reads Tribunal’s transcripts will see that Milosevic is more
than able to defend himself. His cross examinations have destroyed many
of the witnesses who have come before him. I think the Tribunal is
using health reasons simple as an excuse to prevent him from defending
himself. [The prosecution] came up with this fantasy theory that he,
Karadzic and the Serb leader in Croatia entered into criminal
conspiracy to ethnically cleans all non Serbs out of Bosnia and
Croatia. This is pure fantasy. The prosecution is having a very
difficult time of proving all this. It is pretty clear that they got to
try to keep him off the stand. If he is on the stand, he is going to
destroy their arguments.
You have always been a defender of the rule of law and you believed in
the UN charters. Given what we have seen so far at The Hague, have you
changed you mind about the UN court and the justice the UN is capable
to administer?
I am afraid to have to say yes. From the outset the legitimacy of the
Tribunal has been in question. The UN Security Council established it
yet there is nothing in the United Nations Charter that gives the
Security Council the authority to establish a Tribunal or Court.
Nevertheless the Tribunal did get the blessing of the UN Security
Council and the UN Secretary General. Therefore one could argue that
despite its dubious origin it has taken on a quasi- legal position. Mr.
Milosevic has been accused of some of the most serious crimes since the
Nazi leaders were on trial at Nuremberg. It was therefore incumbent
upon Tribunal to get it right. By that I mean - to ensure there was
fairness, to ensure there was a presumption of innocence on the part of
the accused and to follow the other basic principles of law. This the
Tribunal has not done.
We also know that the Tribunal was financed by George Soros and by some
of the Arab states. This in itself calls into question the impartiality
of the Tribunal. The court has been dominated and managed by the United
States. It is in the interests of the USA to continue the pretence that
Milosevic is solely responsible for everything that went wrong in the
former Yugoslavia. I am convinced that the Tribunal was established to
make Mlosevic and the Serbs guilty of all the crimes committed in the
Balkans. His guilt is essential if the Germans and the Americans who
played such a critical role in causing much of the bloodshed and the
violence in the Balkans are to be let off the hook.
What is the biggest misconception of the war in the former Yugoslavia
that people in the West have?
The US led NATO powers have done a masterful job through manipulation
of the popular media of blaming the Serbs and Milosevic for everything
that happened since the breakup of Yugoslavia. They have been able to
convince the people in the West that Milosevic and the Serbs not only
broke up Yugoslavia, but also are responsible for all the killings and
ethnic cleansing. This is a very scary thing. It shows how easy public
opinion can be manipulated. That is why it is important for the truth
to come out.
Already we see that people have forgotten Kosovo. It is no longer a
subject of interest to the media. Over 2000 Serbs have been murdered in
Kosovo since NATO and the UN took over and not one person has been
charged. Almost all the non-Albanian population has been forced to
leave Kosovo. Yet, not a word of complaint about ethnic cleansing.
Albanians have burned or blasted down over 150 Christian churches, some
of them treasures from the 12th and 13th centuries. Not a word of
protest from Christian leaders in the USA and Canada. How can this be
explained?
We are dealing here with double standard and the manipulation of
western public opinion. It is shocking and frightening. This is why the
Tribunal in The Hague must be discredited because if it is not - its
files and testimonies will form an important part of the historical
record. Unfortunately it seems obvious that Milosevic’s guilt has
already been ordained by the Americans. And they represent as we know
the most powerful nation in the world.
***
Mr. James Bissett was Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia in 1992.
