Informazione
Da: Susanna
Data: Mar 25 Nov 2003 10:28:29 Europe/Rome
A: jugocoord
Oggetto: Dalai Lama
Cari compagni,
un po' di anni fa avete inviato ai vostri abbonati
una bella biografia del Dalai Lama. In occasione della sua visita in Italia
riuscite a rispolverarla?
Grazie
Susanna
---
1. Cosa ha a che fare la CIA con il Dalai Lama?
di Sara Flounders
2. Il mito del Tibet
di Enrica Collotti Pischel
3. Menzogne americane sul Tibet e sul Dalai Lama
Michele - Risiko
4. Dalai Lama a 'Nazi Dupe Who Succumbed to Hitler'
dal South China Morning Post
5. Dalai Lama: "Violence needed to fight terror"
Si vedano anche gli articoli di Enrica Collotti Pischel:
http://www.lernesto.it/strutture/articolo.asp?codart=869
CINA - NATO - USA
(Giano del 15/05/2000)
http://www.lernesto.it/strutture/articolo.asp?codart=867
LA CINA, ''L'ULTIMO PAESE SOVRANO''
(Giano del 15/9/2001)
=== 1 ===
Cosa ha a che fare la CIA con il Dalai Lama?
di Sara Flounders
(da Workers World, Aug. 26, 1999 - Web:
http://www.workers.org)
Il 14 agosto il Dalai Lama (DL) - figura di spicco del
buddismo tibetano - era a New York in Central Park. In
questa citta' era gia' apparso in tre incontri al Teatro
Beacon (tutto esaurito) piu' altre occasioni in cui persone
benestanti hanno potuto pagare fino a 1000 dollari un
biglietto per poterlo ascoltare.
Il Dalai Lama, con il considerevole aiuto dei maggiori
media, e' divenuto una
figura di culto. Lo si chieda a chiunque si sintonizza
abitualmente sulle radio-televisioni piu'importanti. Anche
se non si interessa di politica, costui dira' che il Dalai
Lama e' una persona buona, santa ed una "forza spirituale".
Il suo nuovo libro "L'arte della felicita'", scritto
assieme con Howard C. Cutler, e'stato pubblicizzato fino a
che non e' entrato nella lista dei best-sellers per 29
settimane.
Ma il Dalai Lama e' veramente un uomo non-politico? Se
cosi' fosse, perche' questo "santo" che si ritiene non
ammazzerebbe un insetto, ha appoggiato i bombardamenti
NATO sulla Jugoslavia? Le persone interessate alle
questioni di carattere sociale dovrebbero sapere che,
come Papa Giovanni Paolo II, il DL denuncia l'aborto, tutte
le forme di controllo delle nascite e l'omosessualita'.
L'imperialismo USA ha molta esperienza nell'uso dei
sentimenti religiosi di milioni di persone. La CIA formo'
un blocco unico con il Papa, che aveva l'appoggio di
milioni di cattolici, per abbattere il socialismo in
Polonia. Non dovrebbe stupire il fatto il DL sia utilizzato
anche dalla CIA.
D'altro canto, le figure religiose che si oppongono agli
USA sono demonizzate o diventano obbiettivi degli assassini
- dall'Arcivescovo Romero in Salvador ai religiosi
musulmani in Libano e Palestina/Israele.
Lo scorso anno Hollywood ha realizzato due importanti films
sul Tibet. Gli Studios amano il DL, che, come si e' detto,
incorpora lo spirito e le aspirazioni del popolo tibetano.
I ricchi gruppi che ora controllano Hollywood - Disney e la
Tristar - entrambi appoggiano l'organizzazione Free Tibet.
Hollywood glorifica la classe religiosa tibetana ed il suo
presunto passato idilliaco allo stesso modo in cui "Via col
vento " glorificava la classe dominate schiavista e
razzista del vecchio sud.
Uno di quest film, "Sette anni in Tibet", e' stato basato
su di un libro scritto da un nazista austriaco, Heinrich
Harrer, coinvolto in alcuni dei crimini piu' brutali dei
nazi-fascisti austriaci. Harrer fini' in Tibet durante la
seconda guerra mondiale in missione segreta per
l'imperialismo tedesco, che stava tentando di competere con
l'imperialismo britannico in Asia. Egli fu accettato nel
circolo piu' ristretto, fra la nobilta' tibetana.
# L'imperialismo e le culture indigene.
In tutto il mondo le societa' indigene dal Nord America,
alla America Latina, l'Africa e l'Oceania sono state
decimate. La ricca varieta' di culture e' stata scalzata,
calpestata, ridicolizzata. I nativi sono stati sterminati
in tutto il mondo da tutte le forze che adesso sembrano
essere rispettosamente in adorazione della cultura
tibetana.
Il Tibet e il buddismo tibetano sarebbero stati di scarso
interesse per l'imperialismo britannico ed americano se non
fosse stato per la grande rivoluzione cinese, che ha
spazzato via tutto il vecchio mondo e la corrotta societa'
feudale.
Questa e' stata una rivoluzione che ha coinvolto movimenti
di massa di milioni di contadini poveri organizzati per la
distribuzione delle terre e per la cacciata dei vecchi
signori feudali. Tale grade sollevamento sociale ha
liberato le energie creative e la partecipazione di un
quarto dell'umanita'.
Tuttora pero' i media occidentali glorificano il vecchio
Tibet.
# L'era della divisione della Cina e del suo dominio
Per oltre 100 anni, le potenze imperialiste dell'Europa
occidentale ed il Giappone hanno mantenuto la Cina nelle
sfere di loro influenza, proprio come l'Europa ha mantenuto
l'Africa fra le sue colonie. Gli Stati Uniti allora si
opponevano a questo, ma solo in quanto esclusi dall'accesso
in Cina per i loro affari. Nell'ottocento la Gran Bretagna,
potenza dominante, combatte' due guerre contro la dinastia
Manchu per il diritto al controllo sulla vendita dell'oppio
in Cina. Nel 1904 la GB lancio' una invasione su larga
scala del Tibet. Col trattato di Lhasa la Cina fu costretta
a concedere due aree di commercio alla GB, e a pagare un
ingente somma per riparare alle spese militari della
guerra.
Nel 1949 l'armata Rossa era vicina alla sconfitta
definitiva dell'esercito del Kuomintang del generale Chiang
Kai-shek, aiutato dagli USA. Washington allora stava
operando per far aderire il Tibet all'ONU come paese
indipendente. Gli sforzi fallirono perche' il Tibet e'
considerato da oltre 700 anni come provincia cinese, ed
anche il Kuomintang asseriva che la Cina includesse il
Tibet e l'isola di Taiwan.
Oggi mentre l'imperialismo USA cresce e diventa sempre piu'
aggressivo, esso si sta muovendo su vari fronti per forzare
la separazione dalla Cina del Tibet, di Taiwan e della
provincia occidentale del Xinjiang.
Proprio come nei Balcani e nella ex-Unione Sovietica, le
grandi corporations americane supportano ed incoraggiano i
separatisti per rompere e controllare completamente le aree
del globo che precedentemente erano libere dal dominio
imperialista.
# La vita nell'antico Tibet.
Il Tibet pre-rivoluzionario era una regione totalmente
sottosviluppata. Non possedeva alcun sistema viario. Le
sole piste erano quelle della preghiera. Era una teocrazia
feudale basata su agricoltura, servitu' e schiavitu'.
Oltre il 90% della popolazione era senza terra e ridotta in
servitu'. Erano legati alla terra ma senza alcuna
proprieta'. I loro figli erano registrati fra le proprieta'
del loro Signore.
Non vi erano scuole, eccetto i monasteri in cui (pochi)
giovani studiavano canti. Il totale degli studenti presenti
in scuole private era di 600 studenti. L'educazione per le
donne era totalmente sconosciuta. Non vi era alcuna forma
di assistenza sanitaria, non vi erano ospedali in tutto il
Tibet.
Un centinaio di famiglie nobili e gli abati dei monasteri -
anche essi membri di famiglie nobili - possedevano tutto.
Il Dalai Lama viveva nelle 1000 stanze del palazzo di
Potala. Tradizionalmente era scelto nella sua infanzia fra
i giovani delle famiglie potenti. Egli rimaneva poi come un
pupazzo sotto il controllo del notabilato che lo seguiva.
Per il contadino medio la vita era breve e misera, il Tibet
aveva il piu' alto tasso di tubercolosi e mortalita'
infantile nel mondo. Oggi il Tibet ha 2380 scuole primarie,
moltissime scuole professionali e l'istruzione si svolge in
lingua tibetana. Vi sono oltre 20000 dottori, 95 ospedali
cittadini e 770 cliniche.
# La lotta di classe in Cina.
Nel 1949 la Rivoluzione Cinese stabili' primariamente che
il Tibet fosse una regione autonoma con molti piu' diritti
di quanti ne avesse mai avuti in precedenza. La politica
del PC Cinese fu quella di attendere che si sviluppassero
le condizioni fra le classi oppresse tibetane per il
sollevamento e la cacciata del regime feudale.
La schiavitu' fu dichiarata fuorilegge solo dal 1959, 10
anni dopo la Rivoluzione. Cio' avvene dopo un grande
movimento di massa che isolo' il Dalai Lama. E' vero,
comunque , che il PC cinese abbia sfidato gli antichi
costumi tibetani.
Prima di tutto il governo cinese pago' un adeguato salario
a tutti coloro che lavorassero alla costruzione delle
strade. Cio' distrusse totalmente l'usanza della servitu'.
Prima di cio' un servo poteva sopravvivere lavorando per il
Signore: non per guadagnare ma per il cibo.
Ancora piu' rivoluzionario fu pagare i ragazzi e gli ex-
schiavi per frequentare le scuole; essi furono anche dotati
di libri, vitto e alloggio. Nelle famiglie piu' disperate
avevano dovuto lavorare anche i bambini per sopravvivere.
La nuova politica rivoluzionaria sollevo' per la prima
volta il livello economico delle classi piu' oppresse di
questa societa' cosi' rigida.
# La Cia mobilita le resistenza delle classi-dominanti
Dal 1955 la CIA inizio' a costruire un esercito
controrivoluzionario in Tibet, molto simile ai Contras in
Nicaragua e, piu' recentemente, al finaziamento ed
addestramento dell'UCK in Kosovo.
Il 16 agosto 1999 su Newsweek e' apparso l'articolo "Una
guerra segreta sul tetto del mondo - i monaci e
l'operazione segreta della Cia in Tibet", nel quale si
descrivono in dettaglio le operazioni CIA dal 1957 al 1965.
Analogamente, il principale articolo del Chicago Tribune
del 25 gennaio 1997 descriveva lo speciale addestramento
dei mercenari tibetani a Camp Hale nelle Montagne Rocciose
in Colorado, per tutti gli anni '50.
Tali mercenari furono paracadutati in Tibet. In accordo ai
famigerati "articoli del Pentagono" ci sono stati almeno
700 di questi voli negli anni 50. Furono usati C-130, come
piu' tardi in Viet-Nam, per portare munizioni ed armi. Vi
erano anche basi speciali a Guam e ad Okinawa, dove furono
addestrati soldati tibetani. Gyalo Thumdup, fratello del
Dali Lama, segui' le operazioni, e non era certo un
mistero. Se ne faceva un vanto.
Il Chicago Tribune aveva titolato "La guerra segreta della
Cia in Tibet" ed afferma in modo chiaro che "ben poco sulle
operazioni Cia in Himalaya e' veramente segreto, eccetto
forse ai contribuenti USA che le hanno finanziate".
La CIA diede una rendita annuale speciale di 180000$ al
Dalai Lama per tutti gli anni 60; questa e' ora una piccola
fortuna in Nepal, ove aveva organizzato un esercito ed un
governo virtuale in esilio. Gli USA hanno anche organizzato
delle radiostazioni per proiettare in Tibet l'"immagine"
del DL come quella di un dio-re.
Ralph McGhee, che ha scritto molti articoli sulle
operazioni CIA, e mantiene anche un sito web, ha descritto
in dettaglio come la "compagnia" abbia promosso il DL.
L'ufficio CIA NATIONAL EDOWDMENT for DEMOCRACY
ha procurato denaro per un fondo per il Tibet, per la Voce
del Tibet, e per la campagna internazionale per il Tibet.
=== 2 ===
"Il Manifesto" del 9 Gennaio 2000
CINA: UNA CRISI ALLA FRONTIERA DI UNA NUOVA GUERRA FREDDA
Il mito del Tibet
Dall'Impero a Mao, un popolo in gioco tra "modernizzazioni"
di Pechino e interessi occidentali in Asia. La fuga del
"giovane Buddha" dalla storia all'immaginario
- ENRICA COLLOTTI PISCHEL -
La notizia della fuga dalla Cina del giovanissimo Lama
Ugyen Trinley Dorje, terza autorità nella gerarchia delle
reincarnazioni del buddhismo tibetano stata ritenuta molto
ghiotta dai giornali italiani e viene considerata un grave
scacco per il governo cinese che non sarebbe riuscito a
impedirla, nonostante il proprio apparato militare.
Quest'interpretazione ignora che i cinesi non hanno mai
fatto nulla per fermare la fuga dei rappresentanti politici
e religiosi tibetani dalla Cina: nel 1959 l'intera classe
dirigente tibetana, con alla testa il Dalai Lama si
allontanò da Lhasa con una lunga fuga a piedi, nonostante
il pattugliamento degli aerei da combattimento cinesi. Fa
parte della politica delle autorità cinesi il pensare che
gli avversari è sempre meglio tenerli fuori del paese che
dentro, meglio lontani dai loro adepti che vicini. Se poi
le circostanze equivoche di quest'ultimo episodio - cioè la
mancata condanna di Pechino - possano far pensare a ipotesi
di contatti con il Dalai Lama e di trattative di
conciliazione, è difficile dirlo ora. Certamente il fatto
che la grande organizzazione propagandistica che negli
Stati Uniti (ma anche in Europa e nello stesso nostro
scafato e realistico paese) sostiene la causa
dell'indipendenza tibetana si sia buttata sull'episodio,
non rende certo facile un'intesa: i cinesi sanno fare molto
bene i compromessi e sono disposti a concluderli quando
siano convenienti. Ma ritengono che debbano essere cercati
e raggiunti con la massima discrezione e comunque al di
fuori di pressioni che li possano far apparire come una
resa a pressioni straniere.
E non dimentichiamo mai che "straniero" per l'intera Asia
orientale nell'ultimo secolo e mezzo ha significato
umiliazione e asservimento: di essa fece parte anche il
tentativo pi volte condotto di staccare il Tibet dalla Cina.
Il più povero
Molte cose dovrebbero essere dette a proposito del mito del
Tibet che ha preso piede, anche nei ranghi della sinistra.
Dal cinematografico "Shangri-la", al di fuori del tempo,
dello spazio e del clima, alle ovvie seduzioni di turismo
"estremo", dalle tendenze a vedere esempi validi in civiltà
rimaste primitive e tagliate fuori dal processo della
storia, alla sistematica disinformazione diffusa da potenti
mezzi mediatici statunitensi e al fascino che sugli
occidentali delusi esercitano le religioni e le ideologie
esotiche ed esoteriche, tutto confluito in un'affabulazione
della quale sono stati vittime in primo luogo proprio i
tibetani.
Certamente sono uno dei popoli più poveri del mondo,
esposti a molteplici forme di oppressione: tra esse quella
cinese è stata con ogni probabilità meno gravosa di quella
esercitata dai monaci e dagli aristocratici, dei quali i
pastori e i contadini erano fino al 1959 "schiavi", nel
senso letterale del termine, in quanto sottoposti al
diritto di vita e di morte dei loro padroni. Che poi tutti,
ma con ben diverso vantaggio, trovassero conforto nel
ricorso ad una delle forme più degradate di buddhismo (il
buddhismo tantrico tibetano popolato di fantasmi e di
incantesimi ha ben poco a che vedere con la meditazione
intellettuale e la creatività artistica dello Zen), si può
anche comprenderlo.
Per fare un minimo di chiarezza è necessario comunque
precisare alcune cose. Il Tibet non stato "conquistato
dalla Cina comunista nel 1950": dopo precedenti più
discontinui rapporti, fu conquistato dall'impero cinese,
nella prima metà del secolo XVIII e da allora stato
considerato parte dello stato cinese da tutti i governi
della Cina, anche dal Guomindang. La Cina (in cinese "Stato
del Centro") è stato ed è uno stato multietnico nel quale è
in corso da millenni un processo di trasferimenti di gruppi
etnici e soprattutto di fusione dei gruppi periferici entro
quello più importante che rappresenta nove decimi dei
cinesi ed è sempre stato capace di offrire ai suoi membri
una maggiore prosperità e i benefici di una cultura più
concreta. Mettere in discussione la natura multietnica
della civiltà e dello stato cinesi significherebbe mettere
in moto la più spaventosa catastrofe degli ultimi secoli.
Quella praticata dalla Cina non è mai stata una politica di
"pulizia etnica" bensì di fusione entro un insieme non
etnico ma contraddistinto da una comune cultura e da comuni
pratiche produttive: più che sterminarle, i cinesi hanno
comprato le minoranze.
