Informazione
(english / srpskohrvatski / italiano)
Bobby Fisher rinuncia a cittadinanza USA
Boris Spassky: "Arrestate anche me"
1. L'ultima sfida di Bobby Fischer: «Mai più americano»
2. GIAPPONE: SCACCHISTA FISCHER RINUNCIA A CITTADINANZA USA
3. Fischer renouncing U.S. citizenship
4. BOBI FISER : ZIVOTNI MEC. Intervju sa Dzonom Bosnicem
5. Spassky to Bush: Arrest me!
The Fischer Saga: Farewell to America; Free Fisher in Mainz
6. „Free Bobby Fischer“ on the occasion of the Chess Classic
Mainz 2004
Vedi anche / see also:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3654
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3659
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3685
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3693
http://www.freebobbyfischer.net
=== 1 ===
http://www.liberazione.it/giornale/040807/archdef.asp
Da "Liberazione" del 7 agosto 2004
L'ultima sfida di Bobby Fischer: «Mai più americano»
Scacco all'impero
«Non desidero essere un cittadino americano. Quando è troppo è troppo,
sono un perseguitato politico». Dalla sua cella dell'areoporto di Tokyo
Bobby Fischer, il leggendario ex campione del mondo di scacchi, cerca
una via d'uscita, una mossa che come ai bei tempi metta alle corde il
re avversario.
Per il momento si trova in stato d'arresto: lo hanno fermato quindici
giorni fa i doganieri mentre si stava imbarcando per le Filippine con
un passaporto non valido.
Rischia fino a dieci anni di carcere da scontare sul territorio degli
Stati Uniti, i quali sono in fervida attesa dell'estradizione dal paese
nipponico. I fans, o i semplici ammiratori disseminati in tutto il
mondo sono invece in grande apprensione e sperano che Bobby riesca ad
ottenere quell'agognato asilo politico che Giappone e Filippine gli
hanno finora rifiutato.
Ma il Dipartimento di Stato e l'Fbi (che lo sorveglia da più di 12
anni) vogliono la sua testa, costi quel che costi. Formalmente è
accusato di aver violato l'embargo Onu alla Yugoslavia nel 1992 per
disputare in Montenegro il match di rivincità contro il sovietico Boris
Spassky. Un revival non omologato del celebre incontro disputato a
Reykjavik nel 1972 che fruttò a Fischer, in "pensione" da vent'anni, la
modica cifra di tre milioni di dollari e la tranquillità economica per
il futuro. Al di là del fatto tragicomico che l'amministrazione Bush
accusi un proprio
cittadino di aver violato una direttiva delle Nazioni Unite,
l'accanimento di Washington ha una valenza simbolica, esemplare. Alcuni
mesi dopo 11 settembre 2001, Fischer interruppe infatti anni di
silenzio con un articolo diffuso via internet; una trascrizione di
un'intervista ad una radio di Manila, in cui esprimeva soddisfazione
per gli attentati di Manhattan, congedandosi con un eloquente «Fuck the
U. S». Una provocazione di cattivo gusto, ma pur sempre una
provocazione e non certo un delitto.
Eppure i cacciatori di taglie del governo non la pensano così. Fischer
deve essere estradato, giudicato e condannato. L'onta lavata nel buio
di un penitenziario federale, senza sconti o attenuanti generiche in un
processo di cui già si conosce la sentenza. Poco importa che nel "paese
delle libertà" non esista il reato d'opinione: nell'era della guerra
infinita e del Patriot act le libertà sono solo vigilate e a un
americano non è permesso parlare in questo modo della sua madre patria
impegnata nella crociata contro il feroce Saladino.
Il "rinnegato" Fischer non viveva comunque più da anni negli Stati
Uniti. Dopo la vittoria contro Spassky, avvenuta in piena Guerra Fredda
e quindi cosparsa di prevedibile propaganda, il campione reputò che la
Casa Bianca gli mancò di rispetto non ricevendolo con tutti gli onori.
«Quando ho vinto il campionato del mondo nel '72 l'America era fino a
quel momento era considerata la patria del football e del baseball e
non certo un paese di intellettuali. Io ho cambiato tutto questo. Loro
mi hanno utilizzato nella Guerra Fredda e ora che è finita mi vogliono
arrestare», esclamò nel '92 dopo l'incontro in Montenegro. Negli
anni'80 denunciò di essere stato fermato, interrogato e picchiato dai
federali, episodio che lo spinse a lasciare per sempre l'odiato borgo
natìo. Da allora è stato avvistato a Budapest, poi nelle Filippine da
dove giocava a scacchi on-line sotto pseudonimo, e infine in Giappone,
dove il suo tormentato errare si è concluso al desko di un terminal
areoportuale.
Si è detto e scritto molto riguardo alla controversa personalità di
Fischer, al suo sconfinato talento e al suo panthéon di psicosi;
dichiaratamente antisemita anche se lui stesso ebreo osservante,
maschilista involuto e naif, ma al contempo terrorizzato da qualsiasi
figura femminile (in curioso parallelismo con il filosofo Nietzche).
L'unica donna che frequentò ufficialmente fu infatti la fantomatica
Miss Gremette, una californiana molto più anziana di lui che, secondo
la vulgata psicanalitica, rappresentava l'adorata figura materna.
Quella Regina (sic) Fischer severa poliglotta che i servizi Usa
accusarono addirittura di essere «una spia dei comunisti». Volutamente
sgradevole e immodesto nelle sortite ufiiciali, fuori dalle scacchiere
i suoi colleghi raccontavano, al contrario, di un uomo molto timido,
affabile e cortese con i propri interlocutori. Quando il lettone
Mikhail Tal (l'unico giocatore che Fischer non riuscì mai a battere),
anch'egli ex campione del mondo, si ammalò gravemente, Bobby andava
ogni giorno al suo capezzale per discutere di scacchi, il suo modo di
offrire amorevolmente conforto al rivale.
«Nel gioco degli scacchi ci sono gli eroi e gli antieroi. Fischer è
senza dubbio un eroe» scriveva lo psicologo-giocatore Rueben Fine nel
pregevole La psicologia del giocatore di scacchi (Adelphi) . Gli
antieroi possono raggiungere l'Olimpo dello scacchismo mondiale, ma
come gli eclettici del Rinascimento riescono ad imporsi con successo
anche in altri campi e discipline. Lasker scriveva di filosofia e
teneva una corrispondenza con Einstein, Euwe insegnava la matematica,
Botvinnik era un affermato ingegnere elettronico, Taimanov un
bravissimo violinista. Lo stesso Gary Kasparov passa ormai più tempo a
curare la sua immagine e il suo pingue giro d'affari che a cimentarsi
sulla scacchiera.
Bobby no. Lui pensava, respirava, mangiava, dormiva, viveva solo in
funzione degli scacchi, 24 ore su 24, 365 giorni all'anno. «Non so fare
altro», ha sempre affermato con candore, prestando il fianco alle più
fantasiose speculazioni sulla sua asocialità, sul suo autismo. Ma sul
campo di battaglia delle 64 case era davvero il più bravo di tutti. Fin
dal 1957, quando a soli 14 anni conquistò a mani basse il titolo di
campione degli Stati Uniti, vincendo tutte le partite dell'open contro
gli increduli maestri dello scacchismo d'oltreoceano, ridotti al ruolo
di sparring-partner.
In quale altro destino poteva imbattersi un ragazzino che aveva il più
altro "Qi" mai misurato nella storia moderna e che dedicava tutto il
suo tempo all'arte degli scacchi? L'olandese Elie Agur nell'opera più
completa mai pubblicata sullo stile di Fischer descrive il suo gioco
come «aereo e armonioso», sottolineandone la legerezza, la semplicità e
la chiarezza priva di fronzoli, perfetto contraltare dei suoi
comportamenti stravaganti, dei suoi capricci da prima donna, delle
impossibili e barocche richieste alla Fide (la Federazione scacchistica
mondiale che lo radiò nel 1975 incoronando campione d'ufficio il
sovietico Anatolji Karpov).
Nella kafkiana cella dello scalo di Tokyo in cui oggi Fischer attende
lumi sulla sua sorte, (un po' come lo spielberghiano Tom Hanks del film
The Terminal) si è però aperto uno spiraglio che lascia ben sperare. La
ciambella di salvataggio viene dagli amati Balcani, dove Natasha
Radulovic una nota pittrice serba, si dice disposta persino a sposarlo
per accelerare la richiesta d'asilo: «Se lo merita per quel che ha
fatto per la Serbia e il Montenegro» ha dichiarato l'artista ai
quotidiani locali. Ora si attende la decisione del presidente Filip
Vujanovic, il quale negli scorsi giorni ha fatto capire di essere
pronto ad accogliere il reietto campione. Se così fosse, Bobby avrebbe
vinto anche l'ultima partita, quella più importante. Alla faccia degli
sceriffi federali.
Daniele Zaccaria
=== 2 ===
http://www.ansa.it/fdg02/200408061548160602/200408061548160602.html
GIAPPONE: SCACCHISTA FISCHER RINUNCIA A CITTADINANZA USA
TOKYO - Per scongiurare l'estradizione nel suo paese d'origine, l'ex
campione mondiale di scacchi Bobby Fischer intende ripudiare la propria
nazionalita' statunitense.
Ricercato dagli Stati Uniti per violazione delle sanzioni contro la ex
Jugoslavia e in stato di fermo in Giappone in attesa di espulsione per
possesso di passaporto invalido, Fischer ha deciso di rinunciare alla
cittadinanza americana e di diventare apolide.
Lo ha reso noto il suo avvoccato giapponese, Masako Suzuki, secondo la
quale Fischer, 61 anni, ha telefonato all'ambasciata degli Stati Uniti
a Tokyo, comunicando la sua volonta' di rinuncia alla cittadinanza.
''Tecnicamente Fischer diventera' un apolide. I gruppi che lo
appoggiano in Giappone cercheranno di farlo iscrivere come rifugiato
presso l'Ufficio dell'Alto Commisariato Onu per i rifugiati a Tokyo''
ha precisato l'avvocato.
Fischer, che divenne campione del mondo di scacchi nel 1972 battendo il
detentore del titolo, l'allora sovietico Boris Spassky, sta sfuggendo
alle autorita' americane dal 1992, quando violo' le sanzioni contro la
ex Jugoslavia recandosi nel paese balcanico per un match di rivincita
contro Spassky. Per questo reato, l'estroso scacchista rischia una
condanna fino a dieci anni di carcere.
Arrivato in Giappone lo scorso aprile senza alcun problema con il suo
passaporto americano, l'ex campione del mondo si e' ritrovato a meta'
luglio in una cella dell'aeroporto di Narita mentre cercava di partire
alla volta delle Filippine con lo stesso passaporto, che un solerte
funzionario dell'immigrazione, debitamente avvertito da chi di dovere,
ha trovato illegale in base alle leggi Usa.
Sul caso clamoroso di Fischer in prigione a Tokyo, le autorita' locali
hanno steso una cortina di silenzio. Stampa e tv giapponese ben si
guardano dal parlare della vicenda, l'ufficio immigrazione e' chiuso a
doppia mandata per i cronisti stranieri e nessuno e' disposto a
commentare cio' che trapela dagli ambienti diplomatici, ovvero che il
governo intende estradare Fischer negli Usa.
Di fronte a questa prospettiva assai poco attraente, il campione,
aiutato da tanti amici e dall'associazione di scacchi giapponese, cerca
di guadagnare tempo: ha presentato due ricorsi alle autorita'
giapponesi contro l'ordine di espulsione, entrambi respinti, ed e' in
attesa di risposta ad un terzo appello inoltrato direttamente al
ministro della Giustizia Daizo Nozawa dall'avvocato Suzuki.
L'entourage di Fischer fa sapere che in carcere lo scacchista afferma
di essere trattato ''molto male'' e il presidente del suo comitato di
sostenitori, John Bosnitch, sostiene che molti paesi si sono gia' detti
disponibili a ospitare il campione, se il Giappone decidera' di non
estradarlo negli Usa. L'avvocato Suzuki pero' non si nasconde che
quella che Fischer sta giocando in questo momento e' forse la partita
piu' difficile della sua vita: ''Non e' abituale - ha osservato -
domandare lo statuto di rifugiato contro gli Stati Uniti''.
Il presidente montenegrino, Filip Vujanovic, si e' detto disposto a
offrire asilo politico al campione. Non e' un caso: e' proprio
sull'isola montenegrina di Sveti Stefan, infatti, che Fischer nel '92
gareggio' contro il suo nemico di sempre Boris Spasski, a dispetto
dell'embargo internazionale, intascando per la vittoria 3,35 milioni di
dollari.
06/08/2004 15:48
© Copyright ANSA Tutti i diritti riservati
=== 3 ===
Fischer renouncing U.S. citizenship
August 06, 2004 17:29 IST
http://www.rediff.com/sports/2004/aug/06chess1.htm
Former world chess champion Bobby Fischer, wanted by Washington for
defying sanctions on Yugoslavia, plans to renounce his U.S.
citizenship, a lawyer working his appeal against deportation from Japan
said on Friday.
Fischer, one of the chess world's great eccentrics, was detained at
Tokyo's Narita airport last month when he tried to leave for Manila on
a passport U.S. officials say was invalid.
Japanese immigration officials rejected Fischer's initial appeal
against deportation and his lawyer, Masako Suzuki, has filed a second
plea to Justice Minister Daizo Nozawa.
In a handwritten note made available to the media, Fischer said the
U.S. government and "U.S.-controlled Japanese government, working in
collusion and in a criminal conspiracy, have illegally confiscated and
illegally physically destroyed my perfectly valid in every way U.S.
passport #27792702.
"As a result of the above-stated criminal act, as well as innumerable
other vicious crimes against me by the U.S. government, I no longer
wish to be an American citizen," said the letter, copies of which were
made available to the media.
Suzuki told a news conference that Fischer, 61, would likely become a
stateless person for some period of time and that his supporters would
try to have the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
register him as a refugee.
The renunciation of his U.S. citizenship does not take effect until he
has met a U.S. consular official and conveyed his intent in person, she
said.
Fischer, who arrived in Japan in April, has been wanted in the United
States since 1992 when he violated U.S. economic sanctions by winning
$3 million for beating old rival Boris Spassky in a match in Yugoslavia.
The elusive chessmaster then vanished, only to resurface after the
September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States to give an interview to
Philippine radio in which he praised the strikes and said he wanted to
see America "wiped out".
Fischer has filed for refugee status in Japan and is also in contact
with other countries that might accept him, according to John Bosnitch,
a Tokyo-based Canadian journalist and communications consultant who has
been advising him.
Japan accepts only political refugees. Fischer's supporters in Japan
say he is being persecuted by the United States.
Fischer's supporters say he renewed his passport in 1997 and never
received a letter issued in December 2003 revoking it.
U.S. State Department officials in Washington have said it took years
for the legal process to catch up with Fischer.
Fischer became world chess champion in 1972 when he beat Spassky of the
Soviet Union in a victory seen as a Cold War propaganda coup for the
United States.
The title was taken from him three years later after his conditions for
a match against Anatoly Karpov, also of the Soviet Union, were rejected
by chess officials.
Karpov became champion by default.
=== 4 ===
BOBI FISER : ZIVOTNI MEC
Intervju sa Dzonom Bosnicem
Ceo intervju sa Dzonom Bosnicem :
http://f2.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/pertep
Najveci sahovski majstor svih vremena , koji je Americi 1972. godine
doneo titulu svetskog sampiona, posle nekoliko decenija dominacije
Sovjetskog Saveza, Bobi Fiser, je po nalogu americke vlade pritvoren i
nalazi se u zatvoru na aerodromu Narita kod Tokia. Bobia Fisera su
uhapsile japanske vlasti na aerodromu prilikom izlaska iz zemlje, pod
izgovorom da mu je americki pasos nevazeci.
"Americki pasos s kojim je Bobi Fiser putovao je punovazan. Izdat je
1997. godine u americkom konzularnom predstavnistvu u Svajcarskoj. Cak
je pre osam meseci prosiren sa dvedeset dodatnih stranica.", izjavio
je Dzon Bosnic, osnivac Komiteta za oslobadjanje Bobia Fisera.