BOBA BOROJEVIC, producer
“Monday’s Encounter” on CKCU 93.1FM
Ottawa, Canada
ckcuboba @ yahoo.ca
responsabile canadese della "Missione di verifica" OSCE in Kosovo
(1998-1999) Roland Keith smontano pezzo per pezzo alcuni dei miti che
sono serviti a "giustificare" la criminale aggressione NATO contro la
RF di Jugoslavia ]
1. Canadian Ambassador and Canadian Kosovo Commander explode Myths of
Yugoslav War
2. Canadian diplomat James Bissett claims NATO war crimes (B92 - May
20, 2004)
3. THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL: CHARGES AGAINST MILOSEVIC PURE FANTASY. Excerpts
from the interview with the former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia,
James Bissett
(September 27, 2004 - by Boba Borojevic / “Monday’s Encounter" /
http://ckcu.magma.ca/ )
=== 1 ===
http://www.freenations.freeuk.com/news-2004-10-14.html
CANADIAN AMBASSADOR AND CANADIAN KOSOVO COMMANDER EXPLODE MYTHS OF
YUGOSLAV WAR
1. AN EYEWITNESS TO THE BREAK UP OF YUGOSLAVIA
James Bissett, Former Canadian Ambassador to Belgrade
A Speech to 5,000 Canadian Serbs on the anniversary of the historic
battle of Kosovo. Niagara Falls, 29th June 2003
Honored guests ladies and gentlemen: I want at the outset to thank Bora
Dragasevich for inviting me to speak to you this afternoon. It is a
privilege and a sincere honor for me to be with you and to share your
Vidovdan celebrations. I recall that it was thirteen summers ago that I
set off to Belgrade to take up my post as the Canadian Ambassador to
Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia was then a strong and united country- more prosperous than
most of the Eastern Bloc countries. Yet there were emerging signs of
trouble. Urged on by the former Central Powers (Germany, Austria and
Hungary) Slovenia and Croatia were already planning to separate from
the Yugoslav Federation.
I became an eyewitness to the subsequent violence and break up of the
country. I also was a witness to the "historical amnesia" suffered by
the political leaders of France, Britain, the United States and my own
country, Canada. These countries were Serbia's old traditional allies
in two world wars yet they shamefully stood by and joined in the
betrayal of Yugoslavia.
The break up of Yugoslavia was a disaster for the Serbian people.
Thousands killed and many more thousands forced to flee their ancestral
homelands. Serbs have been humiliated and many have lost their
self-respect. Yet the greatest tragedy of all is that the Serbs have
been blamed for everything that has happened since the breakup. They
have been blamed for the breakup itself. They have been blamed for
starting the violence. They have been blamed for the ethnic cleansing
that occurred. They have been blamed for the massacres. They have been
blamed for genocide. Finally they have been blamed for the NATO bombing
of their own country!
These are lies! Lies! Lies! Hitler's propaganda Minister Joseph
Goebbels said if you tell a monstrous lie people will believe you
because they cannot imagine anyone making up such an outrageous
falsehood. Then if evidence is shown to contradict the lie, you dismiss
it as irrelevant or misguided. Finally when the truth is disclosed it
is too late. Nobody cares or wants to know.
So it has been with the dreadful lies told about the Serbs. President
Clinton and Tony Blair talked about genocide taking place in Kosovo.
The US Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, said there were over a
hundred thousand young Albanian men missing in Kosovo. Robin Cook the
British Foreign Minister and Clare Short his cabinet colleague both
made outrageous charges against the Serbs about non-existent rape
camps. Later it was reported by the UNHCR and even the anti-Serb,
(George Soros financed) Human Rights Watch, that these stories had no
foundation. Can you believe that these two hypocritical British Cabinet
Ministers actually resigned over the war against Iraq!
However, there is a striking difference between Kosovo and Iraq.
Despite all of Milosevic's faults he didn't compare with Saddam
Hussein. Milosevic, after all, obeyed all of the UN Resolutions -
including allowing troops from the Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) into Kosovo. He was no threat to his
neighbors. He did not aspire to, nor did he possess weapons of mass
destruction.