E' vero che i tibetani per ragioni geografiche sono, entro
lo "Stato del Centro" il gruppo più lontano dalla comune
cultura, però da 250 anni sono stati sempre governati da
funzionari cinesi nominati dal governo centrale:
giuridicamente e istituzionalmente ciò ha un senso. Gli
inglesi all'apice del loro potere sull'India all'inizio del
secolo XX intrapresero, tuttavia, una serie di manovre per
staccare il Tibet dalla Cina e porlo sotto la loro
influenza giungendo, nel 1913 a convocare una conferenza a
Simla nella quale le autorità tibetane cedettero vasti
territori all'India britannica.
Nessun governo cinese ha mai accettato la validità di
quella conferenza.
Nel periodo precedente il 1949 il governo del Guomindang
considerava il Tibet a pieno diritto, parte del proprio
territorio, tanto che durante la Seconda guerra mondiale
concedeva il diritto di sorvolo agli aerei alleati.
Il ruolo della Cia
Non ha quindi alcun senso dire che la Cina conquistò il
Tibet nel 1950; nel 1950 le forze di Mao completarono in
Tibet il controllo sul territorio cinese; nel 1951 fu
raggiunto un accordo con il Dalai Lama per la concessione
di un regime di autonomia. Verso il 1957, nel pieno
dell'assedio statunitense alla Cina, i servizi segreti
inglesi e americani fomentarono una rivolta dei gruppi di
tibetani arroccati sulle montagne delle regioni cinesi del
Sichuan e dello Yunnan, lungo la strada che dalla Cina
porta al Tibet; i cinesi repressero certamente la rivolta
con pugno di ferro: nelle circostanze internazionali nelle
quali si trovavano e nel loro contesto etnico non era
razionale pensare che si comportassero diversamente. Alla
fine del 1958 i servizi segreti inglesi
annunciarono che all'inizio del 1959 essa si sarebbe
trasferita a Lhasa e avrebbe cercato l'appoggio del Dalai
Lama. Ed infatti ciò che avvenne: sullo
sfondo della rivolta, il Dalai Lama dichiarò decaduto
l'accordo per il regime autonomo e fuggì con la maggioranza
della classe dirigente tibetana in India, dove costituì un
proprio governo in esilio e il proprio centro di
propaganda.
Nessun governo al mondo ha riconosciuto questa compagine.
Recentemente la Cia (i servizi segreti americani sono
infatti obbligati a rendicontare prima o poi le loro spese
di fronte ai contribuenti) ha ammesso di aver finanziato
tutta l'operazione della rivolta tibetana.
Pechino: autonomia no
Dopo il 1959 il governo cinese spossessò monasteri e
aristocratici e "liberò gli schiavi", iniziando una
politica di modernizzazione forzosa (vaccinazioni,
costruzione di opere pubbliche) e di formazione di una
classe dirigente locale, figlia di schiavi, sottoposta a un
bombardamento educativo razionalista e anti-religioso.
Furono questi giovani che durante la rivoluzione culturale
distrussero templi e monasteri, infliggendo gravi danni a
un patrimonio culturale unico e a un'identità certo non
abbandonata dalle masse.
Dopo la morte di Mao, i governanti cinesi hanno cercato di
ristabilire i rapporti con i tibetani, migliorando le sorti
economiche dell'altipiano ma importando anche gran numero
di cinesi, non solo militari. Hanno anche trattato
indirettamente con il Dalai Lama, che - politico asiatico
molto scaltro - non chiede l'indipendenza, ma una più o
meno larga autonomia: Pechino non ha mai tuttavia voluto
concedere un reale autogoverno, che aprirebbe rischi di
secessione e metterebbe in discussione tutti i rapporti
etnici del vasto paese. Alle spalle del Dalai Lama si è
sviluppato, intanto, un vasto insieme di interessi della
classe dirigente tibetana che ormai è nata all'estero e vi
ha ricevuto una formazione culturale moderna: è questa che
chiede un'indipendenza che potrebbe essere ottenuta solo
con una guerra spietata alla Cina e potrebbe essere
innestata dal reclutamento di giovani guerriglieri in India
- segnali "terroristici" in questo senso ci sono già stati.
Erano proprio dissennati i governanti cinesi che ritenevano
che l'attacco alla Serbia motivato dalla difesa dei
"diritti umani" in Kosovo fosse in effetti la prova
generale di un attacco alla Cina?
=== 3 ===
http://www.resistenze.org/sito/te/po/ci/poci3e25.htm
www.resistenze.org - popoli resistenti - cina - 25-05-03
Menzogne americane sul Tibet e sul Dalai Lama
Media commerciali e ufficiali propongono incessantemente la
versione americana del tormento che il Tibet avrebbe subito
dall'aggressore e sterminatore cinese. Personalmente ero affascinato
anch'io dal buddismo tibetano e dalla santità del Dalai Lama. Ero
pure addolorato per l'oppressione subita dai tibetani a causa
dell'oppressione cinese. Bhè, come diciamo nel nostro motto, ho
cambiato radicalmente idea per accordarla alla verità. Le mie
conclusioni sono una profonda avversione per la "causa tibetana"
(così come ce la propone Hollywood) e per il Dalai Lama.
Come di fronte ad ogni versione ufficiale, mi sono mosso alla ricerca
di una verità alternativa. Non ero sicuro di trovarne una, ma volevo
vedere se il "martirio" del Tibet è così univoco come gli americani
vorrebbero far credere. Volevo vedere se i Cinesi possono essere
considerati "aggressori" del Tibet come ripetono incessantemente i
media legati a Washington e Londra. Questa ricerca è fatta in nome
del solo principio che mi caratterizza: la ricerca della verità. E ho
trovato delle cose sconcertanti...
Secoli di aggressioni, stermini, attentati, eccidi, guerre da parte
degli occidentali al popolo cinese non fanno parte di questo articolo,
ma vale la pena almeno accennarli per puntualizzare che nessun
"occidentale" può parlare di aggressione cinese a chicchessia senza
prima parlare di torture, umiliazioni, spoliazioni, stermini da parte
degli occidentali ai danni dei "musi gialli". Chiudiamo qui la parentesi
su cui magari scriveremo un articolo dedicato.
L'imperialismo occidentale cerca incessantemente di promuovere la
secessione del Tibet dalla Cina. Perfino una certa sinistra in buona
fede si fa portavoce (assieme agli organi di informazione dell'Impero)
di questa posizione per subalternità o mancanza di conoscenza. E
veniamo ai fatti.
La sovranità cinese sul Tibet ha alle spalle secoli e secoli di storia.
Il Tibet è territorio cinese dal tempo in cui in Europa non esistevano
ancora gli Stati nazionali. I primi a mettere in discussione la
sovranità cinese sul Tibet sono stati i fautori dell'imperialismo
britannico. (1)(2)
Come si legge in un manuale di storia asiatica (uno qualunque), i
tentativi di distruggere la sovranità cinese sul Tibet sono la
conseguenza di una politica volta allo "smantellamento della Cina".
(3)
Non sono soltanto i comunisti cinesi a considerare il Tibet parte della
Cina. Sun Yat-sen, primo presidente della Repubblica nata dal
rovesciamento della dinastia Manciù, ne era convinto. Quando gli
inglesi gli chiesero di partecipare attivamente alla Prima Guerra
Mondiale per poter recuperare alla Cina i territori che la Germania le
aveva strappato, lui rispose: "Voi vorreste strapparci anche il Tibet!".
(4)
Prima della guerra fredda Washington riconosceva che il Tibet era
territorio cinese. Ancora nel 1949 il Dipartimento di Stato Americano
pubblicò un libro sulle relazioni USA-Cina con una mappa che
mostrava tutta la Cina, Tibet incluso dunque. (5)
Tuttavia, con l'avanzare del Partito Comunista Cinese e quindi con
l'avvicinarsi al potere di un chiaro Partito di massa antimperialista,
Washington cominciò a manipolare la realtà. Gli inizi di questa
manipolazione possono essere rintracciati in una lettera del 13
gennaio 1947 al Presidente americano Truman da parte di Gorge R.
Merrel, incaricato d'affari USA a Nuova Dheli. La lettera riguardava
la "inestimabile importanza strategica" del Tibet e recitava:
"Il Tibet può pertanto essere considerato come un bastione contro
l'espansione del comunismo in Asia o almeno come un'isola di
conservatorismo in un mare di sconvolgimenti politici". E aggiunse
che "l'altopiano tibetano [?] in epoca di guerra missilistica può
rivelarsi il territorio più importante di tutta l'Asia".
Questi particolari sono tratti da un autore americano per decenni
funzionario della CIA. L'Autore evidenzia come il contenuto di
questa lettera sia quasi combaciante con la visione imperialistica
che aveva a suo tempo l'Inghilterra vittoriana impegnata nel "grande
gioco" dell'espansione in Asia. (6)
Il separatismo tibetano diviene uno strumento dell'imperialismo
americano o, meglio, per dirla come il funzionario della CIA, diviene
uno strumento degli "interessi geopolitici USA" per costringere il
nuovo governo comunista di Mao a disperdere le forze, ponendo
quindi le condizioni per un "cambiamento di regime a Pechino".
Per portare a compimento questi "interessi geopolitici USA", vennero
addestrati "guerriglieri" nel Colorado e poi paracadutati in Tibet e
riforniti per via aerea di armi, munizioni, apparecchiature
ricetrasmittenti, ecc. A tali guerriglieri la CIA aggiunge la
"collaborazione dei banditi Khampa di vecchio stile". (7)
In questo contesto si sviluppa la "rivolta tibetana" del 1959.
E' ancora il funzionario della CIA, Knaus, a raccontare i fatti: la
rivolta faceva seguito ad un tentativo fallito da parte dei servizi
segreti americani di provocare disordini in Cina a partire dalle
Filippine; come disse un esponente della CIA, lo scatenamento della
rivolta aveva "poco a che fare con l'aiuto ai tibetani", perché lo
scopo era quello di mettere in difficoltà i "comunisti cinesi". Era la
stessa logica che i servizi segreti americani usavano in Indonesia per
"aiutare i colonnelli ribelli indonesiani nel loro sforzo di rovesciare
Sukarno", reo di essere troppo tollerante verso i comunisti di quel
paese. (8) Come è noto il colpo di Stato verrà portato a termine grazie
alla CIA nel 1965, col massacro di centinaia di migliaia di comunisti o
di elementi tolleranti verso i comunisti. Sarebbero state meno feroci le
forze finanziate e addestrate dalla CIA in Tibet se avesse vinto il
separatismo? (9)
Penso che sia interessante far sapere che fu un agente della CIA a
organizzare la fuga del Dalai Lama dal Tibet: questo agente visse
più tardi nel Laos "in una casa decorata con una corona di orecchie
strappate dalle teste di comunisti morti", come ci informa un
docente americano su una rivista USA. (10)
Dopo il fallimento in territorio cinese della rivolta tibetana, i
servizi segreti americani danno inizio ad una campagna mediatica
in occidente.
Nonostante che il Dalai Lama fosse considerato allo stesso modo dei
colonnelli macellai indonesiani, come il capo della rivolta reazionaria
anticomunista filo-occidentale, ora viene santificato. Diventa il leader
della non violenza. Lo stesso buddismo tibetano diventa una dottrina
e una tecnica spirituale sublime. L'industria cinematografica
americana si adopera per proporre incessantemente questo falso mito.
Ma la storia ha dei precedenti. Quando agli inizi del Novecento gli
inglesi e la Russia si contendevano il Tibet, regione della Cina,
correva voce che lo Zar in persona si fosse convertito al buddismo.
(11)
Oggi, invece, sono la CIA e Hollywood ad essere convertiti al
buddismo. Una conversione che ha del miracoloso se si pensa che
l'Occidente ha sempre disprezzato il buddismo tibetano come
sinonimo di dispotismo orientale, con la sua figura di Dio-Re. Basti
ricordare il disprezzo dei padri della cultura occidentale come
Rousseau, Herder e Hegel. Fino ai primi anni del 1900 i lama sono
considerati una "incarnazione di tutti i vizi e di tutte le corruzioni,
non già dei lama defunti". (12)
Quando la Gran Bretagna si accinse poi alla conquista del Tibet lo
fece in nome della civiltà contro "quest'ultima roccaforte
dell'oscurantismo", per civilizzare "questo piccolo popolo
miserabile". (13)
Oggi la propaganda americana cerca di rimuovere l'infamia della
teocrazia tibetana. Come illustra lo stesso storico Morris, quello che
era in carica agli inizi del '900 "era uno dei pochi Dalai Lama ad
aver raggiunto la maggiore età, dato che la maggior parte di loro
veniva eliminata durante la fanciullezza a seconda della
convenienza del Consiglio di Reggenza". (14)
Stando a quanto affermano Hollywood e la CIA, il buddismo tibetano
è divenuto sinonimo di pace e tolleranza, oltre che di elevata
spiritualità. Seguendo l'ideologia imperialistica anticomunista
occidentale, "i tibetani sono dei superuomini e i cinesi dei
subumani". (15)
La teocrazia oscurantista tibetana è santificata dai media
commerciali americani al servizio degli strateghi militari. La struttura
castale si manifesta anche dopo la morte: il corpo di un aristocratico
viene cremato o inumato, mentre i corpi della massa vengono dati in
pasto agli avvoltoi. Poco tempo fa era l'"International Herald
Tribune" che descriveva come durante i funerali di plebei fosse il
sacerdote che staccava pezzo per pezzo la carne dalle ossa per
facilitare il compito degli avvoltoi.
La descrizione era minuziosa e seguita da uno studioso che spiegava il
tutto in chiave "ecologica". (16) Lo studioso non chiariva però perché
all'equilibrio ecologico doveva contribuire solo il corpo dei plebei.
Vorrei chiarire la mia posizione: io non condanno queste pratiche
disumane perché potrei rimanere vittima della mia cultura italiana;
dovrei essere un tibetano per condannarle; ad ognuno la sua cultura.
Io condanno il fatto che gli occidentali imperialisti appoggino pratiche
così disumane per noi, sostengano movimenti sanguinari come il
buddismo tibetano e siano pronti ad inventarsi ogni peggiore frottola
(molto meno disumana) su falsi crimini di Cuba, di Saddam, di
Pechino e di tutti gli avversari, salvo santificare la reazione più
assoluta.
La Rivoluzione Culturale maoista si era scagliata contro la pratica
castale, discriminatrice e violenta. Nel Tibet precedente alla
Rivoluzione la teocrazia riduceva in schiavitù o servaggio la
stragrande maggioranza della popolazione. Come scrisse uno scrittore
radicalmente anticomunista, le riforme realizzate dal 1951 hanno
"abolito feudalesimo e servaggio". (17) La Rivoluzione abolì anche
la teocrazia incarnata nel Dio-Re che pretendeva e pretende ancor
oggi di essere il Dalai Lama. Fu attuata la separazione tra potere
religioso e potere civile.
La Rivoluzione ha significato per i tibetani l'accesso a diritti umani
prima del tutto sconosciuti, un miglioramento del tenore di vita e un
sensibile prolungamento della vita media. E ciò è, malgrado i media,
universalmente riconosciuto da tutti gli esperti analisti della regione.
La Cina di oggi garantisce alla Regione Autonoma Tibetana libertà
che non ha mai conosciuto in tutta la sua storia passata e recente. La
regione tibetana, oltre ad avere il bilinguismo con prima lingua il
tibetano, vede garantiti altri diritti nazionali quali la preferenza a
favore dei tibetani e delle altre minoranze nazionali per quanto
riguarda l'ammissione all'università, la carriera pubblica, ecc.
(18)
Il santificato Dalai Lama viene insignito del Premio Nobel. Ma cosa
chiede questo personaggio che si proclama Dio-Re? "Esige la
creazione di un Grande Tibet, il quale includerebbe non solo il
territorio che ha costituito il Tibet politico in età contemporanea,
ma anche aree tibetane nella Cina occidentale, in larghissima
parte perse dal Tibet già nel diciottesimo secolo". (19) E poi
esistono tibetani in Bhutan, Nepal, India. Tutti i loro territori
dovrebbero far parte del Grande Tibet. Si tratta della pretesta di
Hitler di riunificate nello lo stesso Stato tutti i territori che erano
abitati da maggioranza tedesca. Il principio "nazionale" del Dalai
Lama è quello di Hitler, con la sola differenza che del
nazional-socialismo il Dalai Lama non ha neppure un briciolo di
"socialismo". E' solo puro nazionalismo esasperato ai massimi livelli.
Ora, questa santità, Premio Nobel per la Pace, odia profondamente gli
uomini che hanno la pelle gialla e parlano il cinese. Un odio viscerale,
razzista, tanto che, quando l'India procedette al riarmo nucleare,
trovò il suo più fiero sostenitore nel Premio Nobel, il Dalai Lama.
Ma, ci domandiamo, almeno il multimiliardario Dalai Lama
rappresenta il popolo tibetano? Risposta: nemmeno per sogno! E'
perfino il "Libro Nero del Comunismo" a riconoscere che
un'elementare analisi storica "distrugge il mito unanimista
alimentato dai partigiani del Dalai Lama". (20)
Alla liberazione pacifica del Tibet nel 1951, che portò alla caduta del
regime teocratico, vi fu una resistenza accanita dei gruppi più
reazionari e delle classi dei privilegiati, ma i comunisti poterono
contare sull'appoggio della stragrande maggioranza della popolazione
civile. Gli autori più anticomunisti e anticinesi del pianeta-Occidente
si scagliano così contro la plebe tibetana, colpevole di "essersi
collegata subito col regime comunista"; anche i monaci sono dei
farabutti che "non esitano ad augurarsi che 'presto sia liberato' il
Tibet" e che commettono il crimine di fraternizzare con i comunisti e
l'esercito Popolare di Liberazione.