"Bobi je tek prilikom hapsenja saznao da su mu americke vlasti, tajnom
odlukom, proglasile pasos nevazecim. Sto samo po sebi predstavlja
krsenje americkog zakona. Do tog trenutka Bobi nikad nije imao problema
sa svojim pasosem, niti je bilo medjunarodnih poternica, naloga ili
zahteva za njegovo izrucenje", rekao je Bosnic.
Bobi je dosao u sukob sa americkim vlastima kad je 1992. godine odlucio
da sahovski mec sa Spaskim odigra u Crnoj Gori i time prekrsi ekonomske
sancije uvedene protiv Srbije i Crne Gore. Tako je Amerika postala prva
zemlja u svetu koja i sahovsku igru, ako joj to odgovara, smatra
nezakonitom.
"Amerikanci su sve vreme pratili Bobia i cekali da dodje u njima
prijateljsku zemlju da bi ga uhapsili."
Zbog ovako nezakonitih postupaka americkih vlasti, Bobi Fiser je
odlucio da se odrekne americkog drzavljanstva i da potrazi utociste u
nekoj drugoj, prijateljskoj zemlji. On ne zeli da se vraca u SAD jer
veruje da je hapsenje politicki motivisano i da bi sudski proces protiv
njega bio farsa.
Komitet za oslobodjenje Bobi Fisera ima tri cilja da Bobia sto pre
oslobode iz zatvora; da mu obezbede pasos ili putni dokument; i da
nadju zemlju koja bi mu pruzila utociste. Gospodin Bosnic, iako srpskog
porekla, nije krio svoje razocarenje zbog nezainteresovanosti vlasti u
Srbiji i Crnoj Gori da pomognu Bobiu Fiseru.
"Americke vlasti su proganjale Bobia od 1992. godine samo zbog toga sto
je imao hrabrosti da kaze da su sankcije protiv Srbije i Crne Gore
nepravedne i nezakonite. Odlucni mec sa Spskim je mogao da odigra u
bilo kojoj drugoj zemlji sveta, ali Bobi je odlucio da ga odigra u
Jugoslaviji. Dobijao je pozive sa svih strana , ali on se odlucio za
Jugoslaviju. A kako mu mi vracamo? Cutnjom i nezaintersovanoscu! Treba
da nas je sve stramota."
Vreme je trenutno najvazniji faktor u trci za iznalazenjem resenja za
izbavljenje Bobia Fisera. Ukoliko ne uspeju da nadju zemlju koja bi mu
pruzila izbeglicko utociste Bobi Fiser bi mogao da bude isporucen
Americi, kaznjen sa deset godina zatvora i znatnom novcanom kaznom.
Ukoliko zelite da kontaktirate Bobia Fisera , kliknite na stranicu:
http://www.freebobbyfischer.net
Boba Borojevic, urednik
Srpski radio program
"Susreti Ponedeljkom"
Otava, Kanada
ckcuboba@...
Ceo intervju sa Dzonom Bosnicem :
http://f2.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/pertep
=== 5 ===
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1843
Spassky to Bush: Arrest me!
10.08.2004 Boris Spassky, who played the contentious return match
against Bobby Fischer in Yugoslavia 1992, for which the latter is
currently facing deportation and incarceration in the US, has appealed
to President Bush to show mercy and charity for his tormented
successor. If for some reason that should be impossible, Spassky
suggests a very imaginative alternative...
Appeal to President Bush from Boris Spassky
Mr. President,
In 1972 Bobby Fischer became national hero. He smashed me in the match
in Reykjavik. The Soviet chess hegemony collapsed. One man won
against a whole army. Soon after that Fischer stopped playing. He
repeated the sad story of Paul Morphy. At the age of 21, legendary
Paul had beaten all leading European masters and became unofficial
champion. He stopped playing and finished his tragic life at the age
of 47 in New Orleans in 1884.
In 1992, twenty years after Reykjavik, there was a miracle. Bobby
resuscitated and we played a match in Yugoslavia. But at that time
there were sanctions against Yugoslavia forbidding American citizens
any sort of activity on the territory of Yugoslavia. Bobby violated
the instructions of the State Department. He became the subject of a
warrant for arrest issued on December 15, 1992 by the US District
Court. As for me, as a French citizen since 1978, I did not get any
sanctions from the French government.
Since July 13, 2004, Bobby has been detained at Narita airport on
immigration violations. Further events have been described by media.
It is clear that the law is the law. But Fischer’s case is not usual.
I am an old friend of Bobby since 1960 when we played in Mar-del-Plata
and shared 1-2 places. Bobby is a tragic personality. I realized
this at that time. He is an honest and good natured man. Absolutely
not social. He is not adaptable to everybody’s standards of life. He
has a very high sense of justice and is unwilling to compromise as
well as with his own conscience as with surrounding people. He is a
person who is doing almost everything against himself.
I would not like to defend or justify Bobby Fischer. He is what he is.
I am asking only for one thing. For mercy, charity.
If for some reason it is impossible, I would like to ask you the
following: Please correct the mistake of President François
Mitterand in 1992. Bobby and myself committed the same crime. Put
sanctions against me also. Arrest me. And put me in the same cell
with Bobby Fischer. And give us a chess set.
Boris Spassky
10-th Chess World Champion
08.07.2004
The Fischer Saga: Farewell to America
Meanwhile the news is that the greatest hero of American chess no
longer wants to be an American. Having finally hired a lawyer,
Fischer released through her a statement saying, "I no longer wish
to be an American citizen. Enough is enough. I hereby authorize my
attorney Masako Suzuki to contact the U.S. embassy in Tokyo, Japan,
immediately so I can officially renounce my U.S. citizenship at
once."
Fischer's attempt to renounce his US citizenship will not enable him to
escape the charges he is wanted for in the United States. It may,
however, affect his status with the Japanese government. (Slate
Magazine has a handy explanation of how exactly an American can
renounce citizenship.)
Fischer is still in detention in the Narita Airport and is waiting for
the result of his appeal of Japan's rejection to stay his
deportation and to seek asylum in Japan. Technically this could take
up to 60 days, but it is very unlikely to take that long. Another
twist is that Fischer has been offered asylum in Serbia and
Montenegro (the artist formerly known as Yugoslavia).
The case is hitting the editorial pages. The NY Daily News tabloid took
a few shots, calling Fischer a "chess master and famous foaming
maniac" and adds " Swell! So long, Bob! Sayonara!" to the news that
Fischer doesn't want to return to the USA.
Free Fischer in Mainz
The organisers of the Chess Classic in Mainz started a Free
Fischer action, with the main organiser Hans-Walter Schmitt
writing to the The Minister of the Interior (and honorary Chess
Grandmaster) Otto Schily: "We regard what Mr. Fischer has done for
chess and his brilliant ideas on how to develop chess further as
much more important than his mistakes and his unacceptable
remarks in relation to the events of September 11," Schmitt
writes. "We dissociate ourselves from these mistakes and focus
on the chess genius Bobby Fischer.
Bobby Fischer’s biological roots can indeed be connected to
Germany. We would therefore like to ask you to see if there is
anything that you can do for Bobby Fischer using diplomatic channels.
If asylum in Germany can be granted to Bobby Fischer, it would
not be a problem for us to provide permanent housing and
subsistence to him in the Rhein-Main area."
=== 6 ===
http://www.chesstigers.de/cc/2004/e/home/artikel_04-07-
29_free_fischer_e.htm
Free Bobby Fischer
The Minister of the Interior
and honorary Chess Grandmaster
Otto Schily
Platz der Republik 1
D-11011 Berlin
„Free Bobby Fischer“ on the occasion of the Chess Classic
Mainz 2004
Dear Mr. Schily,
as somebody who is very familiar with chess and its history, we would
like to bring to your attention the case of former World Chess
Champion Robert James Fischer. We regard his arrest and
custody in a Japanese prison and the demands of the US for
his deportation due to a violation of the US embargo during
the Kosovo war as excessive.
We would like to point out that to our knowledge, it is not even
certain that Bobby Fischer actually received the money that
was promised to him for playing the match against Boris
Spassky. And even if the US embargo was violated, this does
not constitute a violation of any law of the United States
(the embargo was based on an executive order of the US
president at the time). In addition, Bobby Fischer’s opponent
in this match, Boris Spassky, was not charged with any wrongdoing in
connection with the match. We regard what Mr. Fischer has done
for chess and his brilliant ideas on how to develop chess
further as much more important than his mistakes and his
unacceptable remarks in relation to the events of September
11. We dissociate ourselves from these mistakes and focus on
the chess genius Bobby Fischer.
Bobby Fischer’s biological roots can indeed be connected to Germany.
We would therefore like to ask you to see if there is anything
that you can do for Bobby Fischer using diplomatic channels.
If asylum in Germany can be granted to Bobby Fischer, it
would not be a problem for us to provide permanent housing
and subsistence to him in the Rhein-Main area.
At the Chess Classic in Mainz, we are trying to use the innovation
“Chess960”, which is based on “Fischer Random Chess”,
to create an alternative for people with little time and to combine
this with traditional chess. The challenging goals that we have
set ourselves as the Frankfurt Chess Tigers e.V. are to
bring together the history and the future of chess, and to
combine creativity and media attention with sport and
entertainment. One of the undisputed highlights in the
German tournament scene is the second World Championship in Rapid
Chess960 between current Chess960 World Champion Peter Svidler and
his challenger Levon Aronian, winner of the Chess960 Open of
2003.
You can find additional information about the event on our homepage
www.chesstigers.de.
We hope that you will be able to respond to us quickly.
Best Regards,
Hans-Walter Schmitt
Give us your option or collect signatures in support for
Bobby Fischer :
http://www.chesstigers.de/cc/2004/e/home/artikel_04-07-
29_free_fischer_e.htm
Bobby Fisher rinuncia a cittadinanza USA
Boris Spassky: "Arrestate anche me"
1. L'ultima sfida di Bobby Fischer: «Mai più americano»
2. GIAPPONE: SCACCHISTA FISCHER RINUNCIA A CITTADINANZA USA
3. Fischer renouncing U.S. citizenship
4. BOBI FISER : ZIVOTNI MEC. Intervju sa Dzonom Bosnicem
5. Spassky to Bush: Arrest me!
The Fischer Saga: Farewell to America; Free Fisher in Mainz
6. „Free Bobby Fischer“ on the occasion of the Chess Classic
Mainz 2004
Vedi anche / see also:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3654
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3659
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3685
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3693
http://www.freebobbyfischer.net
=== 1 ===
http://www.liberazione.it/giornale/040807/archdef.asp
Da "Liberazione" del 7 agosto 2004
L'ultima sfida di Bobby Fischer: «Mai più americano»
Scacco all'impero
«Non desidero essere un cittadino americano. Quando è troppo è troppo,
sono un perseguitato politico». Dalla sua cella dell'areoporto di Tokyo
Bobby Fischer, il leggendario ex campione del mondo di scacchi, cerca
una via d'uscita, una mossa che come ai bei tempi metta alle corde il
re avversario.
Per il momento si trova in stato d'arresto: lo hanno fermato quindici
giorni fa i doganieri mentre si stava imbarcando per le Filippine con
un passaporto non valido.
Rischia fino a dieci anni di carcere da scontare sul territorio degli
Stati Uniti, i quali sono in fervida attesa dell'estradizione dal paese
nipponico. I fans, o i semplici ammiratori disseminati in tutto il
mondo sono invece in grande apprensione e sperano che Bobby riesca ad
ottenere quell'agognato asilo politico che Giappone e Filippine gli
hanno finora rifiutato.
Ma il Dipartimento di Stato e l'Fbi (che lo sorveglia da più di 12
anni) vogliono la sua testa, costi quel che costi. Formalmente è
accusato di aver violato l'embargo Onu alla Yugoslavia nel 1992 per
disputare in Montenegro il match di rivincità contro il sovietico Boris
Spassky. Un revival non omologato del celebre incontro disputato a
Reykjavik nel 1972 che fruttò a Fischer, in "pensione" da vent'anni, la
modica cifra di tre milioni di dollari e la tranquillità economica per
il futuro. Al di là del fatto tragicomico che l'amministrazione Bush
accusi un proprio
cittadino di aver violato una direttiva delle Nazioni Unite,
l'accanimento di Washington ha una valenza simbolica, esemplare. Alcuni
mesi dopo 11 settembre 2001, Fischer interruppe infatti anni di
silenzio con un articolo diffuso via internet; una trascrizione di
un'intervista ad una radio di Manila, in cui esprimeva soddisfazione
per gli attentati di Manhattan, congedandosi con un eloquente «Fuck the
U. S». Una provocazione di cattivo gusto, ma pur sempre una
provocazione e non certo un delitto.
Eppure i cacciatori di taglie del governo non la pensano così. Fischer
deve essere estradato, giudicato e condannato. L'onta lavata nel buio
di un penitenziario federale, senza sconti o attenuanti generiche in un
processo di cui già si conosce la sentenza. Poco importa che nel "paese
delle libertà" non esista il reato d'opinione: nell'era della guerra
infinita e del Patriot act le libertà sono solo vigilate e a un
americano non è permesso parlare in questo modo della sua madre patria
impegnata nella crociata contro il feroce Saladino.
Il "rinnegato" Fischer non viveva comunque più da anni negli Stati
Uniti. Dopo la vittoria contro Spassky, avvenuta in piena Guerra Fredda
e quindi cosparsa di prevedibile propaganda, il campione reputò che la
Casa Bianca gli mancò di rispetto non ricevendolo con tutti gli onori.
«Quando ho vinto il campionato del mondo nel '72 l'America era fino a
quel momento era considerata la patria del football e del baseball e
non certo un paese di intellettuali. Io ho cambiato tutto questo. Loro
mi hanno utilizzato nella Guerra Fredda e ora che è finita mi vogliono
arrestare», esclamò nel '92 dopo l'incontro in Montenegro. Negli
anni'80 denunciò di essere stato fermato, interrogato e picchiato dai
federali, episodio che lo spinse a lasciare per sempre l'odiato borgo
natìo. Da allora è stato avvistato a Budapest, poi nelle Filippine da
dove giocava a scacchi on-line sotto pseudonimo, e infine in Giappone,
dove il suo tormentato errare si è concluso al desko di un terminal
areoportuale.
Si è detto e scritto molto riguardo alla controversa personalità di
Fischer, al suo sconfinato talento e al suo panthéon di psicosi;
dichiaratamente antisemita anche se lui stesso ebreo osservante,
maschilista involuto e naif, ma al contempo terrorizzato da qualsiasi
figura femminile (in curioso parallelismo con il filosofo Nietzche).
L'unica donna che frequentò ufficialmente fu infatti la fantomatica
Miss Gremette, una californiana molto più anziana di lui che, secondo
la vulgata psicanalitica, rappresentava l'adorata figura materna.
Quella Regina (sic) Fischer severa poliglotta che i servizi Usa
accusarono addirittura di essere «una spia dei comunisti». Volutamente
sgradevole e immodesto nelle sortite ufiiciali, fuori dalle scacchiere
i suoi colleghi raccontavano, al contrario, di un uomo molto timido,
affabile e cortese con i propri interlocutori. Quando il lettone
Mikhail Tal (l'unico giocatore che Fischer non riuscì mai a battere),
anch'egli ex campione del mondo, si ammalò gravemente, Bobby andava
ogni giorno al suo capezzale per discutere di scacchi, il suo modo di
offrire amorevolmente conforto al rivale.
«Nel gioco degli scacchi ci sono gli eroi e gli antieroi. Fischer è
senza dubbio un eroe» scriveva lo psicologo-giocatore Rueben Fine nel
pregevole La psicologia del giocatore di scacchi (Adelphi) . Gli
antieroi possono raggiungere l'Olimpo dello scacchismo mondiale, ma
come gli eclettici del Rinascimento riescono ad imporsi con successo
anche in altri campi e discipline. Lasker scriveva di filosofia e
teneva una corrispondenza con Einstein, Euwe insegnava la matematica,
Botvinnik era un affermato ingegnere elettronico, Taimanov un
bravissimo violinista. Lo stesso Gary Kasparov passa ormai più tempo a
curare la sua immagine e il suo pingue giro d'affari che a cimentarsi
sulla scacchiera.