Although not a democrat he was not a psychopathic killer like Saddam
(nor a religious bigot like Croatia's Tudjman or Bosnia's Izetbegovic -
ed) nor was Serbia under his regime a totalitarian state, as was Iraq
(nor had he invaded another country like Saddam had attacked Kuwait and
Iran - ed). In reality he was trying to suppress an armed rebellion in
his own territory - a rebellion led by a Muslim terrorist organization
- and for this the NATO countries bombed his country.
I believe now that it is generally accepted by most of the informed
public in the West [with the exception of the main stream media in
Canada Britain and the United States] that the bombing of Yugoslavia
was deliberately contrived. It served as a means of providing NATO with
a reason for existence and President Clinton with a distraction from
his sexual embarrassments. The truth is gradually emerging from a
variety of reliable sources.
One of the most revealing has been the admission by the former British
Defense Minister, Lord Gilbert, who told the British House of Commons
in July 2000 that the terms that NATO sought to force upon Milosevic at
Rambouillet were deliberately designed to provoke war.
(Note the same strategy when Austria demanded terms from Serbia in 1914
as an alternative to war but then informed its ambassador in Belgrade
that he was on no account to accept the Serb response - whatever it
was! - ed)
So the truth is slowly coming out. Regretfully it is too late in itself
to restore to many Serbs their sense of pride and self-respect. This is
left to the Serbs as a people. However, knowing them as I do - and
mindful of their historic courage and heroism - I am confident you will
overcome this historic setback as you have done before. The main thing
is to ensure that your young people remain proud of their heritage and
do not accept the simplistic and biased accounts of the North American
media's account of the Yugoslav breakup. I want to end my speech today
on a positive note.
There are, believe it or not, some encouraging signs of reconciliation
and hope in the former Yugoslavia. A recent agreement signed in Lake
Ohrid by representatives of five Balkan countries: Serbia/Montenegro,
Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania will translate, if
all goes well, into a free trade agreement to become effective in 2007.
Moreover, Croatia and Serbia/Montenegro have agreed to declare both
countries "visa free" so that citizens of each country can travel back
and forth without visas. There is even some hope that under EU pressure
(ironic and cynical given the EU roll in the destruction of what they
now seek to sew together again! - ed) property rights might be restored
to those who have been displaced by the wars. The circle will become
closed - and once again in a different form - the former Yugoslavia
will emerge.
I will conclude on this upbeat note but not before adding a personal
warning. The history of Serbia has recorded heroic victories and
terrible defeats. The victories have come when Serbs have relied on
their own resources and inner strengths. The defeats have come when
their allies have betrayed them or let them down. There is a lesson
here that you must not forget. Do not put all of your trust or faith in
others, especially in multilateral organizations or in politicians. And
remember history does sometimes repeat itself as the Serbs know only
too well. Now not only Serbs have seen all too well that the horrors
that took place in the spring and summer of 1941 in Croatia and Bosnia
have repeated themselves in the 1990's.
PS I am happy that finally Naser Oric the Muslim commander at
Srebrenica has been indicted by the Hague Tribunal. Oric was
responsible for the killing of many elderly Serbs living in villages
around Srebrinica. He actually video taped some of the victims who had
been beheaded and the showed the video to a number of journalists...one
of whom was from the Toronto Star newspaper but I have not been able to
find out the reporters name.
James Bissett in letter to Freenations 27th September 2004
2. CANADIAN ARMY COMMANDER EXPLODES KOSOVO MYTHS
September 14, 2004
The third witness to testify in what is being called "Slobodan
Milosevic's defense" took the stand at the Hague Tribunal on Tuesday.
The witness, Roland Keith was the commander of the Kosovo Polje field
office in the OSCE's Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM). Mr. Keith
served for 32 years in the Canadian armed forces where he obtained the
rank of Captain. Keith is a veteran of UN observation missions. Before
coming to Kosovo, he served as a UN military observer and a UN troop
commander in the Middle East.
Keith arrived in Kosovo in the first week of February 1999, and he
remained in Kosovo all the way up until the KVM was withdrawn on March
20, 1999, four days ahead of the NATO bombing.