Per questi autori è inconcepibile come il Dalai Lama sia disprezzato
non solo dalla maggior parte del popolo, ma anche da ampi settori
religiosi tibetani. Ancora nel 1992, nel corso di un suo viaggio a
Londra il Dalai Lama è oggetto di manifestazioni ostili da parte
della più grande organizzazione buddista in Gran Bretagna, che lo
accusa di essere un "dittatore spietato" e un "oppressore della
libertà religiosa". (21)
Oggi il Dalai Lama continua a sperare in una disintegrazione della
Cina come è avvenuto nella tragedia che ha caratterizzato l'URSS. (22)
Michele - Risiko
NOTE:
Le informazioni di questo articolo sono ricavate da Domenico
Losurdo, "La sinistra, la Cina e l'imperialismo", ed. La città del
Sole, Napoli.
La sua opera di informazione è indispensabile sull'argomento.
(1) Owen Lattimore, 1970, "La frontiera. Popoli e imperialismi alla
frontiera tra Cina e Russia", Einaudi, Torino.
(2) Jacques Fernet, 1978, "Il mondo cinese. Dalle prime civiltà alla
Repubblica Popolare", Einaudi, Torino.
(3) Jan Romein, 1969, "Il secolo dell'Asia. Imperialismo occidentale e
rivoluzione asiatica nel secolo XX", Einaudi, Torino.
(4) Sun Yat-sen, 1976, "L'imperialismo dei bianchi e l'imperialismo
dei gialli", in "I tre principi del popolo", Einaudi, Torino.
(5) Herbert Aptheker, 1977, "America Foreign Policy and The Cold
War" (1962), Krauss Reprint Millwood, N.Y.
(6) Jhon Kenneth Knaus, 1999, "Orphans of the Cold War. American
and the Tibetan Struggle for Survival", PublicAffairs, N.Y.
(7) Come sopra.
(8) Come sopra.
(9) Domenico Losurdo, 1999, "La sinistra, la Cina e l'imperialismo",
La città del Sole, Napoli.
(10) Daniel Wikler, 1999, "The Dalai Lama and the CIA", in "The
New York Review of Books", 23 settembre.
(11) James Morris, 1992, "Pax Britannica", The Folio Society,
London.
(12) Donald S. Lopez Jr., 1998, "Prisoners of Shangri - La. Tibetan
Buddhism and the West", University of Chicago Press, Chicago and
London.
(13) Vedi nota 11.
(14) Come sopra.
(15) Vedi nota 12.
(16) Seth Faison, 1999, "In Tibean 'Sky Burials', Vultures Dispose of
the Dead", in "International Herald Tribune", 6 luglio.
(17) Melvyn C. Goldstein, 1998, "The Dalai Lama's Dilemma", in
"Foreign Affairs", gennaio-febbraio.
(18) Seth Faison, 1999, "for Tibetans in Sichuan, Life in the Shadow
of Intollerance", in "International Herald Tribune", 1 settembre.
(19) Vedi nota 17.
(20) Courtois et al., 1998, « Il Libro Nero del Comunismo »,
Mondadori, Milano.
(21) Vedi nota 12.
(22) Vedi nota 17.
=== 4 ===
http://www.amgroup.com/jue/chinanews/archives/docs/971003d.html
Dalai Lama a 'Nazi Dupe Who Succumbed to Hitler'
Friday, October 03, 1997 -- South China Morning Post
TOM KORSKI in Beijing
The Dalai Lama has been branded as a Nazi dupe who fell prey to "certain
influences" of the Hitler regime as a schoolboy.
Mainland media denounced the Tibetan Nobel Prize laureate as a follower
of German fascists after disclosures that the Dalai Lama's former mathematics
teacher was a member of the Nazi SS.
In a vitriolic commentary, the official periodical, the Beijing
Review, portrayed the Dalai Lama as a fascist disciple of Heinrich Harrer,
an Austrian mountaineer who taught the young spiritual leader in the late
1940s.
A US$60 million (HK$464 million) Hollywood film highly critical of China's
occupation of Tibet, based on the Harrer 1953 autobiography Seven Years
in Tibet, is to be released next Wednesday.
"It is logical to ask whether Harrer's Nazi background exerted
certain influences on the 14th Dalai Lama who was 11 years old at the time
and under his guidance," the commentary said.
Harrer, 85, admitted to serving as an SS sports trainer and shaking Hitler's
hand at a 1938 rally after the German weekly Stern disclosed the Austrian's
Nazi affiliations last May.
The Beijing Review, repeating many of the Stern revelations, noted that
"Nazi fascists brought great suffering to the world".
"Their savagery and cruel infringements on human rights were unique in human
history," the commentary continued.
Authorities have repeatedly condemned the Columbia Pictures film, starring
Brad Pitt, and vowed to ban it from all mainland cinemas.
"Should Hollywood sing songs in praise of Nazis?" asked the
commentary.
=== 5 ===
From: Rick Rozoff
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
Perhaps the headline was meant to read Terror Needed
To Fight Violence: The West's Humanitarian Poster Boy
Better keep this guy away from Nepal....
--- Geese 4 Peace wrote:
Subject: Dalai Lama: Violence needed to fight terror
from
The Age
Fri, September 19, 2003
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/18/1063625159989.html
Violence needed to fight terror: Buddha's man of peace
By Laurie Goodstein
New York
The Dalai Lama, a Nobel peace prize winner and one of the world's most prominent
advocates of non-violence, says it might be necessary to fight terrorists
with violence.
He also says it is too early to say whether the war in Iraq was a
mistake. "I feel only history will tell," he said in an interview.
"Terrorism is the worst kind of violence, so we have to check it, we have
to take countermeasures," the Dalai Lama said.
He spoke on Wednesday during his first visit to New York since the 2001
terrorist attacks. He is on the last stop of a US tour that has highlighted
his dual roles as Buddhist avatar and head of state.
During the visit he has met Tibetan exiles in several cities,
dedicated an inter-faith temple and pressed the Tibetan cause in Washington.
At a time when many political and religious leaders are saying the American
anti-terrorism campaign and the war in Iraq are only fuelling additional
terrorism, the Dalai Lama refused to pass judgement.
But he emphasised that "the real antidote" to terrorism in the long run
is "compassion, dialogue - peaceful means" - even with terrorists.
"We have to deal with their motivation," he said. "Terrorism comes out of
hatred, and also short-sightedness."
He likened Osama bin Laden to a butcher who has grown inured to slaughtering
animals. With terrorists, he said, applying a Buddhist analysis, "their
whole mind is dominated by negative emotions".
He rejected the prediction popularised by some scholars that the world is
headed towards a "clash of civilisations" between Christian and Muslim nations.
He cited the case of the Soviet Union, whose people once
expressed hostility towards the US and the West but had now changed their
minds.
The Arab world could do the same, he said.
The Dalai Lama, 68, was interviewed in a hotel room in Manhattan as he prepared
for the first of four days of teaching in Buddhist philosophy.
Since he was driven out of Tibet 44 years ago by the Chinese, he has never
been back. But he said that he "certainly" expected that China would eventually
allow him and other Tibetans living in exile to return.
He long ago abandoned the goal of independence from China.
Instead, he said, he now sought "autonomy".
__________________________________________________________________
Tiscali ADSL SENZA CANONE, paghi solo quando navighi!
E in più il modem e' GRATIS! Abbonati subito.
http://point.tiscali.it/adsl/index.shtml
Data: Mar 25 Nov 2003 10:28:29 Europe/Rome
A: jugocoord
Oggetto: Dalai Lama
Cari compagni,
un po' di anni fa avete inviato ai vostri abbonati
una bella biografia del Dalai Lama. In occasione della sua visita in Italia
riuscite a rispolverarla?
Grazie
Susanna
---
1. Cosa ha a che fare la CIA con il Dalai Lama?
di Sara Flounders
2. Il mito del Tibet
di Enrica Collotti Pischel
3. Menzogne americane sul Tibet e sul Dalai Lama
Michele - Risiko
4. Dalai Lama a 'Nazi Dupe Who Succumbed to Hitler'
dal South China Morning Post
5. Dalai Lama: "Violence needed to fight terror"
Si vedano anche gli articoli di Enrica Collotti Pischel:
http://www.lernesto.it/strutture/articolo.asp?codart=869
CINA - NATO - USA
(Giano del 15/05/2000)
http://www.lernesto.it/strutture/articolo.asp?codart=867
LA CINA, ''L'ULTIMO PAESE SOVRANO''
(Giano del 15/9/2001)
=== 1 ===
Cosa ha a che fare la CIA con il Dalai Lama?
di Sara Flounders
(da Workers World, Aug. 26, 1999 - Web:
http://www.workers.org)
Il 14 agosto il Dalai Lama (DL) - figura di spicco del
buddismo tibetano - era a New York in Central Park. In
questa citta' era gia' apparso in tre incontri al Teatro
Beacon (tutto esaurito) piu' altre occasioni in cui persone
benestanti hanno potuto pagare fino a 1000 dollari un
biglietto per poterlo ascoltare.
Il Dalai Lama, con il considerevole aiuto dei maggiori
media, e' divenuto una
figura di culto. Lo si chieda a chiunque si sintonizza
abitualmente sulle radio-televisioni piu'importanti. Anche
se non si interessa di politica, costui dira' che il Dalai
Lama e' una persona buona, santa ed una "forza spirituale".
Il suo nuovo libro "L'arte della felicita'", scritto
assieme con Howard C. Cutler, e'stato pubblicizzato fino a
che non e' entrato nella lista dei best-sellers per 29
settimane.
Ma il Dalai Lama e' veramente un uomo non-politico? Se
cosi' fosse, perche' questo "santo" che si ritiene non
ammazzerebbe un insetto, ha appoggiato i bombardamenti
NATO sulla Jugoslavia? Le persone interessate alle
questioni di carattere sociale dovrebbero sapere che,
come Papa Giovanni Paolo II, il DL denuncia l'aborto, tutte
le forme di controllo delle nascite e l'omosessualita'.
L'imperialismo USA ha molta esperienza nell'uso dei
sentimenti religiosi di milioni di persone. La CIA formo'
un blocco unico con il Papa, che aveva l'appoggio di
milioni di cattolici, per abbattere il socialismo in
Polonia. Non dovrebbe stupire il fatto il DL sia utilizzato
anche dalla CIA.
D'altro canto, le figure religiose che si oppongono agli
USA sono demonizzate o diventano obbiettivi degli assassini
- dall'Arcivescovo Romero in Salvador ai religiosi
musulmani in Libano e Palestina/Israele.
Lo scorso anno Hollywood ha realizzato due importanti films
sul Tibet. Gli Studios amano il DL, che, come si e' detto,
incorpora lo spirito e le aspirazioni del popolo tibetano.
I ricchi gruppi che ora controllano Hollywood - Disney e la
Tristar - entrambi appoggiano l'organizzazione Free Tibet.
Hollywood glorifica la classe religiosa tibetana ed il suo
presunto passato idilliaco allo stesso modo in cui "Via col
vento " glorificava la classe dominate schiavista e
razzista del vecchio sud.
Uno di quest film, "Sette anni in Tibet", e' stato basato
su di un libro scritto da un nazista austriaco, Heinrich
Harrer, coinvolto in alcuni dei crimini piu' brutali dei
nazi-fascisti austriaci. Harrer fini' in Tibet durante la
seconda guerra mondiale in missione segreta per
l'imperialismo tedesco, che stava tentando di competere con
l'imperialismo britannico in Asia. Egli fu accettato nel
circolo piu' ristretto, fra la nobilta' tibetana.
# L'imperialismo e le culture indigene.
In tutto il mondo le societa' indigene dal Nord America,
alla America Latina, l'Africa e l'Oceania sono state
decimate. La ricca varieta' di culture e' stata scalzata,
calpestata, ridicolizzata. I nativi sono stati sterminati
in tutto il mondo da tutte le forze che adesso sembrano
essere rispettosamente in adorazione della cultura
tibetana.
Il Tibet e il buddismo tibetano sarebbero stati di scarso
interesse per l'imperialismo britannico ed americano se non
fosse stato per la grande rivoluzione cinese, che ha
spazzato via tutto il vecchio mondo e la corrotta societa'
feudale.
Questa e' stata una rivoluzione che ha coinvolto movimenti
di massa di milioni di contadini poveri organizzati per la
distribuzione delle terre e per la cacciata dei vecchi
signori feudali. Tale grade sollevamento sociale ha
liberato le energie creative e la partecipazione di un
quarto dell'umanita'.
Tuttora pero' i media occidentali glorificano il vecchio
Tibet.
# L'era della divisione della Cina e del suo dominio
Per oltre 100 anni, le potenze imperialiste dell'Europa
occidentale ed il Giappone hanno mantenuto la Cina nelle
sfere di loro influenza, proprio come l'Europa ha mantenuto
l'Africa fra le sue colonie. Gli Stati Uniti allora si
opponevano a questo, ma solo in quanto esclusi dall'accesso
in Cina per i loro affari. Nell'ottocento la Gran Bretagna,
potenza dominante, combatte' due guerre contro la dinastia
Manchu per il diritto al controllo sulla vendita dell'oppio
in Cina. Nel 1904 la GB lancio' una invasione su larga
scala del Tibet. Col trattato di Lhasa la Cina fu costretta
a concedere due aree di commercio alla GB, e a pagare un
ingente somma per riparare alle spese militari della
guerra.
Nel 1949 l'armata Rossa era vicina alla sconfitta
definitiva dell'esercito del Kuomintang del generale Chiang
Kai-shek, aiutato dagli USA. Washington allora stava
operando per far aderire il Tibet all'ONU come paese
indipendente. Gli sforzi fallirono perche' il Tibet e'
considerato da oltre 700 anni come provincia cinese, ed
anche il Kuomintang asseriva che la Cina includesse il
Tibet e l'isola di Taiwan.
Oggi mentre l'imperialismo USA cresce e diventa sempre piu'
aggressivo, esso si sta muovendo su vari fronti per forzare
la separazione dalla Cina del Tibet, di Taiwan e della
provincia occidentale del Xinjiang.
Proprio come nei Balcani e nella ex-Unione Sovietica, le
grandi corporations americane supportano ed incoraggiano i
separatisti per rompere e controllare completamente le aree
del globo che precedentemente erano libere dal dominio
imperialista.
# La vita nell'antico Tibet.
Il Tibet pre-rivoluzionario era una regione totalmente
sottosviluppata. Non possedeva alcun sistema viario. Le
sole piste erano quelle della preghiera. Era una teocrazia
feudale basata su agricoltura, servitu' e schiavitu'.
Oltre il 90% della popolazione era senza terra e ridotta in
servitu'. Erano legati alla terra ma senza alcuna
proprieta'. I loro figli erano registrati fra le proprieta'
del loro Signore.
Non vi erano scuole, eccetto i monasteri in cui (pochi)
giovani studiavano canti. Il totale degli studenti presenti
in scuole private era di 600 studenti. L'educazione per le
donne era totalmente sconosciuta. Non vi era alcuna forma
di assistenza sanitaria, non vi erano ospedali in tutto il
Tibet.
Un centinaio di famiglie nobili e gli abati dei monasteri -
anche essi membri di famiglie nobili - possedevano tutto.
Il Dalai Lama viveva nelle 1000 stanze del palazzo di
Potala. Tradizionalmente era scelto nella sua infanzia fra
i giovani delle famiglie potenti. Egli rimaneva poi come un
pupazzo sotto il controllo del notabilato che lo seguiva.
Per il contadino medio la vita era breve e misera, il Tibet
aveva il piu' alto tasso di tubercolosi e mortalita'
infantile nel mondo. Oggi il Tibet ha 2380 scuole primarie,
moltissime scuole professionali e l'istruzione si svolge in
lingua tibetana. Vi sono oltre 20000 dottori, 95 ospedali
cittadini e 770 cliniche.
# La lotta di classe in Cina.
Nel 1949 la Rivoluzione Cinese stabili' primariamente che
il Tibet fosse una regione autonoma con molti piu' diritti
di quanti ne avesse mai avuti in precedenza. La politica
del PC Cinese fu quella di attendere che si sviluppassero
le condizioni fra le classi oppresse tibetane per il
sollevamento e la cacciata del regime feudale.
La schiavitu' fu dichiarata fuorilegge solo dal 1959, 10
anni dopo la Rivoluzione. Cio' avvene dopo un grande
movimento di massa che isolo' il Dalai Lama. E' vero,
comunque , che il PC cinese abbia sfidato gli antichi
costumi tibetani.
Prima di tutto il governo cinese pago' un adeguato salario
a tutti coloro che lavorassero alla costruzione delle
strade. Cio' distrusse totalmente l'usanza della servitu'.
Prima di cio' un servo poteva sopravvivere lavorando per il
Signore: non per guadagnare ma per il cibo.