Bobby no. Lui pensava, respirava, mangiava, dormiva, viveva solo in
funzione degli scacchi, 24 ore su 24, 365 giorni all'anno. «Non so fare
altro», ha sempre affermato con candore, prestando il fianco alle più
fantasiose speculazioni sulla sua asocialità, sul suo autismo. Ma sul
campo di battaglia delle 64 case era davvero il più bravo di tutti. Fin
dal 1957, quando a soli 14 anni conquistò a mani basse il titolo di
campione degli Stati Uniti, vincendo tutte le partite dell'open contro
gli increduli maestri dello scacchismo d'oltreoceano, ridotti al ruolo
di sparring-partner.
In quale altro destino poteva imbattersi un ragazzino che aveva il più
altro "Qi" mai misurato nella storia moderna e che dedicava tutto il
suo tempo all'arte degli scacchi? L'olandese Elie Agur nell'opera più
completa mai pubblicata sullo stile di Fischer descrive il suo gioco
come «aereo e armonioso», sottolineandone la legerezza, la semplicità e
la chiarezza priva di fronzoli, perfetto contraltare dei suoi
comportamenti stravaganti, dei suoi capricci da prima donna, delle
impossibili e barocche richieste alla Fide (la Federazione scacchistica
mondiale che lo radiò nel 1975 incoronando campione d'ufficio il
sovietico Anatolji Karpov).
Nella kafkiana cella dello scalo di Tokyo in cui oggi Fischer attende
lumi sulla sua sorte, (un po' come lo spielberghiano Tom Hanks del film
The Terminal) si è però aperto uno spiraglio che lascia ben sperare. La
ciambella di salvataggio viene dagli amati Balcani, dove Natasha
Radulovic una nota pittrice serba, si dice disposta persino a sposarlo
per accelerare la richiesta d'asilo: «Se lo merita per quel che ha
fatto per la Serbia e il Montenegro» ha dichiarato l'artista ai
quotidiani locali. Ora si attende la decisione del presidente Filip
Vujanovic, il quale negli scorsi giorni ha fatto capire di essere
pronto ad accogliere il reietto campione. Se così fosse, Bobby avrebbe
vinto anche l'ultima partita, quella più importante. Alla faccia degli
sceriffi federali.
Daniele Zaccaria
=== 2 ===
http://www.ansa.it/fdg02/200408061548160602/200408061548160602.html
GIAPPONE: SCACCHISTA FISCHER RINUNCIA A CITTADINANZA USA
TOKYO - Per scongiurare l'estradizione nel suo paese d'origine, l'ex
campione mondiale di scacchi Bobby Fischer intende ripudiare la propria
nazionalita' statunitense.
Ricercato dagli Stati Uniti per violazione delle sanzioni contro la ex
Jugoslavia e in stato di fermo in Giappone in attesa di espulsione per
possesso di passaporto invalido, Fischer ha deciso di rinunciare alla
cittadinanza americana e di diventare apolide.
Lo ha reso noto il suo avvoccato giapponese, Masako Suzuki, secondo la
quale Fischer, 61 anni, ha telefonato all'ambasciata degli Stati Uniti
a Tokyo, comunicando la sua volonta' di rinuncia alla cittadinanza.
''Tecnicamente Fischer diventera' un apolide. I gruppi che lo
appoggiano in Giappone cercheranno di farlo iscrivere come rifugiato
presso l'Ufficio dell'Alto Commisariato Onu per i rifugiati a Tokyo''
ha precisato l'avvocato.
Fischer, che divenne campione del mondo di scacchi nel 1972 battendo il
detentore del titolo, l'allora sovietico Boris Spassky, sta sfuggendo
alle autorita' americane dal 1992, quando violo' le sanzioni contro la
ex Jugoslavia recandosi nel paese balcanico per un match di rivincita
contro Spassky. Per questo reato, l'estroso scacchista rischia una
condanna fino a dieci anni di carcere.
Arrivato in Giappone lo scorso aprile senza alcun problema con il suo
passaporto americano, l'ex campione del mondo si e' ritrovato a meta'
luglio in una cella dell'aeroporto di Narita mentre cercava di partire
alla volta delle Filippine con lo stesso passaporto, che un solerte
funzionario dell'immigrazione, debitamente avvertito da chi di dovere,
ha trovato illegale in base alle leggi Usa.
Sul caso clamoroso di Fischer in prigione a Tokyo, le autorita' locali
hanno steso una cortina di silenzio. Stampa e tv giapponese ben si
guardano dal parlare della vicenda, l'ufficio immigrazione e' chiuso a
doppia mandata per i cronisti stranieri e nessuno e' disposto a
commentare cio' che trapela dagli ambienti diplomatici, ovvero che il
governo intende estradare Fischer negli Usa.
Di fronte a questa prospettiva assai poco attraente, il campione,
aiutato da tanti amici e dall'associazione di scacchi giapponese, cerca
di guadagnare tempo: ha presentato due ricorsi alle autorita'
giapponesi contro l'ordine di espulsione, entrambi respinti, ed e' in
attesa di risposta ad un terzo appello inoltrato direttamente al
ministro della Giustizia Daizo Nozawa dall'avvocato Suzuki.
L'entourage di Fischer fa sapere che in carcere lo scacchista afferma
di essere trattato ''molto male'' e il presidente del suo comitato di
sostenitori, John Bosnitch, sostiene che molti paesi si sono gia' detti
disponibili a ospitare il campione, se il Giappone decidera' di non
estradarlo negli Usa. L'avvocato Suzuki pero' non si nasconde che
quella che Fischer sta giocando in questo momento e' forse la partita
piu' difficile della sua vita: ''Non e' abituale - ha osservato -
domandare lo statuto di rifugiato contro gli Stati Uniti''.
Il presidente montenegrino, Filip Vujanovic, si e' detto disposto a
offrire asilo politico al campione. Non e' un caso: e' proprio
sull'isola montenegrina di Sveti Stefan, infatti, che Fischer nel '92
gareggio' contro il suo nemico di sempre Boris Spasski, a dispetto
dell'embargo internazionale, intascando per la vittoria 3,35 milioni di
dollari.
06/08/2004 15:48
© Copyright ANSA Tutti i diritti riservati
=== 3 ===
Fischer renouncing U.S. citizenship
August 06, 2004 17:29 IST
http://www.rediff.com/sports/2004/aug/06chess1.htm
Former world chess champion Bobby Fischer, wanted by Washington for
defying sanctions on Yugoslavia, plans to renounce his U.S.
citizenship, a lawyer working his appeal against deportation from Japan
said on Friday.
Fischer, one of the chess world's great eccentrics, was detained at
Tokyo's Narita airport last month when he tried to leave for Manila on
a passport U.S. officials say was invalid.
Japanese immigration officials rejected Fischer's initial appeal
against deportation and his lawyer, Masako Suzuki, has filed a second
plea to Justice Minister Daizo Nozawa.
In a handwritten note made available to the media, Fischer said the
U.S. government and "U.S.-controlled Japanese government, working in
collusion and in a criminal conspiracy, have illegally confiscated and
illegally physically destroyed my perfectly valid in every way U.S.
passport #27792702.
"As a result of the above-stated criminal act, as well as innumerable
other vicious crimes against me by the U.S. government, I no longer
wish to be an American citizen," said the letter, copies of which were
made available to the media.
Suzuki told a news conference that Fischer, 61, would likely become a
stateless person for some period of time and that his supporters would
try to have the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
register him as a refugee.
The renunciation of his U.S. citizenship does not take effect until he
has met a U.S. consular official and conveyed his intent in person, she
said.
Fischer, who arrived in Japan in April, has been wanted in the United
States since 1992 when he violated U.S. economic sanctions by winning
$3 million for beating old rival Boris Spassky in a match in Yugoslavia.
The elusive chessmaster then vanished, only to resurface after the
September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States to give an interview to
Philippine radio in which he praised the strikes and said he wanted to
see America "wiped out".
Fischer has filed for refugee status in Japan and is also in contact
with other countries that might accept him, according to John Bosnitch,
a Tokyo-based Canadian journalist and communications consultant who has
been advising him.
Japan accepts only political refugees. Fischer's supporters in Japan
say he is being persecuted by the United States.
Fischer's supporters say he renewed his passport in 1997 and never
received a letter issued in December 2003 revoking it.
U.S. State Department officials in Washington have said it took years
for the legal process to catch up with Fischer.
Fischer became world chess champion in 1972 when he beat Spassky of the
Soviet Union in a victory seen as a Cold War propaganda coup for the
United States.
The title was taken from him three years later after his conditions for
a match against Anatoly Karpov, also of the Soviet Union, were rejected
by chess officials.
Karpov became champion by default.
=== 4 ===
BOBI FISER : ZIVOTNI MEC
Intervju sa Dzonom Bosnicem
Ceo intervju sa Dzonom Bosnicem :
http://f2.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/pertep
Najveci sahovski majstor svih vremena , koji je Americi 1972. godine
doneo titulu svetskog sampiona, posle nekoliko decenija dominacije
Sovjetskog Saveza, Bobi Fiser, je po nalogu americke vlade pritvoren i
nalazi se u zatvoru na aerodromu Narita kod Tokia. Bobia Fisera su
uhapsile japanske vlasti na aerodromu prilikom izlaska iz zemlje, pod
izgovorom da mu je americki pasos nevazeci.
"Americki pasos s kojim je Bobi Fiser putovao je punovazan. Izdat je
1997. godine u americkom konzularnom predstavnistvu u Svajcarskoj. Cak
je pre osam meseci prosiren sa dvedeset dodatnih stranica.", izjavio
je Dzon Bosnic, osnivac Komiteta za oslobadjanje Bobia Fisera.
"Bobi je tek prilikom hapsenja saznao da su mu americke vlasti, tajnom
odlukom, proglasile pasos nevazecim. Sto samo po sebi predstavlja
krsenje americkog zakona. Do tog trenutka Bobi nikad nije imao problema
sa svojim pasosem, niti je bilo medjunarodnih poternica, naloga ili
zahteva za njegovo izrucenje", rekao je Bosnic.
Bobi je dosao u sukob sa americkim vlastima kad je 1992. godine odlucio
da sahovski mec sa Spaskim odigra u Crnoj Gori i time prekrsi ekonomske
sancije uvedene protiv Srbije i Crne Gore. Tako je Amerika postala prva
zemlja u svetu koja i sahovsku igru, ako joj to odgovara, smatra
nezakonitom.
"Amerikanci su sve vreme pratili Bobia i cekali da dodje u njima
prijateljsku zemlju da bi ga uhapsili."
Zbog ovako nezakonitih postupaka americkih vlasti, Bobi Fiser je
odlucio da se odrekne americkog drzavljanstva i da potrazi utociste u
nekoj drugoj, prijateljskoj zemlji. On ne zeli da se vraca u SAD jer
veruje da je hapsenje politicki motivisano i da bi sudski proces protiv
njega bio farsa.
Komitet za oslobodjenje Bobi Fisera ima tri cilja da Bobia sto pre
oslobode iz zatvora; da mu obezbede pasos ili putni dokument; i da
nadju zemlju koja bi mu pruzila utociste. Gospodin Bosnic, iako srpskog
porekla, nije krio svoje razocarenje zbog nezainteresovanosti vlasti u
Srbiji i Crnoj Gori da pomognu Bobiu Fiseru.
"Americke vlasti su proganjale Bobia od 1992. godine samo zbog toga sto
je imao hrabrosti da kaze da su sankcije protiv Srbije i Crne Gore
nepravedne i nezakonite. Odlucni mec sa Spskim je mogao da odigra u
bilo kojoj drugoj zemlji sveta, ali Bobi je odlucio da ga odigra u
Jugoslaviji. Dobijao je pozive sa svih strana , ali on se odlucio za
Jugoslaviju. A kako mu mi vracamo? Cutnjom i nezaintersovanoscu! Treba
da nas je sve stramota."
Vreme je trenutno najvazniji faktor u trci za iznalazenjem resenja za
izbavljenje Bobia Fisera. Ukoliko ne uspeju da nadju zemlju koja bi mu
pruzila izbeglicko utociste Bobi Fiser bi mogao da bude isporucen
Americi, kaznjen sa deset godina zatvora i znatnom novcanom kaznom.
Ukoliko zelite da kontaktirate Bobia Fisera , kliknite na stranicu:
http://www.freebobbyfischer.net
Boba Borojevic, urednik
Srpski radio program
"Susreti Ponedeljkom"
Otava, Kanada
ckcuboba@...
Ceo intervju sa Dzonom Bosnicem :
http://f2.pg.briefcase.yahoo.com/pertep
=== 5 ===
http://chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1843
Spassky to Bush: Arrest me!
10.08.2004 Boris Spassky, who played the contentious return match
against Bobby Fischer in Yugoslavia 1992, for which the latter is
currently facing deportation and incarceration in the US, has appealed
to President Bush to show mercy and charity for his tormented
successor. If for some reason that should be impossible, Spassky
suggests a very imaginative alternative...
Appeal to President Bush from Boris Spassky
Mr. President,
In 1972 Bobby Fischer became national hero. He smashed me in the match
in Reykjavik. The Soviet chess hegemony collapsed. One man won
against a whole army. Soon after that Fischer stopped playing. He
repeated the sad story of Paul Morphy. At the age of 21, legendary
Paul had beaten all leading European masters and became unofficial
champion. He stopped playing and finished his tragic life at the age
of 47 in New Orleans in 1884.
In 1992, twenty years after Reykjavik, there was a miracle. Bobby
resuscitated and we played a match in Yugoslavia. But at that time
there were sanctions against Yugoslavia forbidding American citizens
any sort of activity on the territory of Yugoslavia. Bobby violated
the instructions of the State Department. He became the subject of a
warrant for arrest issued on December 15, 1992 by the US District
Court. As for me, as a French citizen since 1978, I did not get any
sanctions from the French government.
Since July 13, 2004, Bobby has been detained at Narita airport on
immigration violations. Further events have been described by media.
It is clear that the law is the law. But Fischer’s case is not usual.
I am an old friend of Bobby since 1960 when we played in Mar-del-Plata
and shared 1-2 places. Bobby is a tragic personality. I realized
this at that time. He is an honest and good natured man. Absolutely
not social. He is not adaptable to everybody’s standards of life. He
has a very high sense of justice and is unwilling to compromise as
well as with his own conscience as with surrounding people. He is a
person who is doing almost everything against himself.
I would not like to defend or justify Bobby Fischer. He is what he is.
I am asking only for one thing. For mercy, charity.
If for some reason it is impossible, I would like to ask you the
following: Please correct the mistake of President François
Mitterand in 1992. Bobby and myself committed the same crime. Put
sanctions against me also. Arrest me. And put me in the same cell
with Bobby Fischer. And give us a chess set.
Boris Spassky
10-th Chess World Champion
08.07.2004
The Fischer Saga: Farewell to America
Meanwhile the news is that the greatest hero of American chess no
longer wants to be an American. Having finally hired a lawyer,
Fischer released through her a statement saying, "I no longer wish
to be an American citizen. Enough is enough. I hereby authorize my
attorney Masako Suzuki to contact the U.S. embassy in Tokyo, Japan,
immediately so I can officially renounce my U.S. citizenship at
once."
Fischer's attempt to renounce his US citizenship will not enable him to
escape the charges he is wanted for in the United States. It may,
however, affect his status with the Japanese government. (Slate
Magazine has a handy explanation of how exactly an American can
renounce citizenship.)
Fischer is still in detention in the Narita Airport and is waiting for
the result of his appeal of Japan's rejection to stay his
deportation and to seek asylum in Japan. Technically this could take
up to 60 days, but it is very unlikely to take that long. Another
twist is that Fischer has been offered asylum in Serbia and
Montenegro (the artist formerly known as Yugoslavia).
The case is hitting the editorial pages. The NY Daily News tabloid took
a few shots, calling Fischer a "chess master and famous foaming
maniac" and adds " Swell! So long, Bob! Sayonara!" to the news that
Fischer doesn't want to return to the USA.