In his testimony, Keith described the training program that the OSCE
monitors underwent. According to Keith, the training was inadequate and
left the observers unprepared to competently carryout their mission.
According to Keith most of the observers had little or no military
background and couldn't understand, or properly report what they were
witnessing. Keith said that the structure of the OSCE observation
mission was flawed. He said that the observers were road bound, and
unable to see what was going on outside of the beaten path.
Keith described the KLA as a guerilla terrorist organization, and said
that the KVM's confinement to the roads kept them from being able to
effectively monitor the KLA's activities.
In direct contradiction of almost all of the prosecution's
Kosovo-Albanian witnesses, Keith said that the KLA had a detachment or
what he called a "home guard" in every village. He said that the KLA
even manned check-points at the entrances to the villages, which makes
it all the more amazing that so many the prosecution's Kosovo-Albanian
witnesses never saw the KLA.
Keith said that he never saw the MUP or the Yugoslav Army (VJ) mistreat
anybody, and that the MUP and VJ forces cooperated with him fully.
Keith said that the KLA was a different story. He said that the KLA
refused to cooperate with the KVM on many occasions. He also said that
the KLA violated the cease fire agreement regularly. Keith said that
the MUP and VJ abided by the cease-fire, and that the VJ mainly stayed
in its barracks. According to Keith's testimony, the format followed in
Kosovo was for the KLA to initiate an attack and for the authorities to
retaliate.
When Keith first arrived in Kosovo he was sent to the village of
Glogovac, where he witnessed a KLA sniper attack on the MUP.
One week later he was sent to Kosovo Polje where he established the
KVM's field office.
The village of Grabovac was in his area of responsibility and according
to Keith, a platoon of KLA terrorists was occupying a wooded area in
the environs of that village. He said that those KLA members were armed
with rocket-propelled grenades, assault rifles, machine guns, and
various other weapons. He said that this KLA platoon would engage in
sniper attacks against workers at a mine that operated in the vicinity
of the village.
Keith spoke of another instance of KLA violence when the KLA ambushed a
MUP patrol on the Pec-Pristina highway. According to Keith one Serb
police officer was killed and another was gravely wounded in the attack.
Keith said that in this instance the VJ came to assist the police, and
that a tank was used. But according to Keith the VJ showed restraint
and only used machine-guns and not the main armaments of the tank to
deal with the KLA attackers.
Keith repeatedly asserted the willingness of the Yugoslav authorities
to cooperate. He said that he had been working together with the
Serbian police to facilitate the return of Albanian villagers, who had
fled amid fighting in 1998, from the village of Donji Grabovac.
Keith said that the police had even offered to provide these villagers
with small arms so that they could defend themselves from whoever might
try and harm them. Unfortunately, he was evacuated from Kosovo before
he could see this effort bear fruit.
Keith said that the KVM's leadership had certain political objectives
and that it did not really seek the normalization of the situation in
Kosovo. It would appear that he had more to say on this topic, but
neither Mr. Kay nor Mr. Nice was particularly willing to discuss it and
so it went by the way side.
Keith also said that the villagers would wildly exaggerate claims of
displacement of population. He said that they would claim that hundreds
of people were chased from a given village, when in reality only a
handful of displaced persons would have left the village.
Of course that didn't stop Mr. Nice from reading out lengthy passages
from the OSCE's "Kosovo-Kosova: As Seen, As Told" book which relies
heavily on the accounts of the same unreliable villagers that Keith was
talking about.
Mr. Nice took great pains to waste as much time as possible. He read
out even more lengthy passages from the OSCE's "blue book." Nice asked
Keith to comment on things that were alleged to have happened in
Prizren and in other parts of Kosovo which were outside of his zone of
responsibility.
Mr. Keith behaved like the military professional that he is and
confined his testimony to places and events that he had direct
knowledge of.