Ancora piu' rivoluzionario fu pagare i ragazzi e gli ex-
schiavi per frequentare le scuole; essi furono anche dotati
di libri, vitto e alloggio. Nelle famiglie piu' disperate
avevano dovuto lavorare anche i bambini per sopravvivere.
La nuova politica rivoluzionaria sollevo' per la prima
volta il livello economico delle classi piu' oppresse di
questa societa' cosi' rigida.
# La Cia mobilita le resistenza delle classi-dominanti
Dal 1955 la CIA inizio' a costruire un esercito
controrivoluzionario in Tibet, molto simile ai Contras in
Nicaragua e, piu' recentemente, al finaziamento ed
addestramento dell'UCK in Kosovo.
Il 16 agosto 1999 su Newsweek e' apparso l'articolo "Una
guerra segreta sul tetto del mondo - i monaci e
l'operazione segreta della Cia in Tibet", nel quale si
descrivono in dettaglio le operazioni CIA dal 1957 al 1965.
Analogamente, il principale articolo del Chicago Tribune
del 25 gennaio 1997 descriveva lo speciale addestramento
dei mercenari tibetani a Camp Hale nelle Montagne Rocciose
in Colorado, per tutti gli anni '50.
Tali mercenari furono paracadutati in Tibet. In accordo ai
famigerati "articoli del Pentagono" ci sono stati almeno
700 di questi voli negli anni 50. Furono usati C-130, come
piu' tardi in Viet-Nam, per portare munizioni ed armi. Vi
erano anche basi speciali a Guam e ad Okinawa, dove furono
addestrati soldati tibetani. Gyalo Thumdup, fratello del
Dali Lama, segui' le operazioni, e non era certo un
mistero. Se ne faceva un vanto.
Il Chicago Tribune aveva titolato "La guerra segreta della
Cia in Tibet" ed afferma in modo chiaro che "ben poco sulle
operazioni Cia in Himalaya e' veramente segreto, eccetto
forse ai contribuenti USA che le hanno finanziate".
La CIA diede una rendita annuale speciale di 180000$ al
Dalai Lama per tutti gli anni 60; questa e' ora una piccola
fortuna in Nepal, ove aveva organizzato un esercito ed un
governo virtuale in esilio. Gli USA hanno anche organizzato
delle radiostazioni per proiettare in Tibet l'"immagine"
del DL come quella di un dio-re.
Ralph McGhee, che ha scritto molti articoli sulle
operazioni CIA, e mantiene anche un sito web, ha descritto
in dettaglio come la "compagnia" abbia promosso il DL.
L'ufficio CIA NATIONAL EDOWDMENT for DEMOCRACY
ha procurato denaro per un fondo per il Tibet, per la Voce
del Tibet, e per la campagna internazionale per il Tibet.
=== 2 ===
"Il Manifesto" del 9 Gennaio 2000
CINA: UNA CRISI ALLA FRONTIERA DI UNA NUOVA GUERRA FREDDA
Il mito del Tibet
Dall'Impero a Mao, un popolo in gioco tra "modernizzazioni"
di Pechino e interessi occidentali in Asia. La fuga del
"giovane Buddha" dalla storia all'immaginario
- ENRICA COLLOTTI PISCHEL -
La notizia della fuga dalla Cina del giovanissimo Lama
Ugyen Trinley Dorje, terza autorità nella gerarchia delle
reincarnazioni del buddhismo tibetano stata ritenuta molto
ghiotta dai giornali italiani e viene considerata un grave
scacco per il governo cinese che non sarebbe riuscito a
impedirla, nonostante il proprio apparato militare.
Quest'interpretazione ignora che i cinesi non hanno mai
fatto nulla per fermare la fuga dei rappresentanti politici
e religiosi tibetani dalla Cina: nel 1959 l'intera classe
dirigente tibetana, con alla testa il Dalai Lama si
allontanò da Lhasa con una lunga fuga a piedi, nonostante
il pattugliamento degli aerei da combattimento cinesi. Fa
parte della politica delle autorità cinesi il pensare che
gli avversari è sempre meglio tenerli fuori del paese che
dentro, meglio lontani dai loro adepti che vicini. Se poi
le circostanze equivoche di quest'ultimo episodio - cioè la
mancata condanna di Pechino - possano far pensare a ipotesi
di contatti con il Dalai Lama e di trattative di
conciliazione, è difficile dirlo ora. Certamente il fatto
che la grande organizzazione propagandistica che negli
Stati Uniti (ma anche in Europa e nello stesso nostro
scafato e realistico paese) sostiene la causa
dell'indipendenza tibetana si sia buttata sull'episodio,
non rende certo facile un'intesa: i cinesi sanno fare molto
bene i compromessi e sono disposti a concluderli quando
siano convenienti. Ma ritengono che debbano essere cercati
e raggiunti con la massima discrezione e comunque al di
fuori di pressioni che li possano far apparire come una
resa a pressioni straniere.
E non dimentichiamo mai che "straniero" per l'intera Asia
orientale nell'ultimo secolo e mezzo ha significato
umiliazione e asservimento: di essa fece parte anche il
tentativo pi volte condotto di staccare il Tibet dalla Cina.
Il più povero
Molte cose dovrebbero essere dette a proposito del mito del
Tibet che ha preso piede, anche nei ranghi della sinistra.
Dal cinematografico "Shangri-la", al di fuori del tempo,
dello spazio e del clima, alle ovvie seduzioni di turismo
"estremo", dalle tendenze a vedere esempi validi in civiltà
rimaste primitive e tagliate fuori dal processo della
storia, alla sistematica disinformazione diffusa da potenti
mezzi mediatici statunitensi e al fascino che sugli
occidentali delusi esercitano le religioni e le ideologie
esotiche ed esoteriche, tutto confluito in un'affabulazione
della quale sono stati vittime in primo luogo proprio i
tibetani.
Certamente sono uno dei popoli più poveri del mondo,
esposti a molteplici forme di oppressione: tra esse quella
cinese è stata con ogni probabilità meno gravosa di quella
esercitata dai monaci e dagli aristocratici, dei quali i
pastori e i contadini erano fino al 1959 "schiavi", nel
senso letterale del termine, in quanto sottoposti al
diritto di vita e di morte dei loro padroni. Che poi tutti,
ma con ben diverso vantaggio, trovassero conforto nel
ricorso ad una delle forme più degradate di buddhismo (il
buddhismo tantrico tibetano popolato di fantasmi e di
incantesimi ha ben poco a che vedere con la meditazione
intellettuale e la creatività artistica dello Zen), si può
anche comprenderlo.
Per fare un minimo di chiarezza è necessario comunque
precisare alcune cose. Il Tibet non stato "conquistato
dalla Cina comunista nel 1950": dopo precedenti più
discontinui rapporti, fu conquistato dall'impero cinese,
nella prima metà del secolo XVIII e da allora stato
considerato parte dello stato cinese da tutti i governi
della Cina, anche dal Guomindang. La Cina (in cinese "Stato
del Centro") è stato ed è uno stato multietnico nel quale è
in corso da millenni un processo di trasferimenti di gruppi
etnici e soprattutto di fusione dei gruppi periferici entro
quello più importante che rappresenta nove decimi dei
cinesi ed è sempre stato capace di offrire ai suoi membri
una maggiore prosperità e i benefici di una cultura più
concreta. Mettere in discussione la natura multietnica
della civiltà e dello stato cinesi significherebbe mettere
in moto la più spaventosa catastrofe degli ultimi secoli.
Quella praticata dalla Cina non è mai stata una politica di
"pulizia etnica" bensì di fusione entro un insieme non
etnico ma contraddistinto da una comune cultura e da comuni
pratiche produttive: più che sterminarle, i cinesi hanno
comprato le minoranze.
E' vero che i tibetani per ragioni geografiche sono, entro
lo "Stato del Centro" il gruppo più lontano dalla comune
cultura, però da 250 anni sono stati sempre governati da
funzionari cinesi nominati dal governo centrale:
giuridicamente e istituzionalmente ciò ha un senso. Gli
inglesi all'apice del loro potere sull'India all'inizio del
secolo XX intrapresero, tuttavia, una serie di manovre per
staccare il Tibet dalla Cina e porlo sotto la loro
influenza giungendo, nel 1913 a convocare una conferenza a
Simla nella quale le autorità tibetane cedettero vasti
territori all'India britannica.
Nessun governo cinese ha mai accettato la validità di
quella conferenza.
Nel periodo precedente il 1949 il governo del Guomindang
considerava il Tibet a pieno diritto, parte del proprio
territorio, tanto che durante la Seconda guerra mondiale
concedeva il diritto di sorvolo agli aerei alleati.
Il ruolo della Cia
Non ha quindi alcun senso dire che la Cina conquistò il
Tibet nel 1950; nel 1950 le forze di Mao completarono in
Tibet il controllo sul territorio cinese; nel 1951 fu
raggiunto un accordo con il Dalai Lama per la concessione
di un regime di autonomia. Verso il 1957, nel pieno
dell'assedio statunitense alla Cina, i servizi segreti
inglesi e americani fomentarono una rivolta dei gruppi di
tibetani arroccati sulle montagne delle regioni cinesi del
Sichuan e dello Yunnan, lungo la strada che dalla Cina
porta al Tibet; i cinesi repressero certamente la rivolta
con pugno di ferro: nelle circostanze internazionali nelle
quali si trovavano e nel loro contesto etnico non era
razionale pensare che si comportassero diversamente. Alla
fine del 1958 i servizi segreti inglesi
annunciarono che all'inizio del 1959 essa si sarebbe
trasferita a Lhasa e avrebbe cercato l'appoggio del Dalai
Lama. Ed infatti ciò che avvenne: sullo
sfondo della rivolta, il Dalai Lama dichiarò decaduto
l'accordo per il regime autonomo e fuggì con la maggioranza
della classe dirigente tibetana in India, dove costituì un
proprio governo in esilio e il proprio centro di
propaganda.
Nessun governo al mondo ha riconosciuto questa compagine.
Recentemente la Cia (i servizi segreti americani sono
infatti obbligati a rendicontare prima o poi le loro spese
di fronte ai contribuenti) ha ammesso di aver finanziato
tutta l'operazione della rivolta tibetana.
Pechino: autonomia no
Dopo il 1959 il governo cinese spossessò monasteri e
aristocratici e "liberò gli schiavi", iniziando una
politica di modernizzazione forzosa (vaccinazioni,
costruzione di opere pubbliche) e di formazione di una
classe dirigente locale, figlia di schiavi, sottoposta a un
bombardamento educativo razionalista e anti-religioso.
Furono questi giovani che durante la rivoluzione culturale
distrussero templi e monasteri, infliggendo gravi danni a
un patrimonio culturale unico e a un'identità certo non
abbandonata dalle masse.
Dopo la morte di Mao, i governanti cinesi hanno cercato di
ristabilire i rapporti con i tibetani, migliorando le sorti
economiche dell'altipiano ma importando anche gran numero
di cinesi, non solo militari. Hanno anche trattato
indirettamente con il Dalai Lama, che - politico asiatico
molto scaltro - non chiede l'indipendenza, ma una più o
meno larga autonomia: Pechino non ha mai tuttavia voluto
concedere un reale autogoverno, che aprirebbe rischi di
secessione e metterebbe in discussione tutti i rapporti
etnici del vasto paese. Alle spalle del Dalai Lama si è
sviluppato, intanto, un vasto insieme di interessi della
classe dirigente tibetana che ormai è nata all'estero e vi
ha ricevuto una formazione culturale moderna: è questa che
chiede un'indipendenza che potrebbe essere ottenuta solo
con una guerra spietata alla Cina e potrebbe essere
innestata dal reclutamento di giovani guerriglieri in India
- segnali "terroristici" in questo senso ci sono già stati.
Erano proprio dissennati i governanti cinesi che ritenevano
che l'attacco alla Serbia motivato dalla difesa dei
"diritti umani" in Kosovo fosse in effetti la prova
generale di un attacco alla Cina?
=== 3 ===
http://www.resistenze.org/sito/te/po/ci/poci3e25.htm
www.resistenze.org - popoli resistenti - cina - 25-05-03
Menzogne americane sul Tibet e sul Dalai Lama
Media commerciali e ufficiali propongono incessantemente la
versione americana del tormento che il Tibet avrebbe subito
dall'aggressore e sterminatore cinese. Personalmente ero affascinato
anch'io dal buddismo tibetano e dalla santità del Dalai Lama. Ero
pure addolorato per l'oppressione subita dai tibetani a causa
dell'oppressione cinese. Bhè, come diciamo nel nostro motto, ho
cambiato radicalmente idea per accordarla alla verità. Le mie
conclusioni sono una profonda avversione per la "causa tibetana"
(così come ce la propone Hollywood) e per il Dalai Lama.
Come di fronte ad ogni versione ufficiale, mi sono mosso alla ricerca
di una verità alternativa. Non ero sicuro di trovarne una, ma volevo
vedere se il "martirio" del Tibet è così univoco come gli americani
vorrebbero far credere. Volevo vedere se i Cinesi possono essere
considerati "aggressori" del Tibet come ripetono incessantemente i
media legati a Washington e Londra. Questa ricerca è fatta in nome
del solo principio che mi caratterizza: la ricerca della verità. E ho
trovato delle cose sconcertanti...
Secoli di aggressioni, stermini, attentati, eccidi, guerre da parte
degli occidentali al popolo cinese non fanno parte di questo articolo,
ma vale la pena almeno accennarli per puntualizzare che nessun
"occidentale" può parlare di aggressione cinese a chicchessia senza
prima parlare di torture, umiliazioni, spoliazioni, stermini da parte
degli occidentali ai danni dei "musi gialli". Chiudiamo qui la parentesi
su cui magari scriveremo un articolo dedicato.
L'imperialismo occidentale cerca incessantemente di promuovere la
secessione del Tibet dalla Cina. Perfino una certa sinistra in buona
fede si fa portavoce (assieme agli organi di informazione dell'Impero)
di questa posizione per subalternità o mancanza di conoscenza. E
veniamo ai fatti.
La sovranità cinese sul Tibet ha alle spalle secoli e secoli di storia.
Il Tibet è territorio cinese dal tempo in cui in Europa non esistevano
ancora gli Stati nazionali. I primi a mettere in discussione la
sovranità cinese sul Tibet sono stati i fautori dell'imperialismo
britannico. (1)(2)
Come si legge in un manuale di storia asiatica (uno qualunque), i
tentativi di distruggere la sovranità cinese sul Tibet sono la
conseguenza di una politica volta allo "smantellamento della Cina".
(3)
Non sono soltanto i comunisti cinesi a considerare il Tibet parte della
Cina. Sun Yat-sen, primo presidente della Repubblica nata dal
rovesciamento della dinastia Manciù, ne era convinto. Quando gli
inglesi gli chiesero di partecipare attivamente alla Prima Guerra
Mondiale per poter recuperare alla Cina i territori che la Germania le
aveva strappato, lui rispose: "Voi vorreste strapparci anche il Tibet!".
(4)
Prima della guerra fredda Washington riconosceva che il Tibet era
territorio cinese. Ancora nel 1949 il Dipartimento di Stato Americano
pubblicò un libro sulle relazioni USA-Cina con una mappa che
mostrava tutta la Cina, Tibet incluso dunque. (5)
Tuttavia, con l'avanzare del Partito Comunista Cinese e quindi con
l'avvicinarsi al potere di un chiaro Partito di massa antimperialista,
Washington cominciò a manipolare la realtà. Gli inizi di questa
manipolazione possono essere rintracciati in una lettera del 13
gennaio 1947 al Presidente americano Truman da parte di Gorge R.
Merrel, incaricato d'affari USA a Nuova Dheli. La lettera riguardava
la "inestimabile importanza strategica" del Tibet e recitava:
"Il Tibet può pertanto essere considerato come un bastione contro
l'espansione del comunismo in Asia o almeno come un'isola di
conservatorismo in un mare di sconvolgimenti politici". E aggiunse
che "l'altopiano tibetano [?] in epoca di guerra missilistica può
rivelarsi il territorio più importante di tutta l'Asia".
Questi particolari sono tratti da un autore americano per decenni
funzionario della CIA. L'Autore evidenzia come il contenuto di
questa lettera sia quasi combaciante con la visione imperialistica
che aveva a suo tempo l'Inghilterra vittoriana impegnata nel "grande
gioco" dell'espansione in Asia. (6)
Il separatismo tibetano diviene uno strumento dell'imperialismo
americano o, meglio, per dirla come il funzionario della CIA, diviene
uno strumento degli "interessi geopolitici USA" per costringere il
nuovo governo comunista di Mao a disperdere le forze, ponendo
quindi le condizioni per un "cambiamento di regime a Pechino".
Per portare a compimento questi "interessi geopolitici USA", vennero
addestrati "guerriglieri" nel Colorado e poi paracadutati in Tibet e
riforniti per via aerea di armi, munizioni, apparecchiature
ricetrasmittenti, ecc. A tali guerriglieri la CIA aggiunge la
"collaborazione dei banditi Khampa di vecchio stile". (7)
In questo contesto si sviluppa la "rivolta tibetana" del 1959.