Free Fischer in Mainz
The organisers of the Chess Classic in Mainz started a Free
Fischer action, with the main organiser Hans-Walter Schmitt
writing to the The Minister of the Interior (and honorary Chess
Grandmaster) Otto Schily: "We regard what Mr. Fischer has done for
chess and his brilliant ideas on how to develop chess further as
much more important than his mistakes and his unacceptable
remarks in relation to the events of September 11," Schmitt
writes. "We dissociate ourselves from these mistakes and focus
on the chess genius Bobby Fischer.
Bobby Fischer’s biological roots can indeed be connected to
Germany. We would therefore like to ask you to see if there is
anything that you can do for Bobby Fischer using diplomatic channels.
If asylum in Germany can be granted to Bobby Fischer, it would
not be a problem for us to provide permanent housing and
subsistence to him in the Rhein-Main area."
=== 6 ===
http://www.chesstigers.de/cc/2004/e/home/artikel_04-07-
29_free_fischer_e.htm
Free Bobby Fischer
The Minister of the Interior
and honorary Chess Grandmaster
Otto Schily
Platz der Republik 1
D-11011 Berlin
„Free Bobby Fischer“ on the occasion of the Chess Classic
Mainz 2004
Dear Mr. Schily,
as somebody who is very familiar with chess and its history, we would
like to bring to your attention the case of former World Chess
Champion Robert James Fischer. We regard his arrest and
custody in a Japanese prison and the demands of the US for
his deportation due to a violation of the US embargo during
the Kosovo war as excessive.
We would like to point out that to our knowledge, it is not even
certain that Bobby Fischer actually received the money that
was promised to him for playing the match against Boris
Spassky. And even if the US embargo was violated, this does
not constitute a violation of any law of the United States
(the embargo was based on an executive order of the US
president at the time). In addition, Bobby Fischer’s opponent
in this match, Boris Spassky, was not charged with any wrongdoing in
connection with the match. We regard what Mr. Fischer has done
for chess and his brilliant ideas on how to develop chess
further as much more important than his mistakes and his
unacceptable remarks in relation to the events of September
11. We dissociate ourselves from these mistakes and focus on
the chess genius Bobby Fischer.
Bobby Fischer’s biological roots can indeed be connected to Germany.
We would therefore like to ask you to see if there is anything
that you can do for Bobby Fischer using diplomatic channels.
If asylum in Germany can be granted to Bobby Fischer, it
would not be a problem for us to provide permanent housing
and subsistence to him in the Rhein-Main area.
At the Chess Classic in Mainz, we are trying to use the innovation
“Chess960”, which is based on “Fischer Random Chess”,
to create an alternative for people with little time and to combine
this with traditional chess. The challenging goals that we have
set ourselves as the Frankfurt Chess Tigers e.V. are to
bring together the history and the future of chess, and to
combine creativity and media attention with sport and
entertainment. One of the undisputed highlights in the
German tournament scene is the second World Championship in Rapid
Chess960 between current Chess960 World Champion Peter Svidler and
his challenger Levon Aronian, winner of the Chess960 Open of
2003.
You can find additional information about the event on our homepage
www.chesstigers.de.
We hope that you will be able to respond to us quickly.
Best Regards,
Hans-Walter Schmitt
Give us your option or collect signatures in support for
Bobby Fischer :
http://www.chesstigers.de/cc/2004/e/home/artikel_04-07-
29_free_fischer_e.htm
Da: ICDSM Italia
Data: Mar 17 Ago 2004 19:04:41 Europe/Rome
A: i c d s m - i t a l i a @yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] John Laughland and John Steppling
John Laughland and John Steppling
[ Due salaci, interessantissimi articoli sulla violazione del diritto
all'autodifesa di Slobodan Milosevic. Nei quali si sottolinea
soprattutto l'imbarazzato silenzio dei media e di tanti autoproclamati
"difensori dei diritti umani", "paladini del diritto" e militanti della
sinistra internazionalista, i quali sembrano aver perso la parola in
merito a quanto sta accadendo - da ormai quattro anni! - nella galera
di Sheveningen. Ma come: il "processo a Milosevic" non doveva essere
l'occasione per accertare circostanze e responsabilita' sui terribili
crimini commessi in Jugoslavia dal 1991 in poi? E allora, perche'
nessuno lo segue, quel processo?... ]
1. Let Slobo speak for himself (by John Laughland)
2. The Debacle At The Hague (by John Steppling)
---( 1 )---
http://www.spectator.co.uk/
article.php?table=old§ion=current&issue=2004-07-10&id=4796
Let Slobo speak for himself
The Spectator (UK) - July 10, 2004
John Laughland says that the case against Milosevic has all but
collapsed for lack of evidence
For a few hours on Monday, the world’s human rights establishment was
seized by terror. Slobodan Milosevic had been due to begin his defence
at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
in The Hague, but instead discussion focused on the former president’s
fragile health, which has been made worse by the rigours of the trial.
When the presiding judge, Patrick Robinson, said that a ‘radical
review’ of the proceedings would now be necessary, many do-gooders
feared that their worst nightmare was about to be realised — that the
international community’s main trophy in its crusade for morality
might, if only on medical grounds, be allowed to walk free.
Few human rights activists had ever contemplated such an outcome, still
less an acquittal. The presumption of innocence has never counted for
much in the highly politicised world of international humanitarian law.
One war crimes expert, James Gow, said on Channel 4 on Monday that it
would be better if Milosevic died in the dock, because if the trial ran
its course he might be sentenced for only relatively minor charges.
That ought to be awfully embarrassing for those like Gow who have
assured us that he is as guilty as hell. Fortunately for them, the ICTY
is not really in the business of acquittal. As one academic specialist
on the ICTY, Professor Michael Scharf, has noted approvingly, the
ICTY’s rules were designed ‘to minimise the possibility of a charge
being dismissed for lack of evidence’, a sentiment of which the Queen
of Hearts would have been proud.
As it stands, the judges seem poised to impose a defence counsel on
Milosevic. Far from helping him, of course, the intention here is to
weaken his defence by requiring him to be represented by a lawyer who
knows the issues far less well than he does. Such a move would fly in
the face of the judges’ earlier rulings against this idea — and the new
presiding judge himself was, in the past, especially firm that this
would be contrary to the defendant’s rights. It would at least provide
comfort to the beleaguered prosecution. When he is not trying to get
the court to force Milosevic to give up smoking — a certain death
sentence for any Serb — Geoffrey Nice QC, the lead prosecutor, has
repeatedly sought to accomplish this switch, not least because the
two-year prosecution case has been a nearly unmitigated disaster.
Since the trial started in February 2002, the prosecution has wheeled
out more than 100 witnesses, and it has produced 600,000 pages of
evidence. Not a single person has testified that Milosevic ordered war
crimes. Whole swaths of the indictment on Kosovo have been left
unsubstantiated, even though Milosevic’s command responsibility here is
clearest. And when the prosecution did try to substantiate its charges,
the result was often farce. Highlights include the Serbian ‘insider’
who claimed to have worked in the presidential administration but who
did not know what floor Milosevic’s office was on; ‘Arkan’s secretary’,
who turned out to have worked only as a temp for a few months in the
same building as the notorious paramilitary; the testimony of the
former federal prime minister, Ante Markovic, dramatically rumbled by
Milosevic, who produced Markovic’s own diary for the days when he
claimed to have had meetings with him; the Kosovo Albanian peasant who
said he had never heard of the KLA even though there is a monument to
that terrorist organisation in his own village; and the former head of
the Yugoslav secret services, Radomir Markovic, who not only claimed
that he had been tortured by the new democratic government in Belgrade
to testify against his former boss, but who also agreed, under
cross-examination by Milosevic, that no orders had been given to expel
the Kosovo Albanians and that, on the contrary, Milosevic had
instructed the police and army to protect civilians. And these, note,
were the prosecution witnesses.
Serious doubt has also been cast on some of the most famous atrocity
stories. Remember the refrigerator truck whose discovery in the Danube
in 1999, full of bodies, was gleefully reported as Milosevic was
transferred to The Hague in June 2001? The truck had allegedly been
retrieved from the river and then driven to the outskirts of Belgrade,
where its contents were interred in a mass grave. But cross-examination
showed that there is no proof that the bodies exhumed were the ones in
the truck, nor that any of them came from Kosovo. Instead, it is quite
possible that the Batajnica mass grave dated from the second world war,
while the refrigerator truck may have contained Kurds being smuggled to
Western Europe, the victims of a grisly traffic accident. The
realisation is now dawning that lies were peddled to justify the Kosovo
war just as earnestly as they were to justify the attack on Iraq.
The weakness of the prosecution case was underlined by the fact that
its triumphant conclusion in February was to broadcast a TV documentary
made several years ago. This suggests that its two-year marathon has
not served to advance knowledge of the truth beyond the tall stories
peddled by telly hacks at the time. Even professional supporters of the
ICTY now admit that the only ‘proof’ of Milosevic’s guilt has been
General Sir Rupert Smith’s stated ‘impression’ that Milosevic
controlled the Bosnian Serbs, and Paddy Ashdown’s statement that he
‘warned’ the former Yugoslav head of state that war crimes were being
committed in Kosovo. In February, the chief prosecutor herself, Carla
del Ponte, admitted that she did not have enough evidence to convict
Milosevic on the most serious charges.
The supposedly impartial judges have been deeply complicit in this
prosecution bungling. The ICTY has long been characterised by an
unhealthy community of interests between the judges and the
prosecutors; I have myself heard the first president of the ICTY, Judge
Antonio Cassese, boast that he encouraged the prosecutor to issue
indictments against the Bosnian Serb leaders, a statement which should
disqualify him from serving as a judge ever again. In the Milosevic
trial, the judges have admitted a tawdry parade of ‘expert witnesses’
who are not, in fact, witnesses to anything. In Britain, the role of
experts is rightly under the spotlight after the convictions of some
250 parents found guilty of killing their babies have been thrown into
doubt precisely because they relied on this kind of testimony; but in
the ICTY you can be a ‘witness’ without ever having set foot in
Yugoslavia.
Numerous other judicial abuses have been legitimised by the ICTY. The
use of hearsay evidence is now so out of control that people are often
allowed to testify that they heard someone say something about someone
else. It is common for the ICTY to offer reduced sentences (five years
in one case) to men convicted of hideous crimes, mass murder for
instance, if they agree to testify against Milosevic. The use of
anonymous witnesses is now very widespread, as is the frequency of the
‘closed sessions’: a glance at the ICTY transcripts shows pages and
pages blanked out because sensitive issues have been discussed in court
— sensitive, that is, to the security interests of the Great Powers
which control it, the USA in first place. The ICTY’s nadir came last
December, when the former supreme commander of Nato, Wesley Clark,
testified in the Milosevic trial; the court agreed to let the Pentagon
censor its proceedings, and the transcripts were not released until
Washington had given the green light. So much for the ICTY’s
transparency and independence.
Ironically, Slobbo has one objective ally: the British prime minister.
The possibility is now real that a conviction of Milosevic can be
secured only on the widest possible interpretation of the doctrine of
command responsibility: for instance, that he knew about atrocities
committed by the Bosnian Serbs and did nothing to stop them. But if
Milosevic can be convicted for complicity in crimes committed by people
in a foreign country, over whom he had no formal control, how much
greater is the complicity of the British government in crimes committed
by the US in Iraq, a country with which the UK is in an official
coalition? This is not just a cheap political jibe but a serious
judicial conundrum: the UK is a signatory to the new International
Criminal Court, and so Tony Blair is subject to the jurisdiction of the
new Hague-based body whose jurisprudence will be modelled on that of
the ICTY. So if Slobbo goes down for ten years in Scheveningen jail
because of abuses committed by his policemen, then by rights his
cell-mate should, in time, be Tony.
John Laughland’s latest book is Le Tribunal pénal international:
gardien du nouvel ordre mondial, published by François-Xavier de
Guibert, Paris, 2003.
© 2004 The Spectator
Posted for Fair Use only.
---( 2 )---
http://www.swans.com/library/art10/johns03.html
SWANS, Monday, August 16, 2004
The Debacle At The Hague
by John Steppling
(Swans - August 16, 2004) It's interesting to note how most reasonable
people I know accept the duplicity of corporate mainstream media. The
run up to the invasion of Iraq was rightly seen as crass propaganda by
most right thinking humans. However, these same people have a much
harder time questioning the assumptions behind, and the statistics
about, what is happening in the Sudan now, or Rwanda, and especially
what took place in the former Yugoslavia.
Why is this? Well, looking at Yugoslavia, perhaps it's the liberal
tendency to believe Democrats wouldn't really fabricate a crisis, or
create one, or distort all the information about one. They tend to
think a Democrat wouldn't drop tons of Depleted Uranium (DU) tipped
ordnance on a country unless there was a darn good reason for it -- a
reason of humanitarian resonance. The bombing of Belgrade, under Bill
Clinton, and carried out by Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark, is
still widely seen as the way, the only way, to stop the genocide
orchestrated by crazed Serbian killers. Now, I suppose it's time to
look more closely at this word "genocide." The propaganda mill that
Washington drives non-stop has created over the last twenty-some years
a sort of index of buzzwords that it trots out, with appropriate visual
reinforcement, to convince the liberal left (it doesn't have to
convince the right) that sending in the Marines is actually a noble and
compassionate act. Genocide is at the top of this buzzword list. It's a
word that was rarely used after WWII out of a sense for the specialness
of the Holocaust. It has, of late, however been used for almost all
international crises, raising bizarre issues of body counts vs.
varieties of atrocity; the new Olympics of comparative ethical mayhem.
When one needs to focus attention on a particular issue, those running
the show just cry genocide. It is now a shorthand for armchair debate
about intervention (by the colonial West) and about when it should
start; now, or a bit later. In any case, sending in the Marines has
never been, nor will it ever be, a compassionate act. Armies are
created, as are states for that matter, to protect the ruling class and
their interests. The question is always framed with a "how can we stand
by while this happens." sort of formatting (cue visual aids, scene of
refugee camp, hungry children, interview with caring NGO workers). Such
framing creates the atmosphere in which guilt will grow most quickly,
and modern guilt is intimately linked to self-loathing, doubt, and
feelings of alienation. To alleviate this alienation the narcotized
public must be given symbolic acts of compassion and caring... and such
symbolism can be found (in a kind of weird Freudian/Biblical vortex) by
spilling more blood... by symbolic sacrifice in the cloak of
humanitarian intervention. The transgression is erased through the
proof found in the symbolic slaughter. Exploring the underlying causes
of such crises is simply too much work for most citizens. Such is the
modern dysfunctional Empire.
My intention is not to go over the entire history of this complex
region, but to focus on the propaganda surrounding the trial of
Slobodan Milosevic, and especially the current state of his defense and
the collapse of the prosecution's case. I find a great many people who
otherwise might question an illegal institution like the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), willing to accept
this one's dodgy foundations and lack of international credibility
because they have been so convinced of the "evil" of Milosevic. Just a
quick rewind here: Milosevic was kidnapped (illegally, as most kidnaps
are) by Zoran Djindic, former President of Serbia, in exchange for a
promise of one billion in aid (which never came, because the U.S.
decided there was the matter of a debt incurred by Tito that needed to
be made right). Imagine Ariel Sharon being kidnapped -- a genuine
criminal, blood soaked and pathological -- or Henry Kissinger, or John
Negroponte, and carried off to The Hague and tossed in a cell. Imagine
the response of the media. Yet hardly a word of complaint was heard in
the West when Milosevic was snatched. Why? The obvious answer has to do
with the business interests and agenda of the U.S. (and its desire to
further co-opt NATO) to break up the Yugoslav Republic. Since these
same interests control the media, one isn't likely to hear much of a
critique from ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN or FOX, or even The New York Times.
America is a force for good, after all. We only kidnap those who
deserve kidnapping, and Milosevic, by the time he was taken, had been
sufficiently demonized that there seemed little to do except take him
to prison and throw away the key.
The prosecution has spent two years (and called 295 witnesses!) on this
case, and for anyone who has bothered to look hard enough, this
prosecution has utterly failed to prove a single of its accusations.