Being unsuccessful in drawing Mr. Keith into a hypothetical discussion,
Mr. Nice tried insinuating that Keith had written irresponsible and
inaccurate articles about the Kosovo war, but Mr. Nice never quite got
around to actually challenging the veracity of any specific part of
Keith's work. Even though Mr Nice he has taken more time than Mr. Kay
with all of the witnesses, all three of the defense witnesses have
defeated him.
Slobodan Milosevic again demanded to have his right to self-defense
returned to him, and again Mr. Robinson turned off his microphone, and
in an added twist resorted to name-calling and accused Milosevic of
being "petulant and puerile."
For his part Milosevic responded by saying, "I wish, Mr. Robinson, to
say something to you in relation to the observation you made in view of
my attitude and position. I think that the right to defending oneself
is a right of principle -- " and again Robinson cut off the microphone.
Things are not going well for the tribunal. Mr. Kay announced that he
couldn't find any more witnesses who would agree to testify. The
witnesses have banded together and are boycotting the proceedings to
protest against the draconian conditions that the tribunal has imposed
though its denial of Milosevic's right to self-defense.
Mr. Kay is asking that the so-called "trial" be suspended until the
appeals chamber has made its ruling on the appeal that he has made
against his own appointment as Milosevic's defence.
There will be a hearing tomorrow to consider the future conduct of the
trial, but one thing is clear the tribunal has made this so-called
"trial" into a total farce. By denying Milosevic the right to
self-defense, they have brought all of these problems crashing down
onto their own heads.
=== 2 ===
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
b92_focus.php?yyyy=2004&mm=05&dd=20&nav_id=28447
B92 (Serbia-Montenegro)
May 20, 2004
Canadian diplomat claims NATO war crimes
Diplomat James Bissett was Canadian ambassador to
Yugoslavia from 1990 to 1992. During his tenure, he
watched as Yugoslavia began to break up and war broke
out, first in Slovenia, then in Croatia, finally in
Bosnia. During that time, Bissett met regularly with
Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic and other
leaders. He gave the following interview to Canada’s
Edmonton Journal on May 18, before making a speech at
the University of Alberta.
Canada participated in a series of NATO-sanctioned war
crimes against Yugoslavia, charges a former Canadian
ambassador to the Balkan country.
To this day, Canada has failed to admit the pretences
behind the bombing campaign that led to the NATO
occupation of Kosovo had no substance, James Bissett
said Tuesday in an interview before making a speech at
the University of Alberta.
NATO and the United States claimed that more than
100,000 ethnic Albanians had been killed as the result
of Serb genocide, Bissett said.
To stop that alleged genocide and ethnic cleansing,
NATO engaged in a 78-day bombing campaign against
Yugoslavia, which destroyed military and government
facilities before targeting factories, bridges, TV
stations and power grids. Finally, the Yugoslav
government gave in and allowed NATO troops to enter
Kosovo. Forensic investigation teams followed.
"The forensic experts found fewer than 2,000 graves
and many of the people in those graves were Serbs,"
Bissett said. "There were more civilians killed in
Serbia by the NATO bombing campaign."
Bissett claims there wasn't even a concerted campaign
of ethnic cleansing on the part of the Yugoslav
government. What actually happened was that 200,000
ethnic Albanians fled their homes as a result of
fighting between the Yugoslav army and the Kosovo
Liberation Army, Bissett said. The KLA was a terrorist
guerrilla organization that provoked reprisals against
Muslim Albanian villages by murdering Serb officials
and police officers, so it could tell the world the
Serbs were engaged in a genocidal campaign.
Today, the few remaining Serbs of Kosovo are paying
the price for that duplicity. Bissett said 2,000 Serbs
have been murdered in Kosovo and 1,300 Christian
churches and monasteries have been bombed, burned or
destroyed.