E' ancora il funzionario della CIA, Knaus, a raccontare i fatti: la
rivolta faceva seguito ad un tentativo fallito da parte dei servizi
segreti americani di provocare disordini in Cina a partire dalle
Filippine; come disse un esponente della CIA, lo scatenamento della
rivolta aveva "poco a che fare con l'aiuto ai tibetani", perché lo
scopo era quello di mettere in difficoltà i "comunisti cinesi". Era la
stessa logica che i servizi segreti americani usavano in Indonesia per
"aiutare i colonnelli ribelli indonesiani nel loro sforzo di rovesciare
Sukarno", reo di essere troppo tollerante verso i comunisti di quel
paese. (8) Come è noto il colpo di Stato verrà portato a termine grazie
alla CIA nel 1965, col massacro di centinaia di migliaia di comunisti o
di elementi tolleranti verso i comunisti. Sarebbero state meno feroci le
forze finanziate e addestrate dalla CIA in Tibet se avesse vinto il
separatismo? (9)
Penso che sia interessante far sapere che fu un agente della CIA a
organizzare la fuga del Dalai Lama dal Tibet: questo agente visse
più tardi nel Laos "in una casa decorata con una corona di orecchie
strappate dalle teste di comunisti morti", come ci informa un
docente americano su una rivista USA. (10)
Dopo il fallimento in territorio cinese della rivolta tibetana, i
servizi segreti americani danno inizio ad una campagna mediatica
in occidente.
Nonostante che il Dalai Lama fosse considerato allo stesso modo dei
colonnelli macellai indonesiani, come il capo della rivolta reazionaria
anticomunista filo-occidentale, ora viene santificato. Diventa il leader
della non violenza. Lo stesso buddismo tibetano diventa una dottrina
e una tecnica spirituale sublime. L'industria cinematografica
americana si adopera per proporre incessantemente questo falso mito.
Ma la storia ha dei precedenti. Quando agli inizi del Novecento gli
inglesi e la Russia si contendevano il Tibet, regione della Cina,
correva voce che lo Zar in persona si fosse convertito al buddismo.
(11)
Oggi, invece, sono la CIA e Hollywood ad essere convertiti al
buddismo. Una conversione che ha del miracoloso se si pensa che
l'Occidente ha sempre disprezzato il buddismo tibetano come
sinonimo di dispotismo orientale, con la sua figura di Dio-Re. Basti
ricordare il disprezzo dei padri della cultura occidentale come
Rousseau, Herder e Hegel. Fino ai primi anni del 1900 i lama sono
considerati una "incarnazione di tutti i vizi e di tutte le corruzioni,
non già dei lama defunti". (12)
Quando la Gran Bretagna si accinse poi alla conquista del Tibet lo
fece in nome della civiltà contro "quest'ultima roccaforte
dell'oscurantismo", per civilizzare "questo piccolo popolo
miserabile". (13)
Oggi la propaganda americana cerca di rimuovere l'infamia della
teocrazia tibetana. Come illustra lo stesso storico Morris, quello che
era in carica agli inizi del '900 "era uno dei pochi Dalai Lama ad
aver raggiunto la maggiore età, dato che la maggior parte di loro
veniva eliminata durante la fanciullezza a seconda della
convenienza del Consiglio di Reggenza". (14)
Stando a quanto affermano Hollywood e la CIA, il buddismo tibetano
è divenuto sinonimo di pace e tolleranza, oltre che di elevata
spiritualità. Seguendo l'ideologia imperialistica anticomunista
occidentale, "i tibetani sono dei superuomini e i cinesi dei
subumani". (15)
La teocrazia oscurantista tibetana è santificata dai media
commerciali americani al servizio degli strateghi militari. La struttura
castale si manifesta anche dopo la morte: il corpo di un aristocratico
viene cremato o inumato, mentre i corpi della massa vengono dati in
pasto agli avvoltoi. Poco tempo fa era l'"International Herald
Tribune" che descriveva come durante i funerali di plebei fosse il
sacerdote che staccava pezzo per pezzo la carne dalle ossa per
facilitare il compito degli avvoltoi.
La descrizione era minuziosa e seguita da uno studioso che spiegava il
tutto in chiave "ecologica". (16) Lo studioso non chiariva però perché
all'equilibrio ecologico doveva contribuire solo il corpo dei plebei.
Vorrei chiarire la mia posizione: io non condanno queste pratiche
disumane perché potrei rimanere vittima della mia cultura italiana;
dovrei essere un tibetano per condannarle; ad ognuno la sua cultura.
Io condanno il fatto che gli occidentali imperialisti appoggino pratiche
così disumane per noi, sostengano movimenti sanguinari come il
buddismo tibetano e siano pronti ad inventarsi ogni peggiore frottola
(molto meno disumana) su falsi crimini di Cuba, di Saddam, di
Pechino e di tutti gli avversari, salvo santificare la reazione più
assoluta.
La Rivoluzione Culturale maoista si era scagliata contro la pratica
castale, discriminatrice e violenta. Nel Tibet precedente alla
Rivoluzione la teocrazia riduceva in schiavitù o servaggio la
stragrande maggioranza della popolazione. Come scrisse uno scrittore
radicalmente anticomunista, le riforme realizzate dal 1951 hanno
"abolito feudalesimo e servaggio". (17) La Rivoluzione abolì anche
la teocrazia incarnata nel Dio-Re che pretendeva e pretende ancor
oggi di essere il Dalai Lama. Fu attuata la separazione tra potere
religioso e potere civile.
La Rivoluzione ha significato per i tibetani l'accesso a diritti umani
prima del tutto sconosciuti, un miglioramento del tenore di vita e un
sensibile prolungamento della vita media. E ciò è, malgrado i media,
universalmente riconosciuto da tutti gli esperti analisti della regione.
La Cina di oggi garantisce alla Regione Autonoma Tibetana libertà
che non ha mai conosciuto in tutta la sua storia passata e recente. La
regione tibetana, oltre ad avere il bilinguismo con prima lingua il
tibetano, vede garantiti altri diritti nazionali quali la preferenza a
favore dei tibetani e delle altre minoranze nazionali per quanto
riguarda l'ammissione all'università, la carriera pubblica, ecc.
(18)
Il santificato Dalai Lama viene insignito del Premio Nobel. Ma cosa
chiede questo personaggio che si proclama Dio-Re? "Esige la
creazione di un Grande Tibet, il quale includerebbe non solo il
territorio che ha costituito il Tibet politico in età contemporanea,
ma anche aree tibetane nella Cina occidentale, in larghissima
parte perse dal Tibet già nel diciottesimo secolo". (19) E poi
esistono tibetani in Bhutan, Nepal, India. Tutti i loro territori
dovrebbero far parte del Grande Tibet. Si tratta della pretesta di
Hitler di riunificate nello lo stesso Stato tutti i territori che erano
abitati da maggioranza tedesca. Il principio "nazionale" del Dalai
Lama è quello di Hitler, con la sola differenza che del
nazional-socialismo il Dalai Lama non ha neppure un briciolo di
"socialismo". E' solo puro nazionalismo esasperato ai massimi livelli.
Ora, questa santità, Premio Nobel per la Pace, odia profondamente gli
uomini che hanno la pelle gialla e parlano il cinese. Un odio viscerale,
razzista, tanto che, quando l'India procedette al riarmo nucleare,
trovò il suo più fiero sostenitore nel Premio Nobel, il Dalai Lama.
Ma, ci domandiamo, almeno il multimiliardario Dalai Lama
rappresenta il popolo tibetano? Risposta: nemmeno per sogno! E'
perfino il "Libro Nero del Comunismo" a riconoscere che
un'elementare analisi storica "distrugge il mito unanimista
alimentato dai partigiani del Dalai Lama". (20)
Alla liberazione pacifica del Tibet nel 1951, che portò alla caduta del
regime teocratico, vi fu una resistenza accanita dei gruppi più
reazionari e delle classi dei privilegiati, ma i comunisti poterono
contare sull'appoggio della stragrande maggioranza della popolazione
civile. Gli autori più anticomunisti e anticinesi del pianeta-Occidente
si scagliano così contro la plebe tibetana, colpevole di "essersi
collegata subito col regime comunista"; anche i monaci sono dei
farabutti che "non esitano ad augurarsi che 'presto sia liberato' il
Tibet" e che commettono il crimine di fraternizzare con i comunisti e
l'esercito Popolare di Liberazione.
Per questi autori è inconcepibile come il Dalai Lama sia disprezzato
non solo dalla maggior parte del popolo, ma anche da ampi settori
religiosi tibetani. Ancora nel 1992, nel corso di un suo viaggio a
Londra il Dalai Lama è oggetto di manifestazioni ostili da parte
della più grande organizzazione buddista in Gran Bretagna, che lo
accusa di essere un "dittatore spietato" e un "oppressore della
libertà religiosa". (21)
Oggi il Dalai Lama continua a sperare in una disintegrazione della
Cina come è avvenuto nella tragedia che ha caratterizzato l'URSS. (22)
Michele - Risiko
NOTE:
Le informazioni di questo articolo sono ricavate da Domenico
Losurdo, "La sinistra, la Cina e l'imperialismo", ed. La città del
Sole, Napoli.
La sua opera di informazione è indispensabile sull'argomento.
(1) Owen Lattimore, 1970, "La frontiera. Popoli e imperialismi alla
frontiera tra Cina e Russia", Einaudi, Torino.
(2) Jacques Fernet, 1978, "Il mondo cinese. Dalle prime civiltà alla
Repubblica Popolare", Einaudi, Torino.
(3) Jan Romein, 1969, "Il secolo dell'Asia. Imperialismo occidentale e
rivoluzione asiatica nel secolo XX", Einaudi, Torino.
(4) Sun Yat-sen, 1976, "L'imperialismo dei bianchi e l'imperialismo
dei gialli", in "I tre principi del popolo", Einaudi, Torino.
(5) Herbert Aptheker, 1977, "America Foreign Policy and The Cold
War" (1962), Krauss Reprint Millwood, N.Y.
(6) Jhon Kenneth Knaus, 1999, "Orphans of the Cold War. American
and the Tibetan Struggle for Survival", PublicAffairs, N.Y.
(7) Come sopra.
(8) Come sopra.
(9) Domenico Losurdo, 1999, "La sinistra, la Cina e l'imperialismo",
La città del Sole, Napoli.
(10) Daniel Wikler, 1999, "The Dalai Lama and the CIA", in "The
New York Review of Books", 23 settembre.
(11) James Morris, 1992, "Pax Britannica", The Folio Society,
London.
(12) Donald S. Lopez Jr., 1998, "Prisoners of Shangri - La. Tibetan
Buddhism and the West", University of Chicago Press, Chicago and
London.
(13) Vedi nota 11.
(14) Come sopra.
(15) Vedi nota 12.
(16) Seth Faison, 1999, "In Tibean 'Sky Burials', Vultures Dispose of
the Dead", in "International Herald Tribune", 6 luglio.
(17) Melvyn C. Goldstein, 1998, "The Dalai Lama's Dilemma", in
"Foreign Affairs", gennaio-febbraio.
(18) Seth Faison, 1999, "for Tibetans in Sichuan, Life in the Shadow
of Intollerance", in "International Herald Tribune", 1 settembre.
(19) Vedi nota 17.
(20) Courtois et al., 1998, « Il Libro Nero del Comunismo »,
Mondadori, Milano.
(21) Vedi nota 12.
(22) Vedi nota 17.
=== 4 ===
http://www.amgroup.com/jue/chinanews/archives/docs/971003d.html
Dalai Lama a 'Nazi Dupe Who Succumbed to Hitler'
Friday, October 03, 1997 -- South China Morning Post
TOM KORSKI in Beijing
The Dalai Lama has been branded as a Nazi dupe who fell prey to "certain
influences" of the Hitler regime as a schoolboy.
Mainland media denounced the Tibetan Nobel Prize laureate as a follower
of German fascists after disclosures that the Dalai Lama's former mathematics
teacher was a member of the Nazi SS.
In a vitriolic commentary, the official periodical, the Beijing
Review, portrayed the Dalai Lama as a fascist disciple of Heinrich Harrer,
an Austrian mountaineer who taught the young spiritual leader in the late
1940s.
A US$60 million (HK$464 million) Hollywood film highly critical of China's
occupation of Tibet, based on the Harrer 1953 autobiography Seven Years
in Tibet, is to be released next Wednesday.
"It is logical to ask whether Harrer's Nazi background exerted
certain influences on the 14th Dalai Lama who was 11 years old at the time
and under his guidance," the commentary said.
Harrer, 85, admitted to serving as an SS sports trainer and shaking Hitler's
hand at a 1938 rally after the German weekly Stern disclosed the Austrian's
Nazi affiliations last May.
The Beijing Review, repeating many of the Stern revelations, noted that
"Nazi fascists brought great suffering to the world".
"Their savagery and cruel infringements on human rights were unique in human
history," the commentary continued.
Authorities have repeatedly condemned the Columbia Pictures film, starring
Brad Pitt, and vowed to ban it from all mainland cinemas.
"Should Hollywood sing songs in praise of Nazis?" asked the
commentary.
=== 5 ===
From: Rick Rozoff
HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK
---------------------------
Perhaps the headline was meant to read Terror Needed
To Fight Violence: The West's Humanitarian Poster Boy
Better keep this guy away from Nepal....
--- Geese 4 Peace wrote:
Subject: Dalai Lama: Violence needed to fight terror
from
The Age
Fri, September 19, 2003
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/18/1063625159989.html
Violence needed to fight terror: Buddha's man of peace
By Laurie Goodstein
New York
The Dalai Lama, a Nobel peace prize winner and one of the world's most prominent
advocates of non-violence, says it might be necessary to fight terrorists
with violence.
He also says it is too early to say whether the war in Iraq was a
mistake. "I feel only history will tell," he said in an interview.
"Terrorism is the worst kind of violence, so we have to check it, we have
to take countermeasures," the Dalai Lama said.
He spoke on Wednesday during his first visit to New York since the 2001
terrorist attacks. He is on the last stop of a US tour that has highlighted
his dual roles as Buddhist avatar and head of state.
During the visit he has met Tibetan exiles in several cities,
dedicated an inter-faith temple and pressed the Tibetan cause in Washington.
At a time when many political and religious leaders are saying the American
anti-terrorism campaign and the war in Iraq are only fuelling additional
terrorism, the Dalai Lama refused to pass judgement.
But he emphasised that "the real antidote" to terrorism in the long run
is "compassion, dialogue - peaceful means" - even with terrorists.
"We have to deal with their motivation," he said. "Terrorism comes out of
hatred, and also short-sightedness."
He likened Osama bin Laden to a butcher who has grown inured to slaughtering
animals. With terrorists, he said, applying a Buddhist analysis, "their
whole mind is dominated by negative emotions".
He rejected the prediction popularised by some scholars that the world is
headed towards a "clash of civilisations" between Christian and Muslim nations.
He cited the case of the Soviet Union, whose people once
expressed hostility towards the US and the West but had now changed their
minds.
The Arab world could do the same, he said.
The Dalai Lama, 68, was interviewed in a hotel room in Manhattan as he prepared
for the first of four days of teaching in Buddhist philosophy.
Since he was driven out of Tibet 44 years ago by the Chinese, he has never
been back. But he said that he "certainly" expected that China would eventually
allow him and other Tibetans living in exile to return.
He long ago abandoned the goal of independence from China.
Instead, he said, he now sought "autonomy".
__________________________________________________________________
Tiscali ADSL SENZA CANONE, paghi solo quando navighi!
E in più il modem e' GRATIS! Abbonati subito.
http://point.tiscali.it/adsl/index.shtml
Da: <icdsm-italia@...>
Data: Lun 24 Nov 2003 15:24:44 Europe/Rome
A: "icdsm-italia" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] Leaders of the World Peace Council demand release
of President Milosevic
Recognizing SLOBODA/Freedom Association as the only organization in Serbia
struggling effectively for peace, sovereignty and equality, the Executive
Committee of the World Peace Council in the Meeting held in Athens on 16/17
November 2003 decided to admit SLOBODA into full membership of the World
Peace Council, one of the oldest and most distinguished non-governmental
organizations in the UN system.
During the same Meeting, leaders of the World Peace Council and of the the
national organizations signed the following
P E T I T I O N
The illegal trial of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic by the illegal
NATO puppet tribunal at The Hague is a tool of warfare against the freedom
and stability, mockery of universal judicial and human rights protection
principles and an attempted murder
After the popular resistance prevented in 1999 military occupation
of Yugoslavia, the aggression against that country continues by other means.
Blackmail, bribery and subversion were the tools of the "regime change"
in Belgrade in 2000. The crimes committed in the NATO aggression against
Yugoslavia are now to obtain a posteriori justification by the kidnapping
and inhuman political trial of the democratically elected President of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic.
Approaching its end, the two years lasting presentation of
the charges by the prosecution, in spite of numerous manipulations, fabrications
and false witnesses, brought no evidence whatsoever. On the contrary, already
in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, President Milosevic
succeeded to say much about the people's struggle for sovereignty and equality
and to present grave charges against the imperialist aggression and colonization
of the Balkans, spreading now to many parts of the World.
Unable to defeat President Milosevic in the courtroom, the
modern-time inquisitors attempt to silence him. By the lack of medical care
and by the inhuman prison and trial conditions, requiring over-human efforts
or making impossible defense preparations, President Slobodan Milosevic
(62), with malignant hypertension and damaged heart is in the constant threat
of infarct or stroke.