Neil Clark (in The Guardian), back in February, pointed out that
nothing has been proven and then added, "the nature and extent of the
atrocities themselves have been called into question." I remember CNN
full of the odious Christiane Amanpour (not coincidently the wife of
Albright's errand boy Jamie Rubin, who also not coincidently was Wesley
Clark's assistant during Clark's closed door testimony -- a hearing
that even Milosevic's legal associates were not permitted to attend)
blathering on about how important a trial this was, how international
justice was on the threshold of a great breakthrough, yada yada yada.
Funny, I don't see Christiane, or anyone, talking about this
"important" case anymore. From daily updates to nothing. Why? Again,
the answer lies in the total breakdown of the US/NATO scenario.
Milosevic defended himself, while refusing to acknowledge the
legitimacy of the court. This wasn't how it was supposed to go. The
delusional Carla Del Ponte was possibly, in retrospect for the Empire,
a bad choice to head the prosecution. A dwarfish, churlish, and
unpleasant Swiss woman of seemingly limited intelligence, Del Ponte has
carried on with little prosecutorial skill and even less self-control
when facing a journalist's microphone. Beyond that, the endless list of
witnesses has been revealed (often by deft questioning from Milosevic)
as liars, frauds, and accomplices of US interests. The transcript runs
to 50,000 pages (all materials run to 500,000 pages, and additionally
some 5,000 video cassettes). Milosevic has had to read it all himself
and has been denied visits from family and friends. Even with this head
start the prosecution couldn't mount a coherent case for any of its
charges. Even those who cling to the arguments of journalists like
Timothy Garton Ash, Misha Glenny, or Marlise Simons will be forced to
face the fact that this trial has been a fiasco from its inception.
This, however, brings us to the current situation; now that the
prosecution has rested and that it's Milosevic's turn to defend
himself, the Court is worried (yeah, right) that his health may not
allow him to continue to act as his own counsel. The intention of the
Tribunal is to impose a counsel, to force Milosevic to stop defending
himself. This desperate eleventh-hour measure is a naked reminder, if
any were really needed, of just how far off track this entire
proceeding has gone. The absurdity of using an untreated medical
condition as an excuse to abridge basic rights and silence a defendant
is, possibly, a new low point in modern international law.
Fifty international lawyers have signed a petition sent to the UN
Security General, the Security Council, and the General Assembly
(signed by, among others, Ramsey Clark, USA; Jacques Verges, France;
Sergei Baburin, VP of the Russian Duma; Jitendra Sharma, India; and
drafted by Tiphaine Dickson, Canada). The main thrust is that an
imposition of counsel constitutes a violation of all recognized
judicial rights (and will further aggravate Milosevic's health, rather
than alleviate his medical condition). The International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights, US Supreme Court decisions, and the Rivonia
Trials (where Mandela defended himself!) are cited as precedent. The
right to defend oneself is central to all international law and the
very structure of adversarial justice. In fact, the only precedent for
imposition of counsel can be found in the Star Chamber, which since the
17th century has stood as symbolic of egregious disregard for basic
defendant's rights. The ICTY now resembles nothing so much as Judge Roy
Bean or the inner chambers of Torqemada, such is the devolution of due
process in our era of Empire. The entire process has been tilted to
favor the prosecution -- Milosevic gets only 150 days to prepare his
defense (the prosecution has had at least since 1999 to prepare
material, and from another perspective has had almost ten years) and
has had no access to the media, something which the prosecution has
been playing to endlessly, voicing their perspective and commentary...
including the creepy appearance of Wesley Clark following his censored
testimony. Notwithstanding the obvious bias, the average citizen of the
West (and certainly of the U.S.) would get the impression (as a
Harper's valentine article to The Hague indicated) that the ICTY has
bent over backwards to accommodate Mr. Milosevic. Such distortion is
typical of the new corporate spin that is lapped up by liberals and
conservatives alike. In The London Times of July 31, 2004, in a review
of Chris Stephen's book "Judgement Day: The Trial of Slobodan
Milosevic," Janine Di Giovanni points out that "if Judgement Day were
read with no prior knowledge, it would be possible to believe Milosevic
had already been tried and convicted." Stephen's book is the usual
gloss on this subject. It's telling to note that that other Chalabi,
who now runs the Saddam trial, has put an end (after one preliminary
hearing) to any journalists or media inside the courtroom, fearing no
doubt, exactly what has taken place at the ICTY. Clearly, they have
learned their lesson; simply don't allow any kind of due process and
keep it all secret.
Tiphaine Dickson, an international lawyer practicing before the UN
tribunals since 1997, spoke to me about the steady and Orwellian
deterioration of internationally recognized basic rights by the very
bodies whose stated purpose is to enforce respect for human rights.
"The precedents set by the Rwanda and Yugoslav courts are shocking for
defense lawyers who arrive to defend a client at The Hague or Arusha.
Indictments with little or no evidence, disregard for extradition
procedures, piecemeal disclosure, third hand hearsay, drastically
limited cross examination, and modification of rules by judges in
collaboration with the prosecution as trials go along, not to mention
US pressure to speed up the process; all of it is just par for the
course in these Security Council Institutions. I was once asked by a
journalist why I became a political lawyer. My answer was because these
courts insisted on carrying out political trials."
I can't really speak for exactly why otherwise open-minded people feel
so intractable about this subject. Perhaps it's just the Clinton aspect
to the bombing, or more likely, it's just the infantile response one
has in the face of all authority, and the attendant submission to the
illusion of protection that all authority figures provide. Seeking
consensus is part of this childhood fear, the need for the father
figure to be given respect and from which, in return, one will receive
rational security. The sense of hopelessness most people feel today
makes such submission, such yearning for agreement, seem like (and feel
like) the only choice left. This is how propaganda works. One sees it
in the hysteria for Kerry, even though people know protest was silenced
and protesters were stuck in cages outside Fleet Center, and one sees
it in the refusal to look more deeply at the show trials of figures
like Milosevic, who has become a poster boy (along with Saddam, Castro
and all of FARC) for evil and despotism and, of course, terror (never
mind Islam Karamov of Uzbekistan, for instance, is a boon ally, nor
Colombian President Uribe, our partner in the war on drugs, is and was
a known narco-trafficker). The notion of spreading "our" values lies
behind not just Iraq, but behind the destruction of Yugoslavia as well.
An examination of who profits from these exercises in neo-liberal
do-gooding is rarely taken (Camp Bondsteel was built by Kellogg, Brown
and Root... as a quick example). The American force for good has to go
in and save people by killing more of them. Few question the
assumptions behind buzzwords like Srebrenica or ethnic cleansing (get
Sharon on the phone again, OK?) or mass rape or death squads. Evidence
seems unnecessary and increasingly due process seems simply an
irritant, to be done away with, if at all possible. Presumption of
guilt seems no obstacle to a "fair" trial. From Guantánamo Bay or Abu
Ghraib to The Hague is not such a leap. From the Star Chamber or the
Texas Death House, to the irrationality of Carla Del Ponte, Jeffrey
Nice, or the late Richard May (who died of brain cancer mid-trial) is
also but a small step. Crises occur and few ask for what or who created
them. Just send in the UN, or the Marines, and kick some ass, dump some
munitions, and then call in the World Bank and the IMF. A favorite
argument of the liberal left starts with the opening giveaway that
history not be exhumed, and that one should only ask "what is to be
done now?" As if that is the new reality principle, the new
realpolitik. History is increasingly to be ignored or taken on faith
from State Department memos, and that the difficult and often nearly
impossible task of sifting through the remains of cultures and peoples
and villages is just too complicated and time consuming, and often
(most importantly) yields only partial results. Real history is not
made of the whole-cloth (invented) truisms so beloved by the new
liberal journalists that serve as hagiographers for our Imperial class.
It's as if to question the veracity of major magazines and newspapers;
to question the possible agenda of journalists (clinging to jobs where
the paycheck comes from a corporation with a vested interest in the
matter) is too large a leap -- it threatens too much of the bedrock
trust in societal institutions. Without that trust the sense of our
place and role would be threatened, and without that sense, people tend
to reach psychic fail-safe.
The script for the ICTY was to blame Serbian aggression for the wars in
the Balkans. The Serbs must then accept guilt and voilà, history will
be re-written to accommodate the US strategic and business interests.
The destruction of legality evident at the ICTY is important for other
reasons as well. If such kangaroo courts are given credibility and
accepted, then one can pretty well expect a similar erosion of due
process when the courts are prosecuting junkies and homeless people,
black teenagers and Latino gang members. They can all expect to have to
adhere to even more stringent standards of innocence, while Poindexter,
Negroponte or Elliot Abrams can continue to find work in high places
and sleep comfortable in the knowledge that their privileges are
guaranteed. The same folks who lied about WMD previously lied about
Yugoslavia. The National Endowment for Democracy and the co-opted US
media trotted out all manner of myth and fiction, most now roundly
discredited, and yet those myths stuck. Everything from disguising the
identity of the narco-gangsters of the KLA as plucky freedom fighting
underdogs (with help from Paul Wolfowitz and the Balkan Action Council,
and Bob Dole, for whom Albanian-Americans raised over a million dollars
to assist his election campaign -- Diana Johnstone is particularly good
on this subject), to the negative labeling of Milosevic as a
hyper-Nationalist (we all know Bush and Kerry are nothing of the sort)
and a fascist. All managed to find traction in the popular
consciousness on the Balkans. The fundamental illegality and outright
criminality of The Hague is obvious even if one insists on buying into
the rest of the US story on Milosevic. At the very least I would hope
the naked and blatant lack of fairness involved at the ICTY will be
acknowledged, for it is the starting point for a re-examination of this
entire shabby chunk of revisionist history. I hope that at the least,
the biases and contradictions of the jingoistic press will be
denounced; for to continue to accept the glaring lack of impartiality
of this Tribunal, and its coverage, is to accept another step in the
police state's death grip on our existence.
• • • • • •
John Steppling is a LA playwright (Rockefeller fellow, NEA recipient,
and PEN-West winner) and screenwriter (most recent was Animal Factory
directed by Steve Buscemi). He is currently living in Poland where he
teaches at the National Film School in Lodz.
Please, feel free to insert a link to this work on your Web site or to
disseminate its URL on your favorite lists, quoting the first paragraph
or providing a summary. However, please DO NOT steal, scavenge or
repost this work on the Web without the expressed written authorization
of Swans. This material is copyrighted, © John Steppling 2004. All
rights reserved.
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
Data: Mar 17 Ago 2004 19:04:41 Europe/Rome
A: i c d s m - i t a l i a @yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] John Laughland and John Steppling
John Laughland and John Steppling
[ Due salaci, interessantissimi articoli sulla violazione del diritto
all'autodifesa di Slobodan Milosevic. Nei quali si sottolinea
soprattutto l'imbarazzato silenzio dei media e di tanti autoproclamati
"difensori dei diritti umani", "paladini del diritto" e militanti della
sinistra internazionalista, i quali sembrano aver perso la parola in
merito a quanto sta accadendo - da ormai quattro anni! - nella galera
di Sheveningen. Ma come: il "processo a Milosevic" non doveva essere
l'occasione per accertare circostanze e responsabilita' sui terribili
crimini commessi in Jugoslavia dal 1991 in poi? E allora, perche'
nessuno lo segue, quel processo?... ]
1. Let Slobo speak for himself (by John Laughland)
2. The Debacle At The Hague (by John Steppling)
---( 1 )---
http://www.spectator.co.uk/
article.php?table=old§ion=current&issue=2004-07-10&id=4796
Let Slobo speak for himself
The Spectator (UK) - July 10, 2004
John Laughland says that the case against Milosevic has all but
collapsed for lack of evidence
For a few hours on Monday, the world’s human rights establishment was
seized by terror. Slobodan Milosevic had been due to begin his defence
at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
in The Hague, but instead discussion focused on the former president’s
fragile health, which has been made worse by the rigours of the trial.
When the presiding judge, Patrick Robinson, said that a ‘radical
review’ of the proceedings would now be necessary, many do-gooders
feared that their worst nightmare was about to be realised — that the
international community’s main trophy in its crusade for morality
might, if only on medical grounds, be allowed to walk free.
Few human rights activists had ever contemplated such an outcome, still
less an acquittal. The presumption of innocence has never counted for
much in the highly politicised world of international humanitarian law.
One war crimes expert, James Gow, said on Channel 4 on Monday that it
would be better if Milosevic died in the dock, because if the trial ran
its course he might be sentenced for only relatively minor charges.
That ought to be awfully embarrassing for those like Gow who have
assured us that he is as guilty as hell. Fortunately for them, the ICTY
is not really in the business of acquittal. As one academic specialist
on the ICTY, Professor Michael Scharf, has noted approvingly, the
ICTY’s rules were designed ‘to minimise the possibility of a charge
being dismissed for lack of evidence’, a sentiment of which the Queen
of Hearts would have been proud.
As it stands, the judges seem poised to impose a defence counsel on
Milosevic. Far from helping him, of course, the intention here is to
weaken his defence by requiring him to be represented by a lawyer who
knows the issues far less well than he does. Such a move would fly in
the face of the judges’ earlier rulings against this idea — and the new
presiding judge himself was, in the past, especially firm that this
would be contrary to the defendant’s rights. It would at least provide
comfort to the beleaguered prosecution. When he is not trying to get
the court to force Milosevic to give up smoking — a certain death
sentence for any Serb — Geoffrey Nice QC, the lead prosecutor, has
repeatedly sought to accomplish this switch, not least because the
two-year prosecution case has been a nearly unmitigated disaster.
Since the trial started in February 2002, the prosecution has wheeled
out more than 100 witnesses, and it has produced 600,000 pages of
evidence. Not a single person has testified that Milosevic ordered war
crimes. Whole swaths of the indictment on Kosovo have been left
unsubstantiated, even though Milosevic’s command responsibility here is
clearest. And when the prosecution did try to substantiate its charges,
the result was often farce. Highlights include the Serbian ‘insider’
who claimed to have worked in the presidential administration but who
did not know what floor Milosevic’s office was on; ‘Arkan’s secretary’,
who turned out to have worked only as a temp for a few months in the
same building as the notorious paramilitary; the testimony of the
former federal prime minister, Ante Markovic, dramatically rumbled by
Milosevic, who produced Markovic’s own diary for the days when he
claimed to have had meetings with him; the Kosovo Albanian peasant who
said he had never heard of the KLA even though there is a monument to
that terrorist organisation in his own village; and the former head of
the Yugoslav secret services, Radomir Markovic, who not only claimed
that he had been tortured by the new democratic government in Belgrade
to testify against his former boss, but who also agreed, under
cross-examination by Milosevic, that no orders had been given to expel
the Kosovo Albanians and that, on the contrary, Milosevic had
instructed the police and army to protect civilians. And these, note,
were the prosecution witnesses.
Serious doubt has also been cast on some of the most famous atrocity
stories. Remember the refrigerator truck whose discovery in the Danube
in 1999, full of bodies, was gleefully reported as Milosevic was
transferred to The Hague in June 2001? The truck had allegedly been
retrieved from the river and then driven to the outskirts of Belgrade,
where its contents were interred in a mass grave. But cross-examination
showed that there is no proof that the bodies exhumed were the ones in
the truck, nor that any of them came from Kosovo. Instead, it is quite
possible that the Batajnica mass grave dated from the second world war,
while the refrigerator truck may have contained Kurds being smuggled to
Western Europe, the victims of a grisly traffic accident. The
realisation is now dawning that lies were peddled to justify the Kosovo
war just as earnestly as they were to justify the attack on Iraq.
The weakness of the prosecution case was underlined by the fact that
its triumphant conclusion in February was to broadcast a TV documentary
made several years ago. This suggests that its two-year marathon has
not served to advance knowledge of the truth beyond the tall stories
peddled by telly hacks at the time. Even professional supporters of the
ICTY now admit that the only ‘proof’ of Milosevic’s guilt has been
General Sir Rupert Smith’s stated ‘impression’ that Milosevic
controlled the Bosnian Serbs, and Paddy Ashdown’s statement that he
‘warned’ the former Yugoslav head of state that war crimes were being
committed in Kosovo. In February, the chief prosecutor herself, Carla
del Ponte, admitted that she did not have enough evidence to convict
Milosevic on the most serious charges.