On March 17, another lie sparked more violence aimed
at Serbs. Three ethnic Albanian boys went swimming in
a river, and when two drowned, the third boy told his
parents the boys had been driven into the water by a
Serb man and his vicious dogs. By the time the boy
admitted his story was a lie, it was too late.
All this anti-Serb violence had taken place while an
army of 18,000 NATO troops stood by and did nothing to
protect the Serbs or their property, said Bissett, who
was an outspoken opponent of NATO action during the
run-up to the 1999 bombing campaign.
Bissett was Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia from
1990 to 1992. During his tenure, he watched as
Yugoslavia began to break up and war broke out, first
in Slovenia, then in Croatia, finally in Bosnia.
During that time, Bissett met regularly with Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic and other leaders.
"It's time to speak out about Kosovo but it seems to
be a forgotten place," he said. "Only Pakistan and a
few other nations have spoken out about it. Canada has
said nothing."
Bissett was brought to Edmonton by local members of
the Serb community. He admits he often speaks on
behalf of partisan groups but claims that helps
counterbalance stories that have demonized Serbs for
years.
=== 3 ===
Da: Boba
Data: Lun 4 Ott 2004 03:04:22 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: NEW on "Monday's Encounter"
"MONDAY"S ENCOUNTER" a bilingual Serbian Canadian radio program airing
every Monday on CKCU 93.1 FM in Ottawa and on line at www.ckcufm.com .
Monday, Oct. 4, 2004 at 6:00 P.M. EST on CKCU 93.1 FM in Ottawa
* JAMES BISSETT - former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia was one of
high ranking diplomats who had decided not to testify at The Hague. We
wanted to know if the UN is capable of adminitering justice? What has
been the biggest misconception of the war in the former Yugoslavia that
people in the West have? [*E] (Interview, Part II)
http://www.deltax.net/bissett/
Transcript: http://www.serbianna.com
http://f2.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/pertep
(...)
- FUNDING DRIVE for our radio station CKCU 93.1 FM starts on October 22
- Nov. 7, 2004. You can pre-pledge if you go to:
www.https://media6.magma.ca/ckcu.magma.ca/pledgeform.html
Do not forget the name of the Show that you are pledging to: Monday's
Encounter
(...)
(*E) - Comment in English
(*S) - Comment in Serbian
**To hear the whole show (after the airiring) please go to:
http://f2.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/pertep
Boba Borojevic, producer
Tel: (613) 852-1971
E-mail: CKCUBoba @ yahoo.ca
http://ckcu.magma.ca/audio.html
--------
THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL: CHARGES AGAINST MILOSEVIC PURE FANTASY
[Excerpts from the interview with the former Canadian Ambassador to
Yugoslavia, James Bissett, September 27, 2004]
Stalled by reluctant witnesses and an uncooperative defendant, judges
in Slobodan Milosevic's war crimes trial adjourned the proceedings for
a month Wednesday (15. September 2004) to give the former Yugoslav
president's court-appointed lawyers time to prepare their case. At
least 20 of Milosevic's witnesses, including high-level foreign
politicians, have refused to show up since the court limited
Milosevic's ability to mount his own defense. Milosevic faces 66 counts
of war crimes for his alleged criminal role in atrocities committed
during the violent breakup of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Those
are very serious charges with potential consequences for the whole
Serbian nation.
Mr. James Bissett, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia is one of
foreign politicians who refused to go to The Hague to testify. His
refusal to testify has prompted the media at home and abroad to ask him
to explain why he made this decision?
One of the fundamental principles of law is that if you are accused of
something that you have right to defend yourself. That is enshrined in
law and has been for many centuries. It is one of the core principles
of the law. Even the Constitution of the Tribunal itself makes it clear
that all of the defendants have right to defend themselves if they
choose to do so, including Mr. Milosevic.