Therefore:
We demand immediate release of President Milosevic.
We call upon all UN members and all concerned UN bodies to
review the evidence of unjust, unfair and political character of the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague and its grave violations
of human rights, discrediting the World Organization and to act towards
its abolishment.
We express our solidarity with the people and progressive forces
in Serbia and Montenegro in their strive to regain freedom, sovereignty
and democracy.
Athens, 17 November 2003
Signed by:
Romesh Chandra, President of Honor of the World Peace Council
Athanasios Pafilis, General Secretary of the Greek Committee for International
Detente and Peace, Executive Secretary of the World Peace Council
Nikos Fotiadis, Vice-President of the Greek Committee for International
Detente and Peace
Orlando Fundora, President of the Cuban Movement for Peace, Vice-President
of the World Peace Council
Arturo Espinosa, Vice-President of the Cuban Movement for Peace
Manuel Yepe, Secretary of the Cuban Movement for Peace
Abdelrahman Merie, General Secretary of the Palestinian Council for Justice
and Peace, member of the Secretariat of the World Peace Council
Pham Van-Chuong, Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation
Ta Quoc Tuan, Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation
Pallab Sengupta, All India Peace and Solidarity Organization
Baerbel Schindler-Saefkov, German Peace Council
Manuel Terrazas, President of the Mexican Peace Council
Rina Bertaccini, Movement for Peace, Friendship and Solidarity among Peoples
(Argentina)
Stephanos Stephanou, Cyprus Peace Council
Kim Il Bong, Korean National Peace Council
Nela Martinez, Peace and Independence (Ecuador)
Gilberto Calvo, Costa Rican National Peace Council
D. Okombi, African Commission of the World Peace Council
Juan Pablo Acosta, Dominican Union of Journalists for Peace
Emin Cetin, Peace Association (Turkey)
Pol De Vos, President of the Anti-Imperialist League (Belgium)
Vladimir Krsljanin, Freedom Association, Serbia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
email: icdsm-italia@...
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
__________________________________________________________________
Tiscali ADSL SENZA CANONE, paghi solo quando navighi!
E in più il modem e' GRATIS! Abbonati subito.
http://point.tiscali.it/adsl/index.shtml
Data: Lun 24 Nov 2003 15:24:44 Europe/Rome
A: "icdsm-italia" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] Leaders of the World Peace Council demand release
of President Milosevic
Recognizing SLOBODA/Freedom Association as the only organization in Serbia
struggling effectively for peace, sovereignty and equality, the Executive
Committee of the World Peace Council in the Meeting held in Athens on 16/17
November 2003 decided to admit SLOBODA into full membership of the World
Peace Council, one of the oldest and most distinguished non-governmental
organizations in the UN system.
During the same Meeting, leaders of the World Peace Council and of the the
national organizations signed the following
P E T I T I O N
The illegal trial of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic by the illegal
NATO puppet tribunal at The Hague is a tool of warfare against the freedom
and stability, mockery of universal judicial and human rights protection
principles and an attempted murder
After the popular resistance prevented in 1999 military occupation
of Yugoslavia, the aggression against that country continues by other means.
Blackmail, bribery and subversion were the tools of the "regime change"
in Belgrade in 2000. The crimes committed in the NATO aggression against
Yugoslavia are now to obtain a posteriori justification by the kidnapping
and inhuman political trial of the democratically elected President of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic.
Approaching its end, the two years lasting presentation of
the charges by the prosecution, in spite of numerous manipulations, fabrications
and false witnesses, brought no evidence whatsoever. On the contrary, already
in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, President Milosevic
succeeded to say much about the people's struggle for sovereignty and equality
and to present grave charges against the imperialist aggression and colonization
of the Balkans, spreading now to many parts of the World.
Unable to defeat President Milosevic in the courtroom, the
modern-time inquisitors attempt to silence him. By the lack of medical care
and by the inhuman prison and trial conditions, requiring over-human efforts
or making impossible defense preparations, President Slobodan Milosevic
(62), with malignant hypertension and damaged heart is in the constant threat
of infarct or stroke.
Therefore:
We demand immediate release of President Milosevic.
We call upon all UN members and all concerned UN bodies to
review the evidence of unjust, unfair and political character of the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague and its grave violations
of human rights, discrediting the World Organization and to act towards
its abolishment.
We express our solidarity with the people and progressive forces
in Serbia and Montenegro in their strive to regain freedom, sovereignty
and democracy.
Athens, 17 November 2003
Signed by:
Romesh Chandra, President of Honor of the World Peace Council
Athanasios Pafilis, General Secretary of the Greek Committee for International
Detente and Peace, Executive Secretary of the World Peace Council
Nikos Fotiadis, Vice-President of the Greek Committee for International
Detente and Peace
Orlando Fundora, President of the Cuban Movement for Peace, Vice-President
of the World Peace Council
Arturo Espinosa, Vice-President of the Cuban Movement for Peace
Manuel Yepe, Secretary of the Cuban Movement for Peace
Abdelrahman Merie, General Secretary of the Palestinian Council for Justice
and Peace, member of the Secretariat of the World Peace Council
Pham Van-Chuong, Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation
Ta Quoc Tuan, Vietnam Peace and Development Foundation
Pallab Sengupta, All India Peace and Solidarity Organization
Baerbel Schindler-Saefkov, German Peace Council
Manuel Terrazas, President of the Mexican Peace Council
Rina Bertaccini, Movement for Peace, Friendship and Solidarity among Peoples
(Argentina)
Stephanos Stephanou, Cyprus Peace Council
Kim Il Bong, Korean National Peace Council
Nela Martinez, Peace and Independence (Ecuador)
Gilberto Calvo, Costa Rican National Peace Council
D. Okombi, African Commission of the World Peace Council
Juan Pablo Acosta, Dominican Union of Journalists for Peace
Emin Cetin, Peace Association (Turkey)
Pol De Vos, President of the Anti-Imperialist League (Belgium)
Vladimir Krsljanin, Freedom Association, Serbia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
email: icdsm-italia@...
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
__________________________________________________________________
Tiscali ADSL SENZA CANONE, paghi solo quando navighi!
E in più il modem e' GRATIS! Abbonati subito.
http://point.tiscali.it/adsl/index.shtml
Milosevic "trial" synopsis, November 1--15, 2003
1. LORD OWEN TESTIFIES AT THE MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" - November 5, 2003
2. DAVID HARLAND CONCLUDES HIS TESTIMONY AT THE MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" - November
6, 2003
3. MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: NOVEMBER 11, 2003
4. MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: NOVEMBER 12, 2003
5. DUTCHBAT COMMANDER SAW NO EXECUTIONS IN SREBRENICA - November 13, 2003
=== 1 ===
SYNOPSIS: LORD OWEN TESTIFIES AT THE MILOSEVIC "TRIAL"
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - November 5, 2003
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
Lord David Owen, former chief negotiator of the European Union, and author
of the book ?Balkan Odyssey? testified at the so-called ?trial? of Slobodan
Milosevic on Monday and Tuesday of this week.
Lord Owen did not testify as a prosecution witness, in fact he refused
to testify as a prosecution witness, rather he testified simply as a witness
for the court.
He was examined first by Mr. Nice, then by President Milosevic, and finally
by the Amicus Curiae Mr. Kay.
Lord Owen as the E.U.?s chief negotiator was in frequent contact with Milosevic,
and he believed that President Milosevic was totally committed to the Vance-Owen
plan. Owen also said that President Milosevic insisted on a solution that
was equal to all three sides.
Owen testified that President Milosevic supported various peace plans.
For example President Milosevic supported: the Cutileiro plan in March
of 1992, the Vance-Owen plan in May of 1993, the Owen-Stoltenberg plan
(a.k.a. the ?invincible plan?) in September of 1993, the European Union
Action plan in December of 1993, the Contact Group plan in July of 1994,
and ultimately the Dayton peace plan in 1995.
Lord Owen also testified that President Milosevic entreated the Bosnian
Serb leadership to accept all of these plans. Owen also confirmed that
without the contribution of Serbia, and President Milosevic in particular
that Dayton never would have happened. In fact it was Slobodan Milosevic
who cast the deciding vote for peace at Dayton.
According to Owen the Bosnian Serb leadership was not a pack of mindless
automatons operating at the whim and will of Milosevic. First of all the
politics were different in Pale than in Belgrade, for example Slobodan
Milosevic is a communist and Radovan Karadzic is not a communist.
Indeed the Bosnian Serbs acted against the will of President Milosevic
when the Republika Srpska Assembly rejected the Vance-Owen plan, and also
the Contact Group plan. Lord Owen confirmed that President Milosevic traveled
to Pale and did everything he could, short of using force, to convince
the Bosnian Serbs to accept the Vance-Owen plan. And according to Owen
this episode damaged Milosevic politically and significantly reduced what
influence he did have in Pale.
According to Lord Owen, President Milosevic was ?very helpful? in the peace
negotiations. Owen explained that President Milosevic would use logic and
put forward arguments to try and influence the decisions made by Pale,
but that he would acquiesce and tell them that at the end of the day it
was up to them to decide what course they would take. This was Owen?s main
problem with Milosevic. Owen considered that Milosevic should have used
force with the Bosnian Serbs, and forced them to accept his point of view.
This is a rather dramatic blow to the prosecution?s case. Here is one of
the highest international officials to be on the scene in Bosnia during
the war and he is upset with Milosevic, because Milosevic *did not* control
the Bosnian Serb leadership.
Not only did Milosevic *not* control the Bosnian Serb leadership, but he
also did *not* control the Krajina Serb leadership. Owen had a low opinion
of Milan Martic, and explained that he saw on numerous occasions that Slobodan
Milosevic would also be frustrated and angry with Mr. Martic. It has been
said in the past that Milosevic controlled Martic. Owen?s account blows
that idea to pieces. Why would Milosevic be frustrated and angry with somebody,
if he was the one controlling them?
Owen considered that Milosevic was somewhat afraid of his nationalistic
political opposition in Belgrade; namely Seselj and Draskovic. If we follow
Lord Owen?s position then perhaps we can see what would have been done
to Milosevic if he had attempted to use force against the Serbs in Bosnia.
I emphasize that this is just hypothetical because Slobodan Milosevic would
never have used force against the Bosnian Serbs in the first place. The
point of this hypothesis is to demonstrate that even if he had wanted to,
President Milosevic could not have used force against the Bosnian Serbs,
because he would have been overthrown if he had tried.
President Milosevic did of course exert pressure; he blockaded the Drina
River when the Bosnian Serbs did not adopt the Contact Group plan.
Owen explained to a disappointed Mr. Nice that Slobodan Milosevic is not
a racist, and never was a racist. According to Owen, President Milosevic,
and his wife Mira Markovic are repulsed by ethnic racism. Owen said that
the ethnic make-up of Serbia proves that President Milosevic is not now,
and never has been a racist. As Owen explained there are Muslims, Croats,
and people of all ethnicities who lived and are still living freely in
Serbia. Indeed, Serbia is the most ethnically mixed part of the Balkan
Peninsula.
As for this business of a so-called ?greater Serbia? plan. According to
Owen, Milosevic was reconciled with the idea that Krajina Serbs would live
in Croatia, and Bosnian Serbs would live in Bosnia.
Owen said that he didn?t know what Milosevic?s position on ?greater Serbia?
was before he got there, so Milosevic reminded him of the fact that he
had supported both the Cutileiro plan and the Vance Plan. With that Owen
admitted that President Milosevic?s support for the plans indicated that
he never had any ideas about creating any ?greater Serbia.?
A document was exhibited in ?court? that was signed both by Slobodan Milosevic
and Franjo Tudjman. The document denied that the so-called ?Karadjordjevo
meeting? had ever taken place. According to the document, the two men had
never had any plan or conspiracy to divide Bosnia up between the two of
them, and indeed Owen confirmed that President Milosevic had never said
that he wanted even an inch of territory in Bosnia. But Owen said that
Tudjman openly claimed Herzeg-Bosna as Croatian territory and openly sent
troops into Bosnia from Croatia.
To completely and totally refute this ?greater Serbia? propaganda President
Milosevic presented the 1992 declaration of the FRY government stating
that the FRY made no territorial claims on any of the former SFRY republics.
Lord Owen denounced the so-called ?safe-areas? (Srebrenica, Zepa, Gorazde,
etc?) as a scam and a farce. The UN had inadequate troops and resources
to protect them, and the Muslims refused to demilitarize the safe areas
and indeed carried out attacks from them. The whole thing was a joke.
When President Milosevic examined Lord Owen one of the first things that
was established was that Belgrade did *not* control the VRS.
To drive the point home President Milosevic showed a report written by
former UN Secretary General, Butros Butros Ghali (exhibit D-91) to Lord
Owen. The report was dated 30 May 1992, and stated in no uncertain terms
that the VRS was not under the control of Belgrade.
The report said that the VRS was formed out of the JNA troops who were
originally from Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The report stated that on 4 May 1992 Belgrade authorities ordered the evacuation
of the JNA from Bosnia and that on 18 May 1992 all JNA personnel who were
not originally from Bosnia-Herzegovina were withdrawn from Bosnia Herzegovina,
except in limited cases when hostile forces prevented the JNA?s immediate
withdrawal, by measures such as the blockading of barracks.
Owen stated that he believed the Secretary General?s report to be accurate.
President Milosevic then noted that in spite of the Secretary General?s
report, which clearly placed the VRS outside of Belgrade?s control that
in spite of that on the same day as the report was issued that the Security
Council imposed sanctions on the FRY.
President Milosevic claimed that there was no aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina
that it was a civil war, and to any normal person this can clearly be seen.
Slobodan Milosevic said that the JNA did not occupy Bosnia. The JNA had
always been in Bosnia, because Bosnia was part of Yugoslavia, and the JNA
was Yugoslavia?s national army. Lord Owen agreed.
Slobodan Milosevic observed that the Bosnian-Serbs were not occupying Bosnia.
They had always lived there, and that the VRS was made-up of Bosnian-Serbs,
and again Lord Owen agreed.
President Milosevic said that since there was no occupation, and the fighting
was between the people who lived in Bosnia then the war was a civil war
and not a war of aggression. Lord Owen disagreed.
The bottom line according to Owen was that Bosnia was the UN Security Council?s
creation. Owen had to explain that the UN Security Council had recognized
Bosnia as an independent country, and that it had recognized Alija Izetbegovic?s
government as the legitimate government. Therefore, anybody who was at
war with Izetbegovic and his regime was technically engaged in aggression,
even if they did live in Bosnia.
It is interesting to note here that in the beginning everybody supported
keeping Yugoslavia as one united country. The EC, the OSCE, and the United
States all initially supported keeping Yugoslavia as one united country.
Lord Owen indicated that this all changed when Clinton took office.
In the opinion of Lord Owen it would have been better had the SFRY not
dissolved. He said that the recognition of Bosnia was premature, and was
a catastrophic mistake. Lord Owen also said that Cyrus Vance shared his
opinion and viewed the premature recognition as being an absolute scandal,
and a tragic mistake.
The premature recognition of the secessionist Yugoslav republics was scandalous.
President Milosevic read out a quote from Lord Carrington in which it states
that they were near reaching a political solution with Croatia regarding
Slavonia and Krajina, but that the premature recognition of Croatia toppled
the peace process. Carrington considered that the recognition was ?a treacherous
act? by the Security Council.
As for the allegations that Serbia was arming the Bosnian Serbs, Owen said
that he had no proof of that. According to Owen the Bosnian Serbs had the
ability to produce their own weapons and their own ammunition.
Lord Owen spoke of the roll that the Washington D.C. based public relations
firm Ruder-Finn played on behalf of the Muslims and Croats. How Ruder-Finn
would pay people to write editorials and letters to the editor, how Ruder-Finn
would arrange for Western journalists and politicians to speak with Muslim
and Croat officials.
According to Lord Owen, Ejup Ganic was the mastermind behind Muslim propaganda.
Owen said that the strategy of the Muslim propaganda was to portray themselves
as the victims in the hopes that the United States would intervene on their
side militarily.
Indeed Owen confirmed that Ganic used all means to achieve his goals. He
even said that Ganic preferred to have Sarajevo under siege.
Owen also confirmed that Milosevic wanted the siege stopped. In fact Owen
acknowledged that President Milosevic wanted to send the International
Red Cross into Bosnia. So here we have Milosevic who wants to stop the
siege and bring in the Red Cross, and Ganic who wants the war to continue
because it helps him in his drive to portray the Muslims as the victims.
While there is no doubt that President Milosevic wanted peace. The United
States and the Clinton Administration in particular are a different story.
According to Lord Owen the United States was hostile to the Vance-Owen
Peace plan, and to the peace process in general. The United States would
encourage the Muslims to make absurd demands in order to derail the peace
process.
Lord Owen confirmed that the United States was pro-Croat. President Milosevic
read out a quote from Stoltenberg where he said that Tudjman was preparing
an offensive with the approval of the White House, and this was during
a cease fire when nobody was supposed to be mounting offensives. Of course
everybody knows, and it was confirmed by Lord Owen that the biggest ethnic
cleansing operation in all of those Balkan wars was the "operation storm"
that was perpetrated by Croatia against the Krajina Serbs.