The supposedly impartial judges have been deeply complicit in this
prosecution bungling. The ICTY has long been characterised by an
unhealthy community of interests between the judges and the
prosecutors; I have myself heard the first president of the ICTY, Judge
Antonio Cassese, boast that he encouraged the prosecutor to issue
indictments against the Bosnian Serb leaders, a statement which should
disqualify him from serving as a judge ever again. In the Milosevic
trial, the judges have admitted a tawdry parade of ‘expert witnesses’
who are not, in fact, witnesses to anything. In Britain, the role of
experts is rightly under the spotlight after the convictions of some
250 parents found guilty of killing their babies have been thrown into
doubt precisely because they relied on this kind of testimony; but in
the ICTY you can be a ‘witness’ without ever having set foot in
Yugoslavia.
Numerous other judicial abuses have been legitimised by the ICTY. The
use of hearsay evidence is now so out of control that people are often
allowed to testify that they heard someone say something about someone
else. It is common for the ICTY to offer reduced sentences (five years
in one case) to men convicted of hideous crimes, mass murder for
instance, if they agree to testify against Milosevic. The use of
anonymous witnesses is now very widespread, as is the frequency of the
‘closed sessions’: a glance at the ICTY transcripts shows pages and
pages blanked out because sensitive issues have been discussed in court
— sensitive, that is, to the security interests of the Great Powers
which control it, the USA in first place. The ICTY’s nadir came last
December, when the former supreme commander of Nato, Wesley Clark,
testified in the Milosevic trial; the court agreed to let the Pentagon
censor its proceedings, and the transcripts were not released until
Washington had given the green light. So much for the ICTY’s
transparency and independence.
Ironically, Slobbo has one objective ally: the British prime minister.
The possibility is now real that a conviction of Milosevic can be
secured only on the widest possible interpretation of the doctrine of
command responsibility: for instance, that he knew about atrocities
committed by the Bosnian Serbs and did nothing to stop them. But if
Milosevic can be convicted for complicity in crimes committed by people
in a foreign country, over whom he had no formal control, how much
greater is the complicity of the British government in crimes committed
by the US in Iraq, a country with which the UK is in an official
coalition? This is not just a cheap political jibe but a serious
judicial conundrum: the UK is a signatory to the new International
Criminal Court, and so Tony Blair is subject to the jurisdiction of the
new Hague-based body whose jurisprudence will be modelled on that of
the ICTY. So if Slobbo goes down for ten years in Scheveningen jail
because of abuses committed by his policemen, then by rights his
cell-mate should, in time, be Tony.
John Laughland’s latest book is Le Tribunal pénal international:
gardien du nouvel ordre mondial, published by François-Xavier de
Guibert, Paris, 2003.
© 2004 The Spectator
Posted for Fair Use only.
---( 2 )---
http://www.swans.com/library/art10/johns03.html
SWANS, Monday, August 16, 2004
The Debacle At The Hague
by John Steppling
(Swans - August 16, 2004) It's interesting to note how most reasonable
people I know accept the duplicity of corporate mainstream media. The
run up to the invasion of Iraq was rightly seen as crass propaganda by
most right thinking humans. However, these same people have a much
harder time questioning the assumptions behind, and the statistics
about, what is happening in the Sudan now, or Rwanda, and especially
what took place in the former Yugoslavia.
Why is this? Well, looking at Yugoslavia, perhaps it's the liberal
tendency to believe Democrats wouldn't really fabricate a crisis, or
create one, or distort all the information about one. They tend to
think a Democrat wouldn't drop tons of Depleted Uranium (DU) tipped
ordnance on a country unless there was a darn good reason for it -- a
reason of humanitarian resonance. The bombing of Belgrade, under Bill
Clinton, and carried out by Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark, is
still widely seen as the way, the only way, to stop the genocide
orchestrated by crazed Serbian killers. Now, I suppose it's time to
look more closely at this word "genocide." The propaganda mill that
Washington drives non-stop has created over the last twenty-some years
a sort of index of buzzwords that it trots out, with appropriate visual
reinforcement, to convince the liberal left (it doesn't have to
convince the right) that sending in the Marines is actually a noble and
compassionate act. Genocide is at the top of this buzzword list. It's a
word that was rarely used after WWII out of a sense for the specialness
of the Holocaust. It has, of late, however been used for almost all
international crises, raising bizarre issues of body counts vs.
varieties of atrocity; the new Olympics of comparative ethical mayhem.
When one needs to focus attention on a particular issue, those running
the show just cry genocide. It is now a shorthand for armchair debate
about intervention (by the colonial West) and about when it should
start; now, or a bit later. In any case, sending in the Marines has
never been, nor will it ever be, a compassionate act. Armies are
created, as are states for that matter, to protect the ruling class and
their interests. The question is always framed with a "how can we stand
by while this happens." sort of formatting (cue visual aids, scene of
refugee camp, hungry children, interview with caring NGO workers). Such
framing creates the atmosphere in which guilt will grow most quickly,
and modern guilt is intimately linked to self-loathing, doubt, and
feelings of alienation. To alleviate this alienation the narcotized
public must be given symbolic acts of compassion and caring... and such
symbolism can be found (in a kind of weird Freudian/Biblical vortex) by
spilling more blood... by symbolic sacrifice in the cloak of
humanitarian intervention. The transgression is erased through the
proof found in the symbolic slaughter. Exploring the underlying causes
of such crises is simply too much work for most citizens. Such is the
modern dysfunctional Empire.
My intention is not to go over the entire history of this complex
region, but to focus on the propaganda surrounding the trial of
Slobodan Milosevic, and especially the current state of his defense and
the collapse of the prosecution's case. I find a great many people who
otherwise might question an illegal institution like the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), willing to accept
this one's dodgy foundations and lack of international credibility
because they have been so convinced of the "evil" of Milosevic. Just a
quick rewind here: Milosevic was kidnapped (illegally, as most kidnaps
are) by Zoran Djindic, former President of Serbia, in exchange for a
promise of one billion in aid (which never came, because the U.S.
decided there was the matter of a debt incurred by Tito that needed to
be made right). Imagine Ariel Sharon being kidnapped -- a genuine
criminal, blood soaked and pathological -- or Henry Kissinger, or John
Negroponte, and carried off to The Hague and tossed in a cell. Imagine
the response of the media. Yet hardly a word of complaint was heard in
the West when Milosevic was snatched. Why? The obvious answer has to do
with the business interests and agenda of the U.S. (and its desire to
further co-opt NATO) to break up the Yugoslav Republic. Since these
same interests control the media, one isn't likely to hear much of a
critique from ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN or FOX, or even The New York Times.
America is a force for good, after all. We only kidnap those who
deserve kidnapping, and Milosevic, by the time he was taken, had been
sufficiently demonized that there seemed little to do except take him
to prison and throw away the key.
The prosecution has spent two years (and called 295 witnesses!) on this
case, and for anyone who has bothered to look hard enough, this
prosecution has utterly failed to prove a single of its accusations.
Neil Clark (in The Guardian), back in February, pointed out that
nothing has been proven and then added, "the nature and extent of the
atrocities themselves have been called into question." I remember CNN
full of the odious Christiane Amanpour (not coincidently the wife of
Albright's errand boy Jamie Rubin, who also not coincidently was Wesley
Clark's assistant during Clark's closed door testimony -- a hearing
that even Milosevic's legal associates were not permitted to attend)
blathering on about how important a trial this was, how international
justice was on the threshold of a great breakthrough, yada yada yada.
Funny, I don't see Christiane, or anyone, talking about this
"important" case anymore. From daily updates to nothing. Why? Again,
the answer lies in the total breakdown of the US/NATO scenario.
Milosevic defended himself, while refusing to acknowledge the
legitimacy of the court. This wasn't how it was supposed to go. The
delusional Carla Del Ponte was possibly, in retrospect for the Empire,
a bad choice to head the prosecution. A dwarfish, churlish, and
unpleasant Swiss woman of seemingly limited intelligence, Del Ponte has
carried on with little prosecutorial skill and even less self-control
when facing a journalist's microphone. Beyond that, the endless list of
witnesses has been revealed (often by deft questioning from Milosevic)
as liars, frauds, and accomplices of US interests. The transcript runs
to 50,000 pages (all materials run to 500,000 pages, and additionally
some 5,000 video cassettes). Milosevic has had to read it all himself
and has been denied visits from family and friends. Even with this head
start the prosecution couldn't mount a coherent case for any of its
charges. Even those who cling to the arguments of journalists like
Timothy Garton Ash, Misha Glenny, or Marlise Simons will be forced to
face the fact that this trial has been a fiasco from its inception.
This, however, brings us to the current situation; now that the
prosecution has rested and that it's Milosevic's turn to defend
himself, the Court is worried (yeah, right) that his health may not
allow him to continue to act as his own counsel. The intention of the
Tribunal is to impose a counsel, to force Milosevic to stop defending
himself. This desperate eleventh-hour measure is a naked reminder, if
any were really needed, of just how far off track this entire
proceeding has gone. The absurdity of using an untreated medical
condition as an excuse to abridge basic rights and silence a defendant
is, possibly, a new low point in modern international law.
Fifty international lawyers have signed a petition sent to the UN
Security General, the Security Council, and the General Assembly
(signed by, among others, Ramsey Clark, USA; Jacques Verges, France;
Sergei Baburin, VP of the Russian Duma; Jitendra Sharma, India; and
drafted by Tiphaine Dickson, Canada). The main thrust is that an
imposition of counsel constitutes a violation of all recognized
judicial rights (and will further aggravate Milosevic's health, rather
than alleviate his medical condition). The International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights, US Supreme Court decisions, and the Rivonia
Trials (where Mandela defended himself!) are cited as precedent. The
right to defend oneself is central to all international law and the
very structure of adversarial justice. In fact, the only precedent for
imposition of counsel can be found in the Star Chamber, which since the
17th century has stood as symbolic of egregious disregard for basic
defendant's rights. The ICTY now resembles nothing so much as Judge Roy
Bean or the inner chambers of Torqemada, such is the devolution of due
process in our era of Empire. The entire process has been tilted to
favor the prosecution -- Milosevic gets only 150 days to prepare his
defense (the prosecution has had at least since 1999 to prepare
material, and from another perspective has had almost ten years) and
has had no access to the media, something which the prosecution has
been playing to endlessly, voicing their perspective and commentary...
including the creepy appearance of Wesley Clark following his censored
testimony. Notwithstanding the obvious bias, the average citizen of the
West (and certainly of the U.S.) would get the impression (as a
Harper's valentine article to The Hague indicated) that the ICTY has
bent over backwards to accommodate Mr. Milosevic. Such distortion is
typical of the new corporate spin that is lapped up by liberals and
conservatives alike. In The London Times of July 31, 2004, in a review
of Chris Stephen's book "Judgement Day: The Trial of Slobodan
Milosevic," Janine Di Giovanni points out that "if Judgement Day were
read with no prior knowledge, it would be possible to believe Milosevic
had already been tried and convicted." Stephen's book is the usual
gloss on this subject. It's telling to note that that other Chalabi,
who now runs the Saddam trial, has put an end (after one preliminary
hearing) to any journalists or media inside the courtroom, fearing no
doubt, exactly what has taken place at the ICTY. Clearly, they have
learned their lesson; simply don't allow any kind of due process and
keep it all secret.
Tiphaine Dickson, an international lawyer practicing before the UN
tribunals since 1997, spoke to me about the steady and Orwellian
deterioration of internationally recognized basic rights by the very
bodies whose stated purpose is to enforce respect for human rights.
"The precedents set by the Rwanda and Yugoslav courts are shocking for
defense lawyers who arrive to defend a client at The Hague or Arusha.
Indictments with little or no evidence, disregard for extradition
procedures, piecemeal disclosure, third hand hearsay, drastically
limited cross examination, and modification of rules by judges in
collaboration with the prosecution as trials go along, not to mention
US pressure to speed up the process; all of it is just par for the
course in these Security Council Institutions. I was once asked by a
journalist why I became a political lawyer. My answer was because these
courts insisted on carrying out political trials."
I can't really speak for exactly why otherwise open-minded people feel
so intractable about this subject. Perhaps it's just the Clinton aspect
to the bombing, or more likely, it's just the infantile response one
has in the face of all authority, and the attendant submission to the
illusion of protection that all authority figures provide. Seeking
consensus is part of this childhood fear, the need for the father
figure to be given respect and from which, in return, one will receive
rational security. The sense of hopelessness most people feel today
makes such submission, such yearning for agreement, seem like (and feel
like) the only choice left. This is how propaganda works. One sees it
in the hysteria for Kerry, even though people know protest was silenced
and protesters were stuck in cages outside Fleet Center, and one sees
it in the refusal to look more deeply at the show trials of figures
like Milosevic, who has become a poster boy (along with Saddam, Castro
and all of FARC) for evil and despotism and, of course, terror (never
mind Islam Karamov of Uzbekistan, for instance, is a boon ally, nor
Colombian President Uribe, our partner in the war on drugs, is and was
a known narco-trafficker). The notion of spreading "our" values lies
behind not just Iraq, but behind the destruction of Yugoslavia as well.
An examination of who profits from these exercises in neo-liberal
do-gooding is rarely taken (Camp Bondsteel was built by Kellogg, Brown
and Root... as a quick example). The American force for good has to go
in and save people by killing more of them. Few question the
assumptions behind buzzwords like Srebrenica or ethnic cleansing (get
Sharon on the phone again, OK?) or mass rape or death squads. Evidence
seems unnecessary and increasingly due process seems simply an
irritant, to be done away with, if at all possible. Presumption of
guilt seems no obstacle to a "fair" trial. From Guantánamo Bay or Abu
Ghraib to The Hague is not such a leap. From the Star Chamber or the
Texas Death House, to the irrationality of Carla Del Ponte, Jeffrey
Nice, or the late Richard May (who died of brain cancer mid-trial) is
also but a small step. Crises occur and few ask for what or who created
them. Just send in the UN, or the Marines, and kick some ass, dump some
munitions, and then call in the World Bank and the IMF. A favorite
argument of the liberal left starts with the opening giveaway that
history not be exhumed, and that one should only ask "what is to be
done now?" As if that is the new reality principle, the new
realpolitik. History is increasingly to be ignored or taken on faith
from State Department memos, and that the difficult and often nearly
impossible task of sifting through the remains of cultures and peoples
and villages is just too complicated and time consuming, and often
(most importantly) yields only partial results. Real history is not
made of the whole-cloth (invented) truisms so beloved by the new
liberal journalists that serve as hagiographers for our Imperial class.
It's as if to question the veracity of major magazines and newspapers;
to question the possible agenda of journalists (clinging to jobs where
the paycheck comes from a corporation with a vested interest in the
matter) is too large a leap -- it threatens too much of the bedrock
trust in societal institutions. Without that trust the sense of our
place and role would be threatened, and without that sense, people tend
to reach psychic fail-safe.
The script for the ICTY was to blame Serbian aggression for the wars in
the Balkans. The Serbs must then accept guilt and voilà, history will
be re-written to accommodate the US strategic and business interests.
The destruction of legality evident at the ICTY is important for other
reasons as well. If such kangaroo courts are given credibility and
accepted, then one can pretty well expect a similar erosion of due
process when the courts are prosecuting junkies and homeless people,
black teenagers and Latino gang members. They can all expect to have to
adhere to even more stringent standards of innocence, while Poindexter,
Negroponte or Elliot Abrams can continue to find work in high places
and sleep comfortable in the knowledge that their privileges are
guaranteed. The same folks who lied about WMD previously lied about
Yugoslavia. The National Endowment for Democracy and the co-opted US
media trotted out all manner of myth and fiction, most now roundly
discredited, and yet those myths stuck. Everything from disguising the
identity of the narco-gangsters of the KLA as plucky freedom fighting
underdogs (with help from Paul Wolfowitz and the Balkan Action Council,
and Bob Dole, for whom Albanian-Americans raised over a million dollars
to assist his election campaign -- Diana Johnstone is particularly good
on this subject), to the negative labeling of Milosevic as a
hyper-Nationalist (we all know Bush and Kerry are nothing of the sort)
and a fascist. All managed to find traction in the popular
consciousness on the Balkans. The fundamental illegality and outright
criminality of The Hague is obvious even if one insists on buying into
the rest of the US story on Milosevic. At the very least I would hope
the naked and blatant lack of fairness involved at the ICTY will be
acknowledged, for it is the starting point for a re-examination of this
entire shabby chunk of revisionist history. I hope that at the least,
the biases and contradictions of the jingoistic press will be
denounced; for to continue to accept the glaring lack of impartiality
of this Tribunal, and its coverage, is to accept another step in the
police state's death grip on our existence.