Yet the Tribunal has now decided to take that right away from him. This
decision served to confirm my early suspicions that the Tribunal was
really a political court. It was the final straw that convinced me I
did not want to be a witness at the trial. It was my own decision. I
was surprised, but pleased, to see that most of the other witnesses
agreed not to appear.
Judges citing medical reports that Milosevic was unfit to take charge
of his defense. Is this right?
Anyone who reads Tribunal’s transcripts will see that Milosevic is more
than able to defend himself. His cross examinations have destroyed many
of the witnesses who have come before him. I think the Tribunal is
using health reasons simple as an excuse to prevent him from defending
himself. [The prosecution] came up with this fantasy theory that he,
Karadzic and the Serb leader in Croatia entered into criminal
conspiracy to ethnically cleans all non Serbs out of Bosnia and
Croatia. This is pure fantasy. The prosecution is having a very
difficult time of proving all this. It is pretty clear that they got to
try to keep him off the stand. If he is on the stand, he is going to
destroy their arguments.
You have always been a defender of the rule of law and you believed in
the UN charters. Given what we have seen so far at The Hague, have you
changed you mind about the UN court and the justice the UN is capable
to administer?
I am afraid to have to say yes. From the outset the legitimacy of the
Tribunal has been in question. The UN Security Council established it
yet there is nothing in the United Nations Charter that gives the
Security Council the authority to establish a Tribunal or Court.
Nevertheless the Tribunal did get the blessing of the UN Security
Council and the UN Secretary General. Therefore one could argue that
despite its dubious origin it has taken on a quasi- legal position. Mr.
Milosevic has been accused of some of the most serious crimes since the
Nazi leaders were on trial at Nuremberg. It was therefore incumbent
upon Tribunal to get it right. By that I mean - to ensure there was
fairness, to ensure there was a presumption of innocence on the part of
the accused and to follow the other basic principles of law. This the
Tribunal has not done.
We also know that the Tribunal was financed by George Soros and by some
of the Arab states. This in itself calls into question the impartiality
of the Tribunal. The court has been dominated and managed by the United
States. It is in the interests of the USA to continue the pretence that
Milosevic is solely responsible for everything that went wrong in the
former Yugoslavia. I am convinced that the Tribunal was established to
make Mlosevic and the Serbs guilty of all the crimes committed in the
Balkans. His guilt is essential if the Germans and the Americans who
played such a critical role in causing much of the bloodshed and the
violence in the Balkans are to be let off the hook.
What is the biggest misconception of the war in the former Yugoslavia
that people in the West have?
The US led NATO powers have done a masterful job through manipulation
of the popular media of blaming the Serbs and Milosevic for everything
that happened since the breakup of Yugoslavia. They have been able to
convince the people in the West that Milosevic and the Serbs not only
broke up Yugoslavia, but also are responsible for all the killings and
ethnic cleansing. This is a very scary thing. It shows how easy public
opinion can be manipulated. That is why it is important for the truth
to come out.
Already we see that people have forgotten Kosovo. It is no longer a
subject of interest to the media. Over 2000 Serbs have been murdered in
Kosovo since NATO and the UN took over and not one person has been
charged. Almost all the non-Albanian population has been forced to
leave Kosovo. Yet, not a word of complaint about ethnic cleansing.
Albanians have burned or blasted down over 150 Christian churches, some
of them treasures from the 12th and 13th centuries. Not a word of
protest from Christian leaders in the USA and Canada. How can this be
explained?
We are dealing here with double standard and the manipulation of
western public opinion. It is shocking and frightening. This is why the
Tribunal in The Hague must be discredited because if it is not - its
files and testimonies will form an important part of the historical
record. Unfortunately it seems obvious that Milosevic’s guilt has
already been ordained by the Americans. And they represent as we know
the most powerful nation in the world.
***
Mr. James Bissett was Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia in 1992.
BOBA BOROJEVIC, producer
“Monday’s Encounter” on CKCU 93.1FM
Ottawa, Canada
ckcuboba @ yahoo.ca