All in all the testimony of Lord Owen was very interesting, and rather
educational. For the record I note that the full text of the Cutileiro
plan was exhibited, and its exhibit number is D-209.
The main thing that was established by Lord Owen?s testimony is that President
Slobodan Milosevic is a man of peace. The prosecution is almost finished
presenting its case and it is clearer now than it ever has been that Slobodan
Milosevic is not a war criminal. After seeing the prosecution?s total lack
of evidence, and after observing the underhanded tactics that they employ
all I can say is: Congratulations Ms. del Ponte! If you wanted to convince
me that Slobodan Milosevic is a hero then you?ve certainly been successful.
=== 2 ===
SYNOPSIS: DAVID HARLAND CONCLUDES HIS TESTIMONY AT THE MILOSEVIC "TRIAL"
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - November 6, 2003
David Harland, the United Nations civil and political affairs officer in
Sarajevo was recalled at the ?trial? of Slobodan Milosevic on Wednesday.
Mr. Harland was the longest serving UN official in Bosnia. He had originally
begun his testimony on September 18th. He returned on Wednesday to complete
his cross examination.
First of all, here is a summary of Harland?s September 18th appearance
at the ?Tribunal.?
While speaking of ethnic cleansing, Mr. Harland confirmed that Radovan
Karadzic never challenged the rights of non-Serbs to live on Bosnian Serb
territory.
Harland did, however, confirm that ethnic cleansing did take place, and
that all three sides were guilty of perpetrating that crime.
Harland also affirmed that President Milosevic supported the Vance-Owen
plan, and that his goal and the goal of Serbia was ?for the Serb people
to be free and equal, not more, not less than that.?
President Milosevic?s words at the Bosnian Serb assembly in Pale confirm
that his aim in supporting the Vance-Owen plan was equality. President
Milosevic said in his speech to the Bosnian Serb Assembly that "With this
plan, the Serb people have restored their right to be treated equally as
a constituent nation and with this plan its fate will be in its hands,
as it will be in the hands of the other two peoples on an equal footing
and in freedom."
Harland tried to say that the Bosnian Serbs wanted 70% of Bosnia for themselves,
and so President Milosevic pointed out that the Bosnian Serbs had agreed
to the Cutileiro Plan and also to the Contact Group plan, and that neither
one of those plans envisioned 70% of the territory for the Serbs. Harland
then admitted that it was correct that the Bosnian Serbs had accepted those
plans and that neither of those plans called for 70% to go to the Serbs.
President Milosevic observed, and Harland grudgingly confirmed that Radovan
Karadzic was constantly trying to bring the Muslims to the negotiating
table.
When President Milosevic asked what goals that the Bosnian Muslims had
Mr. Harland said, ?I think that there was one group which felt that the
Muslims are the largest community in Bosnia and Herzegovina and therefore
they had an interest in keeping Bosnia and Herzegovina together as a single
state in which they would not be threatened in any way because they would
be almost a majority. And, in fact, of course there is -- there is language
in Mr. Izetbegovic's Islamic declaration which refers to the -- the role
that will be played by a Muslim community once they become a majority in
a -- in a given country.?
President Milosevic observed the contents of Izetbegovic?s Islamic Declaration
in which it says that "there can be neither peace nor coexistence between
the Islamic faith and non-Islamic social and political institutions" and
"the Islamic movement must and can, take over political power as soon as
it is morally and numerically so strong that it can not only destroy the
existing non-Islamic power, but also to build up a new Islamic one?.
In connection with what is stated in the Islamic Declaration of Alija Izetbegovic,
President Milosevic asked the following question of Mr. Harland: ?Do you
then consider that the Serbs could have accepted a state conceived along
those lines, the Serbs which had until then lived as a nation on a footing
of equality with everybody else in the area? Could they have accepted that??
Harland didn?t answer the question. Instead he decided to make accusations
against the Serbs because he realized that the Bosnian war was the Muslims
fault and he wasn?t ready to admit that. By then it was 1:45 and the September
18th session ended.
When Harland returned to finish his cross-examination last Wednesday president
Milosevic showed him an ethnic map of Sarajevo based on the 1981 census,
and it was observed that the Serbs did not ?occupy? Sarajevo. It could
be clearly seen on the map that the Serbs were indigenous to Sarajevo,
and Harland confirmed that the VRS positions around Sarajevo roughly confirmed
to the territory that the Serbs were shown to be living on already by the
1981 census.
It was also confirmed by Mr. Harland that the 40,000 Serb civilians who
were trapped behind Muslim lines in Sarajevo were not allowed to leave
the theatre of combat. It was observed that it is a serious violation of
international law to hold a civilian inside of a combat area against their
will.
President Milosevic brought up the Mt. Igman agreement. In the agreement
Ravovan Karadzic agreed to withdraw VRS troops from Mt. Igman and handover
control of 13 checkpoints to UNPROFOR.
Harland confirmed that Karadzic had indeed made this agreement in order
to get the Muslims to come to the negotiating table.
But what happened after Karadzic withdrew the VRS from Mt. Igman and the
13 checkpoints was that the Muslims moved in and took all of that over.
The agreement was for UNPROFOR to take over Mt. Igman and the 13 checkpoints,
but the Muslims violated the agreement and took it over for themselves.
Mr. Harland was in an unenviable position. He clearly wanted to attribute
all of the blame to the Bosnian Serbs, but Slobodan Milosevic kept on bringing
up facts that demonstrated that the Muslims were the ones who were prolonging
the war, by violating ceasefires and refusing to negotiate a political
settlement, and Harland had no option but to confirm those facts.
The Muslim side frequently and most often violated cease-fire agreements.
In fact had Harland had to admit that the Muslims violated 514 of the cease-fire
agreements that they had entered into with the Bosnian Serbs.
Harland also had to admit that the UNPROFOR Commander, General Michael
Rose, felt that the Muslim policy of violating cease-fires came from Izetbegovic?s
vice-president, Ejup Ganic.
Amazingly Harland tried to defend the Muslim policy of violating cease-fires.
According to Harland it was understandable for the Muslims to violate the
cease-fire because they didn?t want to freeze the confrontation lines.
In other words the Muslims wanted to prolong the war, and didn?t want a
cease-fire at all. They just wanted to exploit the good will of the Serbs
and use the ?cease-fires? as an opportunity to regroup and launch fresh
offensives in order to move the confrontation lines.
Another Muslim policy that Harland defended was their militarization of
the so-called ?safe areas.? Harland pointed out that the UNSC Resolutions
that created the ?safe areas? enshrined the rights of the Muslims to keep
arms there.
The ?safe area? idea has got to be one of the dumbest things that the UN
Security Council has ever come-up with, right behind the Hague Tribunal.
The Security Council prohibited one side from attacking the so-called ?safe
area,? while simultaneously allowing the other side to militarize the ?safe
area? and launch attacks out from it.
Harland also had to admit that he was aware of General Rose?s reports which
stated that the Muslims were firing mortars on their own people from a
mobile launcher and that they were carrying-out sniper attacks against
their own people for propaganda purposes.
Harland himself confirmed that most of the Serbian shelling of Sarajevo
was done in retaliation. Harland admitted that the Muslim strategy in Sarajevo
was to fire shells at the Serbs from built-up civilian areas in hopes of
provoking a Serb response that would be filmed by the media and presented
to the world as some sort of ?Serb aggression?.
He recounted one example when the Muslims fired mortars on Serbian artillery
positions from the Kasova Hospital. Obviously the objective here was to
get the Serbs to shell the position that the fire on them was emanating
from ? the hospital.
The Markale Market massacre was brought up and Slobodan Milosevic had the
UN report on the incident and it stated that the shell that fell on the
market was fired from a range of less than 2,000 meters, which means that
the shell came from inside - not outside of Muslim the lines.
In addition to killing their own people for propaganda, the B-H Army killed
for the purposes of ethnic cleansing. Harland recounted how the 5th Corps
of the B-H Army attacked the Serbs in Western Bosnia.
Harland did his best to try and help the prosecution, but he failed. In
a final blow to the prosecutor?s case Harland said that the Bosnian Serb
leadership in Pale was angry with Milosevic because he refused to provide
them with troops. At the same time Harland said that Croatia was openly
sending uniformed regular army troops into Bosnia.
Another witness was also heard on Wednesday. The secret witness B-1531,
who continued his testimony from Tuesday, concluded his testimony. Unfortunately,
because of the extensive use of private sessions, and the extensive use
of Rule 89(F) by the prosecutor I have no idea what he was getting on about.
B-1531 was appointed to some anonymous high office in Foca by the SDA,
and he was apparently somebody close to the B-H Defense Minister, Hassan
Chengic. Other than that I don?t know anything about him.
=== 3 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg111103.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: NOVEMBER 11, 2003
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - November 11, 2003
Robert Donia, a so-called expert witness, returned to finish his cross-examination
today. Mr. Donia first testified on September 12, 2003 [http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg091203.htm%5d.
Mr. Donia examined transcripts taken from the Republika Srpska assembly,
and then ?interpreted them? for the ?court.?
The most important thing that Mr. Donia analyzed was two speeches that
President Milosevic gave to the Republika Srpska assembly to convince
the Bosnian-Serbs to accept the Vance-Owen peace plan. To illustrate
the quality of Donia?s so-called ?analysis? I will re-publish the text
from President Milosevic?s two speeches and then I will tell you what
conclusions that Donia drew from them:
///START FIRST SPEECH///
Let me say straight away that I consider that there's no alternative
to a decision in favor of peace, a decision for peace and for the reinforcement
of the signature put by Radovan Karadzic in Athens is in the interest
of the Serbian people in Republika Srpska and in the interest of the
whole Serbian people. The basic issue which has been raised from the
very beginning - and we have jointly defined what the aim of the Serbian
people in the Balkans is - I would say quite briefly the aim of the Serbian
people in the Balkans has been and remains to be free and equal.
The offered proposal, in my opinion, for that very reason for the Serb
people to be free and equal should be viewed from the standpoint to what
extent that freedom and equality is ensured through such an approach.
In the provinces which will not be under the control of the Serb authorities
and there are still Serbs living there, it is explicitly stated that
access will be denied to the HVO and Green Berets and that they will
be accessed only by the UN, which means that they will provide a security
zone which will make it possible for no one to have to leave their homes,
which means that that freedom is guaranteed and a condition that has
been achieved in the proposed solution, but it also means that this is
a freedom that the Serbian people in Bosnia have won for themselves.
The plan also restores the status of a constituent people. You remember
well that the conflict started when the rights of the Serbian people
as a constituent people in Bosnia and Herzegovina were trampled upon,
when decisions started to be made without consulting them and without
their participation and against their will. This solution, the Vance-Owen
Plan, envisages such equality in rights so that the Serbian people in
BH can be said to have restored their position of a constituent people
through their struggle.
Therefore, it is fully and equally in the hands of the Serbian people,
as in the hands of other peoples. They have the right and ability to
make decisions that decisively affect their destiny.
If that main issue and main goal of the Serbian people in the Balkans,
that is, to be free and equal, is assessed from the standpoint of the
solutions offered, then we see that it has restored freedom and equality
and that after the struggle whereby it has won that freedom and equality,
it can decide not to reject its remaining demands but to try and address
those requests through peace and not war, at a conference table, through
political negotiations, and not by sacrificing more victims. Every sacrifice
has a justification if it achieves goals, but it has no justification
if the solution offered guarantees freedom and equality.
Let me tell you in the end, don't tell us that you feel abandoned; we
shared all your worries throughout this period. Not only did we worry
for you, but we assisted you at the expense and sacrifice by 10 million
Serbs.
///END FIRST SPEECH///
[Note: Between these two speeches R.S. MP's made their own speeches and
debated whether or not to accept the plan.]
///START SECOND SPEECH///
I will try very briefly, but with the highest possible degree of responsibility
to say a few words. But before doing that, I wish to convey to you my
impressions. You spoke openly and from the heart. Most of what you said
related to the cruelties and injustices of war. In the Serbian people,
throughout their history, unfortunately there is too -- there are too
many truthful testimonies of the horrors of war. However, all that we heard
today regarding the testimony and the horrors of war, all of this can
be formed into one single argument and a single statement and message,
that the war should cease as soon as possible, that the war should cease
immediately.
However, let me go back to the question we are addressing today. The
question is not how much horrors -- how many horrors there were in this
war. This people has felt this on their own shoulders throughout their
history. The question today is whether we should consolidate what has
been achieved and through a peaceful process, under conditions of security,
achieve what remains to be done, what we call "outstanding matters."
There were many outstanding issues, but the plan envisaged that those
problems be addressed in negotiations.
So whether we should seek to address what we call 'outstanding problems'
through negotiation or should we destroy what has been achieved at the
expense of enormous sacrifice. That is the real issue that this Assembly
should decide. So the question, when talking about the plan, is not whether
we are departing from our goals. Of course not.
The question is whether that plan represents the path towards the ultimate
goal. The plan is not the final fulfillment of the justified demands
of the Serbian people, but it certainly represents the path towards the
ultimate goal. But now we must make much more effort through our wisdom
and less bloodshed. I think that should be an advantage, not a disadvantage.
And this Assembly must have the courage and self-confidence under these
circumstances on the basis of the plan, which must -- which is a sufficient
basis to achieve our goal, rather than committing a tragic error which
will cruelly cut across or put an obstacle on the way to success.
Will the Assembly opt for a reasonable or an unreasonable path? I think
no one needs to persuade this Assembly about. I think peace is the reasonable,
the sensible way. On the contrary, if the slogan is spread about that
the Serbs don't want peace, that could only justify crimes against the
Serbs, and this is something you should bear in mind. When the road towards
peace is being opened, you must explain to the people that they -- why
should they sacrifice their lives in even crueller ways up to now? You
cannot explain the reasons to the Serbian people in Bosnia or in Serbia.
And let me say finally, one must sacrifice everything for the people
except the people. You cannot sacrifice the people. You do not have the
right to do that as an Assembly or as anyone else.
///END SECOND SPEECH///
President Milosevic stated quite unequivocally that there was no alternative
to peace, that the war had to end immediately, that the aim is for the
Serbian people in the Balkans is to be free and equal, and that their
destiny will be in their hands, as it is in the hands of the other two
peoples if they accept the Vance-Owen plan, and that things should be
resolved by consensus and through negotiations.
Anybody with a brain can easily understand what President Milosevic was
saying. Donia, on the other hand, claimed that with those two speeches
President Milosevic was advocating ?greater Serbia? and that he wasn?t
seriously endorsing the Vance-Owen plan.
When Lord Owen testified he said quite unequivocally that Milosevic did
seriously endorse the Vance-Owen peace plan, so who are we to believe?
Should we believe Lord Owen who was one of the chief negotiators for
whom the plan was named? Or should we believe some jerk who was working
for Merrill-Lynch at the time?
This was typical for the quality of Donia?s analysis. The basic premise
that Donia operated on was that Serbs are an evil scheming bunch who
always mean the opposite of what they are actually saying.
Mr. Donia considered that eventhough the term ?greater Serbia? never
appeared in any of the transcripts that ?greater Serbia? was exactly what
the Serbs were trying to accomplish.
Mr. Donia only selectively analyzed RS assembly sessions, he didn?t even
look at any of the documents issued by the assembly, and he selectively
took quotes out of their proper context in order to misrepresent them
so that they would fit his anti-Serb thesis.
On another occasion Radovan Karadzic was speaking about finding a political
solution to the situation in Gorazde. Karadzic said quite literally in
the transcript that ?not a single shot should be fired.? And Donia interpreted
this as meaning that Karadzic wanted to incite an armed conflict around
Gorazde.
Mr. Donia, who was working for Merrill-Lynch in New York at the time,
stated that he knew that VJ troops were in Bosnia even though none of the
transcripts he that ?analyzed? reflected such a thing. But when he was
asked about Croatian troops all of the sudden he wasn?t a military expert
and wasn?t competent to testify about such things as whose troops were
where.
Mr. Donia was quick to defend Warren Zimmerman, saying that Zimmerman
didn?t tell Izetbegovic to withdraw from the Cutliero plan. But when asked
about the Cutlitero plan all of the sudden Donia remembered that it was
outside of his mandate as a witness.
But because this so-called ?expert witness? brought bits and pieces of the
transcripts to the ?court? with him some interesting things were established.
During the cross-examination by the Amicus Mr. Tapuskovic it was proven
that Belgrade did not command the VRS. In the 39th session transcript
of the Republika Srpska assembly of March 1994 Radovan Karadzic says,
?I am responsible to the people, and the commanders are responsible to
me. I sign the orders.?
It was brought out by Mr. Tapuskovic that Dr. Karadzic signed military 7
directives. The 7th directive stipulated that the VRS should thwart
enemy war plans and prevent a breakthrough at Srebrenica. Donia, of course,
misinterpreted this as meaning that Karadzic ordered a massacre at Srebrenica.
It was also brought out during President Milosevic?s cross-examination of
Donia that according to the transcripts it was only by the grace of the
R.S. Assembly that UN troops were allowed to deploy in Srebrenica, Gorazde
and Zepa.