• • • • • •
John Steppling is a LA playwright (Rockefeller fellow, NEA recipient,
and PEN-West winner) and screenwriter (most recent was Animal Factory
directed by Steve Buscemi). He is currently living in Poland where he
teaches at the National Film School in Lodz.
Please, feel free to insert a link to this work on your Web site or to
disseminate its URL on your favorite lists, quoting the first paragraph
or providing a summary. However, please DO NOT steal, scavenge or
repost this work on the Web without the expressed written authorization
of Swans. This material is copyrighted, © John Steppling 2004. All
rights reserved.
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
After anti-yugoslav war, Zenica steelwork 92 per cent in the hands of
foreign capitalists
[ Le importanti acciaierie di Zenica, in Bosnia-Erzegovina, sono oggi
"finalmente" nelle mani del capitale straniero (51% agli inglesi della
LNM, il secondo monopolio piu' grande del mondo, 41% ai kuwaitiani
della KIA, e solo il restante 8% nelle mani del cosiddetto "Stato".
Ecco a che cosa e' servita la "guerra per l'indipendenza" di
Izetbegovic, ed ecco perche' l'Occidente l'ha calorosamente
appoggiata... Sull'argomento vedi anche:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3640 ]
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040816/bs_afp/
bosnia_steel_company_040816215134
Business - AFP
LNM Holdings buys majority stake in Bosnia's biggest steelworks
Mon Aug 16, 5:51 PM ET
ZENICA, Bosnia-Hercegovina (AFP) - The world's second-largest steel
producer, LNM Holdings, bought a 51-percent stake in Bosnia's biggest
steelworks, BH Steel, for 80 million dollars (65 million euros).
Under the deal signed here by the LNM head, India-born Lakshmi Mittal,
and Bosnia's Muslim-Croat entity's Prime Minister Ahmed Hadzipasic, the
group is to invest at least another 135 million dollars over the next
ten years in modernizing the work process.
It is the biggest single investment in Bosnia following the 1992-95 war
that ruined the Balkans country's communist-style economy.
LNM Holdings was selected in June for negotiations on the purchase,
after the owners rejected another bid submitted by ISPAT Group of India.
LNM is obliged to activate integral production of the steelworks until
the 2007 raising it from the current 150,000 tonnes of steel per year
to between two and 2.5 million tonnes.
The group is to keep all 2,850 BH Steel workers, and plans to increase
the number of employees to 4,000 or 4,500 over the next few years.
BH Steel was set up in 1999 as a joint venture owned by the government
of Bosnia's Muslim-Croat part and The Kuwaiti Investment Agency (KIA).
KIA, which has invested 95 million dollars (75 million euros) in BH
Steel, is to keep 41-percent stake in the company, while the remaining
eight percent will remain in the hands of the goverment.
The steelworks, located in the central town of Zenica, was the main
producer in the former Yugoslavia, but it was devastated during the
country's war.
In April this year, LNM bought a majority stake in the Ljubija iron
mine in the northwest of the country, for 15.1 million dollars.
The mine is planning to produce one million tonnes of iron ore in 2005
and 1.5 million tonnes in 2006, which would be further processed by the
BH steel.
LNM has assets producing about 14 million tonnes of iron in central and
eastern Europe, including acquired operations in the Czech Republic,
Poland, Romania and Macedonia.
foreign capitalists
[ Le importanti acciaierie di Zenica, in Bosnia-Erzegovina, sono oggi
"finalmente" nelle mani del capitale straniero (51% agli inglesi della
LNM, il secondo monopolio piu' grande del mondo, 41% ai kuwaitiani
della KIA, e solo il restante 8% nelle mani del cosiddetto "Stato".
Ecco a che cosa e' servita la "guerra per l'indipendenza" di
Izetbegovic, ed ecco perche' l'Occidente l'ha calorosamente
appoggiata... Sull'argomento vedi anche:
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3640 ]
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040816/bs_afp/
bosnia_steel_company_040816215134
Business - AFP
LNM Holdings buys majority stake in Bosnia's biggest steelworks
Mon Aug 16, 5:51 PM ET
ZENICA, Bosnia-Hercegovina (AFP) - The world's second-largest steel
producer, LNM Holdings, bought a 51-percent stake in Bosnia's biggest
steelworks, BH Steel, for 80 million dollars (65 million euros).
Under the deal signed here by the LNM head, India-born Lakshmi Mittal,
and Bosnia's Muslim-Croat entity's Prime Minister Ahmed Hadzipasic, the
group is to invest at least another 135 million dollars over the next
ten years in modernizing the work process.
It is the biggest single investment in Bosnia following the 1992-95 war
that ruined the Balkans country's communist-style economy.
LNM Holdings was selected in June for negotiations on the purchase,
after the owners rejected another bid submitted by ISPAT Group of India.
LNM is obliged to activate integral production of the steelworks until
the 2007 raising it from the current 150,000 tonnes of steel per year
to between two and 2.5 million tonnes.
The group is to keep all 2,850 BH Steel workers, and plans to increase
the number of employees to 4,000 or 4,500 over the next few years.
BH Steel was set up in 1999 as a joint venture owned by the government
of Bosnia's Muslim-Croat part and The Kuwaiti Investment Agency (KIA).
KIA, which has invested 95 million dollars (75 million euros) in BH
Steel, is to keep 41-percent stake in the company, while the remaining
eight percent will remain in the hands of the goverment.
The steelworks, located in the central town of Zenica, was the main
producer in the former Yugoslavia, but it was devastated during the
country's war.
In April this year, LNM bought a majority stake in the Ljubija iron
mine in the northwest of the country, for 15.1 million dollars.
The mine is planning to produce one million tonnes of iron ore in 2005
and 1.5 million tonnes in 2006, which would be further processed by the
BH steel.
LNM has assets producing about 14 million tonnes of iron in central and
eastern Europe, including acquired operations in the Czech Republic,
Poland, Romania and Macedonia.
Source: <alerte_otan @ yahoogroupes.fr>
1. L'état désolé des droits de l'homme au Kosovo (Beta 12/7)
2. Plan pour le Kosovo à l'agenda de l'UE (Beta 12/7)
3. L'OTAN et les Nations unies n'ont pas su protéger les minorités au
Kosovo, selon Human Rights Watch (AP 26/7)
4. "Voyage d'inspection citoyenne" au Kosovo : premiers jours (13 août
2004)
5. Un nouveau responsable de l'Onu au Kosovo
(NOUVELOBS.COM, 16.08.04)
=== 1 ===
Beta, 12 juillet 2004
L'état désolé des droits de l'homme au Kosovo
L'ombudsman pour le Kosovo Marek Anthony Novicki a déclaré que l'état
des droits de l'homme au Kosovo était en dessous de tous les standards
minimaux
Selon Novicki, c'est particulièrement vrai pour les non albanais vivant
dans la région.
«Même après 5 années d'occupation par les organisations
internationales, les droits fondamentaux à vivre, à travailler et à se
déplacer librement, ne sont toujours pas garantis pour les Serbes et
les Roms» a-t-il dit lors d'une conférence de presse à Pristina.
Il estime que la raison de cela, c'était la corruption largement
répandue à l'intérieure des institutions du Kosovo, et le fait qu'un
petit nombre d'individus avaient la plus grande partie du pouvoir dans
cette région.
Novicki a également déclaré que de plus en plus de gens quittaient le
Kosovo depuis les émeutes de mars, et peu y revenaient
Selon lui, les rapports des émeutes de mars que son organisation avait
fait, aboutissaient à des conclusions complètement différentes de
celles de la KFOR et de la MINUK, qu'il estime très peu claires et
exaspérantes [? unnerving].
=== 2 ===
Beta, 12 juillet 2004
Plan pour le Kosovo à l'agenda de l'UE
Les ministres des affaires étrangères de l'Union européenne sont réunis
pour examiner un plan préparé par les fonctionnaires autrichiens pour
résoudre la crise au Kosovo.
Selon ce plan, le gouvernement du Kosovo devrait recevoir d'avantage de
prérogatives sur les questions locales, tandis que la communauté serbe
de la région recevrait d'avantage d'autonomie.
La ministre autrichienne des affaires étrangères, Benita
Ferrero-Waldner, a déclaré que le rapport devrait être discuté
publiquement, avant qu'on aboutisse à une décision finale sur son
contenu. Elle dit que la situation de cette région du sud-est de
l'Europe est très importante pour l'Autriche.
«Il est vital de créer une atmosphère de sûreté.La sécurité et le
respect des minorités ethniques est également une priorité, cela peut
être atteint avec un certain niveau de décentralisation» a-t-elle dit.
Le président serbe Boris Tadic a également parlé de la situation au
Kosovo hier dans son discours inaugural [11 juillet].
«La sécurité de tous les citoyens de Serbie est une priorité pour le
Kosovo, de même que le retour de toutes les personnes déplacées de
cette région, et la reconstruction de toutes les maisons et églises
détruites, et le respect des droits de l'homme. Ce sont les facteurs
qui détermineront la paix et la stabilité dans les Balkans», a-t-il dit.
Tadic a déclaré que la coopération avec l'Union Européenne, les Nations
Unies et les USA est nécessaire pour apporter la stabilité au Kosovo.
=== 3 ===
lundi 26 juillet 2004, 17h44
L'OTAN et les Nations unies n'ont pas su protéger les minorités au
Kosovo, selon Human Rights Watch
PRISTINA (AP) - L'OTAN et les Nations unies ont manqué "de façon
catastrophique" à leur devoir de protéger les minorités au Kosovo lors
des violences ethniques qui ont frappé la province en mars dernier,
accuse Human Rights Watch dans un rapport publié lundi.
L'organisation indépendante, basée à New York, reproche notamment aux
soldats de la KFOR d'avoir verrouillé leurs portes à au moins quatre
reprises, alors que des incendies ravageaient plusieurs maisons serbes
à proximité de leurs bases lors des émeutes qui ont fait 19 morts et
900 blessés mi-mars.
"La KFOR et la police internationale de l'ONU ont manqué de façon
catastrophique à leur devoir de protéger les minorités lors de ces
émeutes", dénonce Human Rights Watch dans ce rapport de 66 pages, qui
accuse également la communauté internationale de nier "ses propres
échecs au Kosovo".
Pour un porte-parole de la KFOR, le colonel Horst Pieper, ce rapport ne
montre pas les soldats de maintien de la paix à leur juste valeur. "Ces
rapports, écrits depuis une position confortable, ne rendent pas
hommage aux efforts des soldats". Ces derniers "ont rapidement
stabilisé la situation en quelques heures lors des émeutes et empêché
(...) une guerre civile", a-t-il rappelé. "Ils ont fait de leur mieux
pour (...) sauver de nombreuses vies".
Quelque 800 maisons et églises orthodoxes avaient été démolies et
environ 4.000 personnes, essentiellement des Serbes, déplacées, lors de
ces violences albanophones à l'encontre de la communauté serbe. Il
s'agissait des pires violences ethniques depuis la fin du conflit au
Kosovo en 1999.
La KFOR avait à l'époque expliqué avoir préféré sauver des vies, plutôt
que des bâtiments. Plus de 1.200 personnes avaient trouvé refuge dans
les bases militaires de la force de l'OTAN. Ces événements a soulevé
des questions sur sa capacité à prévenir ou réprimer de telles
violences. AP
=== 4 ===
"Voyage d'inspection citoyenne" au Kosovo : premiers jours
13 août 2004
Nous quittons Belgrade à une douzaine de personnes, originaires de
Belgique, France, Suisse et États-Unis, repartis dans 4 véhicules.
Notre première étape est la petite ville de Pozega, dans l'ouest de la
Serbie.
Reçus chaleureusement par la Croix-Rouge locale, notre principale
activité est la visite d'un camp de réfugiés serbes du Kosovo. Le camp
abrite, depuis près de 5 ans, une bonne centaine de personnes toutes
provenant du village de Drsnik, dans la commune de Klina, comptant
alors également une minorité d'Albanais catholiques avec lesquels les
Serbes se sont toujours bien entendu. Ils ont été expulsés le 17 juin
1999, lors de l'arrivée des forces de l'OTAN, suivies des hordes de
l'Armée de libération du Kosovo (UCK). L armée italienne leur donna 2
heures pour quitter leur village, sans même leur fournir d'escorte.
Apres une nuit épouvantable sous les tirs de l'UCK, les Serbes finirent
par être escortés par l'armée française pour sortir du Kosovo.
Ils survivent depuis grâce à une allocation fournie par la Croix-Rouge
serbe et une aide en nature provenant du Secours Populaire français.
Ils vivent jusqu'à 7 par pièce dans des pavillons loués par une
entreprise. Ils se disent bien intégrés et acceptés par la population
locale, mais ne parviennent pas à trouver d'emploi dans une Serbie
frappée par un chômage de plus en plus massif. Leur souhait le plus vif
est de rentrer chez eux, à condition de pouvoir bénéficier d'un minimum
de sécurité et de liberté de mouvement. "Nous n'avons besoin de rien,
seulement de la liberté", nous déclare une femme en guise de conclusion.
14 août 2004
Dès notre arrivée au Kosovo, nous rendons visite aux réfugiés roms
installes dans un hangar à Leposavic, en zone serbe. Ils proviennent de
diverses villes du Kosovo et sont près de 200 à subsister dans ce camp
à l'extrême nord du Kosovo. Certains espèrent encore revenir un jour
chez eux, mais d'autres ne pensent qu'à trouver un pays tiers qui
acceptera de leur donner l'asile.
Plusieurs familles sont originaires de ce qui était le plus grand
quartier rom (``mahala``) du Kosovo, a Mitrovica. Pillée et incendiée
par l'UCK peu après l'arrivée des soldats français de l'OTAN, qui leur
avait donné 5 minutes pour partir, la mahala n est plus qu'un champ de
ruines d'un Km de long sur la rive sud de la rivière Ibar a Mitrovica.
Ils disent être bien acceptés par la population et les autorités serbes
locales et, outre une aide mensuelle de quelques dizaines d'euros par
famille, ils subsistent en faisant les marches et d'autres petits jobs.
Leurs conditions de vie, dans un hangar découpé en chambres au moyen de
cloisons en bois, restent néanmoins précaires, en particulier pour ceux
ayant besoin de soins médicaux qu'aucune organisation humanitaires ne
veut financer.
En soirée, à Mitrovica, nous rencontrons Oliver Ivanovic, un des
principaux leaders serbes du Kosovo, élu au parlement du Kosovo, dont
il est un des vice-présidents.
Relativement optimiste, convaincu que, depuis les pogroms de mars, les
Albanais ont perdu l'auréole de martyrs dont les avait affublé la
communauté internationale, il espère et se battra pour qu'un moratoire
d'au moins 10 ans précède toute décision sur le statut final du Kosovo.
Les négociations devraient commencer l'an prochain, mais les positions
serbe et albanaise sont tellement irréconciliables (l'indépendance tout
de suite pour les Albanais, tout sauf indépendance pour les Serbes) que
seule une telle solution pourrait aboutir à un semblant d'accord. Il
prône la participation aux élections législatives d'octobre prochain,
alors que de nombreux Serbes, au Kosovo comme à Belgrade, sont en
faveur de leur boycott.
=== 5 ===
Un nouveau responsable de l'Onu au Kosovo
NOUVELOBS.COM | 16.08.04 | 17:27
Le diplomate danois Soeren Jessen-Petersen a pris officiellement lundi
16 août ses fonctions de nouveau chef de l'Onu au Kosovo dans un
contexte difficile, la minorité serbe restant traumatisée par les
violences de mars dernier pour lesquelles l'Otan et l'Onu ont été
vivement critiquées.
A près de premières rencontres avec le président et le Premier ministre
de la province(les Albanais Ibrahim Rugova et Bajram Rexhepia), Soeren
Jessen-Petersen a déclaré : "Nous devons injecter une nouvelle énergie
dans un contexte d'urgence pour faire face ensemble à l'important ordre
du jour qui est devant nous".
Cinquième chef de la Mission de l'Onu (Minuk), Soeren Jessen-Petersen
succède au Finlandais Harri Holkeri qui a démissionné en mai dernier. A
son arrivée dimanche à Pristina, Soeren Jessen-Petersen, a placé la
question du Kosovo, où des élections législatives sont prévues le 23
octobre prochain, au coeur de la problématique des Balkans.
"Il n'y aura pas de stabilité ni de retour à la normale dans les
Balkans occidentaux tant que la question du Kosovo n'est pas résolue",
a-t-il déclaré. "Je crois fermement que le Kosovo est la dernière pièce
du puzzle qui va faire sortir les Balkans occidentaux du conflit des
années 1990 pour les mener vers la voie de la normalisation, de la
stabilité et de l'intégration européenne", a-t-il ajouté.
Le Kosovo, placé en 1999 sous protectorat international, est
formellement une province de Serbie-Monténégro mais les Albanais qui y
sont majoritaires veulent l'indépendance et réclament des pouvoirs
accrus.
Traumatisme des violences de mars dernier
Pour Soeren Jessen-Petersen la situation est d'autant plus délicate que
la minorité serbe --environ 80.000 personnes-- reste traumatisée par
des violences qui, en mars dernier, ont fait 19 morts et plus de 900
blessés.
L'Otan et l'Onu avaient été vivement critiquées par l'organisation
humanitaire Human Rights Watch pour n'être pas parvenues à protéger les
Serbes en mars dernier.
Les violences ont représenté un échec "catastrophique" pour la Mission
de l'Onu au Kosovo (Minuk) et l'Otan, avait estimé Human Rights Watch
dans un rapport.
"Il reste beaucoup à faire pour réparer les dommages physiques et
psychologiques résultant des affrontements" de mars, a souligné de son
côté le secrétaire général de l'Onu, Kofi Annan, dans un récent rapport
sur la situation au Kosovo.
Risque de boycott
Ces violences ont conforté Belgrade dans l'idée que les Serbes ne
devaient pas participer aux législatives d'octobre, leur sécurité
n'étant pas garantie.
Le boycott serbe, s'il persiste, aura pour conséquence la formation au
Kosovo d'un parlement albanais éthniquement homogène et face à ce
risque, Soeren Jessen-Petersen a, dès son entrée en fonction, appelé
les Serbes à revenir sur leur décision.
"Les élections seront un nouveau test pour les institutions et les
habitants du Kosovo", a-t-il dit, qualifiant d'"extrêmement important"
la participation de toutes les communautés.
Cet appel est intervenu alors que l'Otan a renforcé récemment les
mesures de sécurité au Kosovo, en particulier autour des enclaves
serbes, les soldats de l'Otan ayant notamment reçu l'autorisation
d'ouvrir le feu sur d'éventuels assaillants.
1. L'état désolé des droits de l'homme au Kosovo (Beta 12/7)
2. Plan pour le Kosovo à l'agenda de l'UE (Beta 12/7)
3. L'OTAN et les Nations unies n'ont pas su protéger les minorités au
Kosovo, selon Human Rights Watch (AP 26/7)
4. "Voyage d'inspection citoyenne" au Kosovo : premiers jours (13 août
2004)
5. Un nouveau responsable de l'Onu au Kosovo
(NOUVELOBS.COM, 16.08.04)
=== 1 ===
Beta, 12 juillet 2004
L'état désolé des droits de l'homme au Kosovo
L'ombudsman pour le Kosovo Marek Anthony Novicki a déclaré que l'état
des droits de l'homme au Kosovo était en dessous de tous les standards
minimaux
Selon Novicki, c'est particulièrement vrai pour les non albanais vivant
dans la région.
«Même après 5 années d'occupation par les organisations
internationales, les droits fondamentaux à vivre, à travailler et à se
déplacer librement, ne sont toujours pas garantis pour les Serbes et
les Roms» a-t-il dit lors d'une conférence de presse à Pristina.
Il estime que la raison de cela, c'était la corruption largement
répandue à l'intérieure des institutions du Kosovo, et le fait qu'un
petit nombre d'individus avaient la plus grande partie du pouvoir dans
cette région.
Novicki a également déclaré que de plus en plus de gens quittaient le
Kosovo depuis les émeutes de mars, et peu y revenaient
Selon lui, les rapports des émeutes de mars que son organisation avait
fait, aboutissaient à des conclusions complètement différentes de
celles de la KFOR et de la MINUK, qu'il estime très peu claires et
exaspérantes [? unnerving].
=== 2 ===
Beta, 12 juillet 2004
Plan pour le Kosovo à l'agenda de l'UE
Les ministres des affaires étrangères de l'Union européenne sont réunis
pour examiner un plan préparé par les fonctionnaires autrichiens pour
résoudre la crise au Kosovo.
Selon ce plan, le gouvernement du Kosovo devrait recevoir d'avantage de
prérogatives sur les questions locales, tandis que la communauté serbe
de la région recevrait d'avantage d'autonomie.
La ministre autrichienne des affaires étrangères, Benita
Ferrero-Waldner, a déclaré que le rapport devrait être discuté
publiquement, avant qu'on aboutisse à une décision finale sur son
contenu. Elle dit que la situation de cette région du sud-est de
l'Europe est très importante pour l'Autriche.
«Il est vital de créer une atmosphère de sûreté.La sécurité et le
respect des minorités ethniques est également une priorité, cela peut
être atteint avec un certain niveau de décentralisation» a-t-elle dit.
Le président serbe Boris Tadic a également parlé de la situation au
Kosovo hier dans son discours inaugural [11 juillet].
«La sécurité de tous les citoyens de Serbie est une priorité pour le
Kosovo, de même que le retour de toutes les personnes déplacées de
cette région, et la reconstruction de toutes les maisons et églises
détruites, et le respect des droits de l'homme. Ce sont les facteurs
qui détermineront la paix et la stabilité dans les Balkans», a-t-il dit.
Tadic a déclaré que la coopération avec l'Union Européenne, les Nations
Unies et les USA est nécessaire pour apporter la stabilité au Kosovo.
=== 3 ===
lundi 26 juillet 2004, 17h44
L'OTAN et les Nations unies n'ont pas su protéger les minorités au
Kosovo, selon Human Rights Watch
PRISTINA (AP) - L'OTAN et les Nations unies ont manqué "de façon
catastrophique" à leur devoir de protéger les minorités au Kosovo lors
des violences ethniques qui ont frappé la province en mars dernier,
accuse Human Rights Watch dans un rapport publié lundi.
L'organisation indépendante, basée à New York, reproche notamment aux
soldats de la KFOR d'avoir verrouillé leurs portes à au moins quatre
reprises, alors que des incendies ravageaient plusieurs maisons serbes
à proximité de leurs bases lors des émeutes qui ont fait 19 morts et
900 blessés mi-mars.
"La KFOR et la police internationale de l'ONU ont manqué de façon
catastrophique à leur devoir de protéger les minorités lors de ces
émeutes", dénonce Human Rights Watch dans ce rapport de 66 pages, qui
accuse également la communauté internationale de nier "ses propres
échecs au Kosovo".
Pour un porte-parole de la KFOR, le colonel Horst Pieper, ce rapport ne
montre pas les soldats de maintien de la paix à leur juste valeur. "Ces
rapports, écrits depuis une position confortable, ne rendent pas
hommage aux efforts des soldats". Ces derniers "ont rapidement
stabilisé la situation en quelques heures lors des émeutes et empêché
(...) une guerre civile", a-t-il rappelé. "Ils ont fait de leur mieux
pour (...) sauver de nombreuses vies".
Quelque 800 maisons et églises orthodoxes avaient été démolies et
environ 4.000 personnes, essentiellement des Serbes, déplacées, lors de
ces violences albanophones à l'encontre de la communauté serbe. Il
s'agissait des pires violences ethniques depuis la fin du conflit au
Kosovo en 1999.
La KFOR avait à l'époque expliqué avoir préféré sauver des vies, plutôt
que des bâtiments. Plus de 1.200 personnes avaient trouvé refuge dans
les bases militaires de la force de l'OTAN. Ces événements a soulevé
des questions sur sa capacité à prévenir ou réprimer de telles
violences. AP
=== 4 ===
"Voyage d'inspection citoyenne" au Kosovo : premiers jours
13 août 2004
Nous quittons Belgrade à une douzaine de personnes, originaires de
Belgique, France, Suisse et États-Unis, repartis dans 4 véhicules.
Notre première étape est la petite ville de Pozega, dans l'ouest de la
Serbie.
Reçus chaleureusement par la Croix-Rouge locale, notre principale
activité est la visite d'un camp de réfugiés serbes du Kosovo. Le camp
abrite, depuis près de 5 ans, une bonne centaine de personnes toutes
provenant du village de Drsnik, dans la commune de Klina, comptant
alors également une minorité d'Albanais catholiques avec lesquels les
Serbes se sont toujours bien entendu. Ils ont été expulsés le 17 juin
1999, lors de l'arrivée des forces de l'OTAN, suivies des hordes de
l'Armée de libération du Kosovo (UCK). L armée italienne leur donna 2
heures pour quitter leur village, sans même leur fournir d'escorte.
Apres une nuit épouvantable sous les tirs de l'UCK, les Serbes finirent
par être escortés par l'armée française pour sortir du Kosovo.
Ils survivent depuis grâce à une allocation fournie par la Croix-Rouge
serbe et une aide en nature provenant du Secours Populaire français.
Ils vivent jusqu'à 7 par pièce dans des pavillons loués par une
entreprise. Ils se disent bien intégrés et acceptés par la population
locale, mais ne parviennent pas à trouver d'emploi dans une Serbie
frappée par un chômage de plus en plus massif. Leur souhait le plus vif
est de rentrer chez eux, à condition de pouvoir bénéficier d'un minimum
de sécurité et de liberté de mouvement. "Nous n'avons besoin de rien,
seulement de la liberté", nous déclare une femme en guise de conclusion.
14 août 2004
Dès notre arrivée au Kosovo, nous rendons visite aux réfugiés roms
installes dans un hangar à Leposavic, en zone serbe. Ils proviennent de
diverses villes du Kosovo et sont près de 200 à subsister dans ce camp
à l'extrême nord du Kosovo. Certains espèrent encore revenir un jour
chez eux, mais d'autres ne pensent qu'à trouver un pays tiers qui
acceptera de leur donner l'asile.
Plusieurs familles sont originaires de ce qui était le plus grand
quartier rom (``mahala``) du Kosovo, a Mitrovica. Pillée et incendiée
par l'UCK peu après l'arrivée des soldats français de l'OTAN, qui leur
avait donné 5 minutes pour partir, la mahala n est plus qu'un champ de
ruines d'un Km de long sur la rive sud de la rivière Ibar a Mitrovica.
Ils disent être bien acceptés par la population et les autorités serbes
locales et, outre une aide mensuelle de quelques dizaines d'euros par
famille, ils subsistent en faisant les marches et d'autres petits jobs.
Leurs conditions de vie, dans un hangar découpé en chambres au moyen de
cloisons en bois, restent néanmoins précaires, en particulier pour ceux
ayant besoin de soins médicaux qu'aucune organisation humanitaires ne
veut financer.
En soirée, à Mitrovica, nous rencontrons Oliver Ivanovic, un des
principaux leaders serbes du Kosovo, élu au parlement du Kosovo, dont
il est un des vice-présidents.
Relativement optimiste, convaincu que, depuis les pogroms de mars, les
Albanais ont perdu l'auréole de martyrs dont les avait affublé la
communauté internationale, il espère et se battra pour qu'un moratoire
d'au moins 10 ans précède toute décision sur le statut final du Kosovo.
Les négociations devraient commencer l'an prochain, mais les positions
serbe et albanaise sont tellement irréconciliables (l'indépendance tout
de suite pour les Albanais, tout sauf indépendance pour les Serbes) que
seule une telle solution pourrait aboutir à un semblant d'accord. Il
prône la participation aux élections législatives d'octobre prochain,
alors que de nombreux Serbes, au Kosovo comme à Belgrade, sont en
faveur de leur boycott.
=== 5 ===
Un nouveau responsable de l'Onu au Kosovo
NOUVELOBS.COM | 16.08.04 | 17:27
Le diplomate danois Soeren Jessen-Petersen a pris officiellement lundi
16 août ses fonctions de nouveau chef de l'Onu au Kosovo dans un
contexte difficile, la minorité serbe restant traumatisée par les
violences de mars dernier pour lesquelles l'Otan et l'Onu ont été
vivement critiquées.
A près de premières rencontres avec le président et le Premier ministre
de la province(les Albanais Ibrahim Rugova et Bajram Rexhepia), Soeren
Jessen-Petersen a déclaré : "Nous devons injecter une nouvelle énergie
dans un contexte d'urgence pour faire face ensemble à l'important ordre
du jour qui est devant nous".
Cinquième chef de la Mission de l'Onu (Minuk), Soeren Jessen-Petersen
succède au Finlandais Harri Holkeri qui a démissionné en mai dernier. A
son arrivée dimanche à Pristina, Soeren Jessen-Petersen, a placé la
question du Kosovo, où des élections législatives sont prévues le 23
octobre prochain, au coeur de la problématique des Balkans.
"Il n'y aura pas de stabilité ni de retour à la normale dans les
Balkans occidentaux tant que la question du Kosovo n'est pas résolue",
a-t-il déclaré. "Je crois fermement que le Kosovo est la dernière pièce
du puzzle qui va faire sortir les Balkans occidentaux du conflit des
années 1990 pour les mener vers la voie de la normalisation, de la
stabilité et de l'intégration européenne", a-t-il ajouté.
Le Kosovo, placé en 1999 sous protectorat international, est
formellement une province de Serbie-Monténégro mais les Albanais qui y
sont majoritaires veulent l'indépendance et réclament des pouvoirs
accrus.
Traumatisme des violences de mars dernier
Pour Soeren Jessen-Petersen la situation est d'autant plus délicate que
la minorité serbe --environ 80.000 personnes-- reste traumatisée par
des violences qui, en mars dernier, ont fait 19 morts et plus de 900
blessés.
L'Otan et l'Onu avaient été vivement critiquées par l'organisation
humanitaire Human Rights Watch pour n'être pas parvenues à protéger les
Serbes en mars dernier.
Les violences ont représenté un échec "catastrophique" pour la Mission
de l'Onu au Kosovo (Minuk) et l'Otan, avait estimé Human Rights Watch
dans un rapport.
"Il reste beaucoup à faire pour réparer les dommages physiques et
psychologiques résultant des affrontements" de mars, a souligné de son
côté le secrétaire général de l'Onu, Kofi Annan, dans un récent rapport
sur la situation au Kosovo.
Risque de boycott
Ces violences ont conforté Belgrade dans l'idée que les Serbes ne
devaient pas participer aux législatives d'octobre, leur sécurité
n'étant pas garantie.
Le boycott serbe, s'il persiste, aura pour conséquence la formation au
Kosovo d'un parlement albanais éthniquement homogène et face à ce
risque, Soeren Jessen-Petersen a, dès son entrée en fonction, appelé
les Serbes à revenir sur leur décision.
"Les élections seront un nouveau test pour les institutions et les
habitants du Kosovo", a-t-il dit, qualifiant d'"extrêmement important"
la participation de toutes les communautés.
Cet appel est intervenu alors que l'Otan a renforcé récemment les
mesures de sécurité au Kosovo, en particulier autour des enclaves
serbes, les soldats de l'Otan ayant notamment reçu l'autorisation
d'ouvrir le feu sur d'éventuels assaillants.