A 1993 speech of Karadzic?s was also read out where Karadzic is saying that
it is good that UNPROFOR is in Srebrenica because if the VRS had taken
it then there could have been ?blood to the knees? because of the revenge
that might have been taken by the soldiers who had had their families
massacred by Muslim troops who were attacking out from Srebrenica.
Karadzic said that it was actually in the Republika Srpska?s strategic
interest to stay out of Srebrenica, because a massacre there could jeopardize
the very existence of Republika Srpska. Therefore, it is quite unlikely
that Karadzic would order a massacre 2 years later, because he was certainly
aware of what the consequences would be if there was one.
After Donia withdrew the secret witness B-1097 was recalled to finish his
cross-examination. B-1097 had originally testified on July 25th.
B-1097 claimed to have been taken prisoner at the Karakaj Technical School
in Zvornik where a large number of Muslims were apparently killed.
B-1097 could not identify his captors, except as ?Serbs.? He couldn?t
say which unit they were from, and he didn?t see any executions.
After he got away from the technical school he went to Serbia. He lived
freely in Novi Sad. Nobody mistreated him in Serbia, and he was even
issued a passport by the FRY authorities.
B-1097 did have some interesting things to say about Zvornik. First of
all he admitted that the Muslim paramilitary formation known as the Patriotic
League was active there.
He also admitted, or should I say was forced to admit, that the Muslim
T.O. in Zvornik had threatened to blow-up the hydroelectric dam. At first
he tried to deny this. The Amicus Mr. Kay asked him 4 times if this had
happened and B-1097 never answered the question, and so Mr. Kay pointed-out
paragraph 7 of the whiteness?s own statement where it said that the Muslim
T.O. had threatened to blow-up the dam.
After B-1097 was done, another secret witness came along. B-1399 was
apparently a survivor of the Srebrenica massacre, and most of B-1399?s
testimony was dealt with in secret - in so-called ?closed session.?
From what could be gathered in open session it can be concluded that B-1097
is a liar. B-1097 claimed that Srebrenica had been demilitarized and
that only UNPROFOR had weapons. B-1097 stated unequivocally that no Muslims
in Srebrenica had any weapons, because UNPROFOR had taken them all away.
B-1097 also stated that no Muslim-led attacks had emanated from Srebrenica.
B-1097?s testimony here is in direct contradiction of the UNPROFOR commander
Rupert Smith?s testimony. According to Smith?s testimony on October 9,
2003 ?UNPROFOR was not tasked with demilitarizing Srebrenica.? and the
Muslim forces of the 28th Infantry Division were, ?conducting raids out
from Srebrenica into the Serb-held territory.?
B-1097 is scheduled to finish his cross-examination tomorrow.
=== 4 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg111203.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: NOVEMBER 12, 2003
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - November 12, 2003
B-1399 Finished his testimony at the Hague Tribunal. He recounted the story
of how he allegedly survived execution at Srebrenica. He says that he was
part of a group of men, that he was blindfolded, and that the executioners
opened fire on the group. The corpses fell on top of him and the dead bodies
shielded him from further gunfire. He later crawled out from the pile of
corpses.
According to B-1399 armed men saw him escaping and opened fire on him as
he ran away, but they missed.
He recounted that while he was at the execution site he saw trucks bringing
Muslims for execution every 10 minutes.
B-1399 has given numerous statements about his alleged experience. The
first statements that he gave were in 1995 and 1997, and in those statements
no mention was made about trucks bringing in people to execute, nor was
any mention made of the ?fact? that B-1399 was shot at as he was fleeing.
We established yesterday that B-1399?s account of the military situation
in Srebrenica was in direct contradiction of the UNPROFOR commander Rupert
Smith?s testimony, and now we have B-1399 coming up with this new ?evidence?
8 years after the fact.
It was obvious that B-1399 was lying. When asked about discrepancies between
his testimony and his written statements he got very defensive. At one
point he snapped at the Amicus Curiae, Mr. Tapuskovic, and told him that
he should not ask those sorts of questions.
The next witness was the Canadian Major Roy F. Thomas. Maj. Thomas was
the senior UN Military Observer in Sarajevo for 9 months spanning 1993
and 1994.
During Maj. Thomas?s tenure he did not see any attacks by the Serbs on
Sarajevo, he claimed that the Serbs were in a holding pattern around the
city, and did not try to take it.
Under cross-examination from President Milosevic, Maj. Thomas spoke of
some of the underhanded strategies that the Muslims would employ.
For example, Maj. Thomas testified that there were occasions when the Muslim
soldiers would open fire on the Serbs from behind the UNPROFOR position
in order that the UNPROFOR soldiers would provide a sort of shield for
their attack.
Maj. Thomas corroborated the testimony of David Harland (United Nations
civil and political affairs officer in Sarajevo) that Muslim forces were
using the Kosevo Hospital as a mortar plate. The Muslims were firing mortars
at the Serbs from the hospital in order to provoke the Serbs into firing
on the hospital.
On another occasion Maj. Thomas recounted that Muslims opened fire from
the PTT building at Serb positions, with a view to getting the Serbs to
fire on the PTT building. At the time, the PTT building was the UN headquarters
in Sarajevo. The Muslims were trying to get the Serbs to shoot at the UN.
Maj. Thomas recounted yet another occasion when Muslims disguised themselves
as Bosnian-Serb soldiers and tried to kill the UNPROFOR commander. Fortunately
according to Maj. Thomas they weren?t smart enough to pull it off and got
caught. So here we have Muslims plotting to kill the UNPROFOR commander,
and engaging in a conspiracy to make it look like the Serbs did it.
The Muslims would not always wear military uniforms. According to Maj.
Thomas he, the Senior UN Military Observer, had no idea who was a soldier
and who was a civilian, and so he had no choice other than to regard all
able bodied men as soldiers.
Maj. Thomas spoke of one occasion when the 10th Mountain Brigade of the
B-H Army, led by the notorious criminal Musan Topalovic - Caco, captured
a group of UNPROFOR soldiers, and stole their equipment and their money.
According to Maj. Thomas the media did not portray a balanced view of sniping
incidents in Sarajevo. He said that all sides engaged in sniper activity.
He said that the main objective of the Muslim snipers was to provoke the
Serbs into abandoning cease-fires. As a case in point he gave an example
where Muslim snipers shot and killed 3 pregnant Serb women during a cease-fire,
and that the following day the Serbs shot at every Muslim soldier they
saw.
Maj. Thomas accompanied General Rose (UNPROFOR commander) to the negotiations
at the Sarajevo Airport. At those negotiations the Serb side, led by Ratko
Mladic, proposed a general cease-fire throughout Bosnia. The Muslims, on
the other hand, did not want a ceasefire.
Gen. Rose supported the cease-fire idea, because as he says in his book,
and as Maj. Thomas confirmed that he said at the time, only with a ceasefire
can negotiations take place, and a solution be found that can end the war.
None the less, after the negotiations failed, because the Muslims refused
to agree to a ceasefire; NATO proceeded to bomb the Bosnian Serbs.
I believe that the prosecution brought Maj. Thomas to testify about the
Markale Market incident but he didn?t really do them any good. He said
that he couldn?t determine who had fired the shell at the market place.
There was however a document produced by one of Maj. Thomas?s men, and
president Milosevic read it out, and it said that a 120mm mortar launcher
on wheels was seen at a location in Muslim held territory from which it
could have fired the deadly shell.
It was also borne out by Maj. Thomas that UNMO?s were permitted to investigate
in the Serbian territory immediately after the incident.
In spite of evidence that the Muslims shelled their own people or at least
in view of the lack of evidence that the Serbs did it; NATO used the Markale
Market incident as a justification to bomb the Bosnian Serbs.
Maj. Thomas also corroborated David Harland?s testimony about the Muslim
violation of the Mt. Igman agreement, when Muslim soldiers illegally took
over positions on Mt. Igman that were supposed to be occupied by UNPROFOR.
After Maj. Thomas withdrew, Merced Kucanin a Muslim police officer from
Sarajevo took the witness stand.
Kucanin alleged that the Serbs fired shells on a number of targets in Sarajevo,
and he proceeded to enumerate them.
He also testified about Jusuf Prazina, called Juka. Mr. Kucanin confirmed
that Juka was a criminal and that he commanded an armed unit, but Kucanin
insisted that it was OK since Juka was working for the police!
So the Sarajevo police put a convicted criminal in charge of an armed unit,
and this guy thinks it?s OK. What sort of police employs criminals? Apparently
it is the sort of police that our gallant witness worked for.
When President Milosevic asked whether or not the Sarajevo authorities
prevented the civilian population from leaving Sarajevo this guy?s answer
was that he didn?t know if they did or not. He didn?t know? A man who, by
then, had been a police officer for 10 years didn?t know?! Or is it that
he did know, but he didn?t want to admit that civilians were prohibited
from leaving, and so he said that he didn?t know?
President Milosevic has 30 more minutes to cross-examine Kucanin tomorrow.
After Kucanin, apparently the witnesses B-1524 and Franken will be heard
from.
=== 5 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg111303.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: DUTCHBAT COMMANDER SAW NO EXECUTIONS IN SREBRENICA
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - November 13, 2003
Merced Kucanin finished his testimony today at the Hague Tribunal. As you
remember from yesterday Kucanin was a Sarajevo police officer who testified
about shelling and sniping in Sarajevo.
He testified today about a certain Milo Vaselovic who had been shot by
a sniper in Sarajevo. Vaselovic was a Serb, and Kucanin testified that
he had been shot by Vojislav Seselj. He didn?t do any ballistic analysis
on the corpse or anything like that but he saw Seselj on Television that
night and so he concluded that Seselj must have been the gunman?impeccable
logic indeed.
Kucanin also retracted his previous assertion that he didn?t know if civilians
could leave Sarajevo or not. Today he confirmed that civilians were not
allowed to leave the city. He said that there was only one way out and
that a pass, issued by the B-H Interior Ministry, was required in order
to leave the city. He also confirmed that very few people actually received
this pass. But he only admitted that people couldn?t leave the city when
confronted with the fact that his witness statement said that people couldn?t
leave.
Kucanin, when asked by President Milosevic, also confirmed that the first
victims of the war in Sarajevo were the members of a Serb wedding party
who were fired on and killed while en route to the Orthodox Church in Sarajevo.
The next witness to testify was Col. Robert Franken. Franken was a DutchBat
Major, and he was the deputy UNPROFOR commander in Srebrenica in July of
1995.
First of all I should say that Col. Franken said quite unequivocally that
he saw no evidence which would indicate that there was any political or
military cooperation between Belgrade and the VRS units that came into
Srebrenica when the enclave fell. The Dutch Government conducted an exhaustive
investigation into the alleged events at Srebrenica and drew the conclusion
in point 10 of their report that Belgrade had nothing to do with any of
the events in Srebrenica.
This evidence exonerates Slobodan Milosevic personally, but since the Serbs
are on trial as a group at the Hague and President Milosevic is their foremost
defender. President Milosevic is none the less endeavoring to prove the
truth about what happened at Srebrenica even though it is totally outside
the realm of possibility that he could in any way be connected to the events
there.
According to Col. Franken Srebrenica was supposed to be demilitarized.
However Franken said that the Muslims did not demilitarize, in fact he
says the Muslims even received weapons at the airport and UNPROFOR was
unable to stop them.
Col. Franken confirmed that the Muslims had a whole division of troops
stationed in Srebrenica. He testified that the 8th Operation Group was
there, and that it later became known as the 28th Infantry Division. The
28th Infantry Division consisted of the 280th Brigade, the 281st Brigade,
the 282nd Brigade, the 283rd Brigade, the 284th Brigade, a Mountain battalion,
9 sabotage groups and a reserve police force. At a given time the 28th
Division had over 4,000 men under arms, and Franken confirmed that every
man in Srebrenica was at the disposal of the 28th Division. There was also
a special unit that Srebrenica?s notorious Muslim war-lord Nasir Oric had
at his own personal disposal. The 28th Infantry Division, according to
Franken, was a poorly trained and poorly disciplined group.
Col. Franken testified that there was heavy fighting around Srebrenica.
He testified that thousands of members of the 28th Infantry Division tried
to break-out of the enclave across Serbian territory towards Tuzla, and
that they took massive casualties in the process.
Franken also testified that there was internal Muslim fighting among the
members of the 28th Infantry Division in Srebrenica and that casualties
were inflicted by the Muslims on each other over the course of that fighting.
Franken also confirmed that Muslim soldiers attempted to attack the eastern
flank of the VRS near Srebrenica and that they took heavy casualties during
that offensive.
President Milosevic asked the obvious question. He asked if the members
of the 28th Infantry Division who died during combat operations were being
counted as the victims of the alleged ?massacre? at Srebrenica. Col. Franken
didn?t know.
An important point to observe here is that Col. Franken testified that
none of the UN soldiers who were in Srebrenica at the critical time saw
any executions taking place. In fact the only casualties they saw were
of people who had been killed in the fighting. Again, none of the DutchBat
personnel who composed the UNPROFOR battalion in Srebrenica saw any executions
or mass-killings taking place there.
Col. Franken also testified that before the break-out operation that the
Muslim Soldiers in Srebrenica would launch attacks out of the enclave onto
the surrounding Serbian villages. To bear this out President Milosevic
cited examples such as the time when Visnica was attacked by Muslim troops
from Srebrenica and many Serbs were killed, and he cited the example when
Muslim soldiers attacked and killed a group of Serbian woodcutters who
were just cutting down trees in a forested area near Srebrenica, and of
course there are many more examples.
Col. Franken testified that the only ones to kill a UNPROFOR soldier in
Srebrenica were the Muslims. The VRS did not kill a single UNPROFOR soldier.
Col. Franken testified that the Muslims in Srebrenica would position themselves
near UNPROFOR observation posts and then open fire on the Serbs in order
to make the Serbs think that UNPROFOR was firing on them, with the ultimate
objective being for the Serbs to retaliate and shoot at the UNPROFOR observation
post.
Col. Franken recounted one occasion when Muslim soldiers in Srebrenica
stole some UNPROFOR uniforms, disguised themselves as UNPROFOR members,
approached a UN observation post and opened fire on the real UNPROFOR personnel
who were there.
Lt. Col. Ton Karremans was Col. Franken?s commanding officer and President
Milosevic read from a briefing paper that Karremans provided to Franken.
Karremans negotiated the evacuation of the civilian population from Srebrenica
with Ratko Mladic. It should also be noted here that it was Akashi?s idea
that Srebrenica should be evacuated.
From the briefing paper we can see that Mladic wanted the evacuation of
Srebrenica to be voluntary. Mladic explained that the refugees could stay
because he didn?t have any problems with civilians since they were not
to blame for anything.
It was Mladic?s position that the wounded, the elderly, and the women and
children should be evacuated first. Mladic also wanted the Red Cross to
escort the refugees, according to the briefing paper.
Mladic wanted the men to be questioned before being allowed to leave, and
indeed men were questioned at a place near Potocari called the ?white house,?
an UNMO (UN Military Observer) was stationed at that location and saw as
many men leaving the white house as he saw going in.
President Milosevic?s cross-examination was cut short because of time restrictions
imposed by the so-called ?court.? Col. Franken was what the so-called ?tribunal?
calls a ?92-bis witness?. This means that a summary of his testimony is
read out by the prosecutor, followed by a very brief examination-in-chief.
President Milosevic then only has 1 hour for cross-examination. This practice
frequently means that President Milosevic is unable to fully cross-examine
important witnesses and that was again the case today.
After President Milosevic?s cross-examination, the Amicus Curiae Mr. Tapuskovic
was able to cross-examine Col. Franken for approximately 15 minutes.
Col. Franken told Mr. Tapuskovic that the Muslim forces inside of Srebrenica
were essentially using UNPROFOR as a cover for carrying out prohibited
military activities. In other words they were abusing the safe area.
Mr. Tapuskovic then embarked on an interesting line of questioning that
I feel needs to be explored much further.
One of Col. Franken?s subordinates named Van Duyn had testified at another
trial, I believe Tapuskovic said that it was at Obrenovic?s trial, but
I?m not sure. I?ll have to go back and look at the tape when it is available.
Apparently, this Van Duyn testified in that trial that the UNPROFOR battalion
in Srebrenica had been ordered to fire on Serbian artillery positions that
were just minding their own business on the mountain tops some 10 to 15
kilometers away from the enclave.
The objective was apparently to induce the Serbs to attack the enclave
itself and thereby provide a justification for NATO air strikes. Or could
the objective have been to suck the Serbs into the enclave so that they
could be accused of perpetrating a massacre there later on?
Unfortunately, Mr. Nice intervened, questioning the relevance, and Tapuskovic?s
cross-examination was abruptly ended.
After Col. Franken was finished with his testimony a secret witness called
?B-1524? was called to testify. B-1524 was allegedly a Serb from Zvornik
that the SDA had recruited to spy on the SDS. B-1524 was also allegedly
taken prisoner by Arkan.
B-1524?s cross-examination will take place next Tuesday.
__________________________________________________________________
Tiscali ADSL SENZA CANONE, paghi solo quando navighi!
E in più il modem e' GRATIS! Abbonati subito.
http://point.tiscali.it/adsl/index.shtml
1. LORD OWEN TESTIFIES AT THE MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" - November 5, 2003
2. DAVID HARLAND CONCLUDES HIS TESTIMONY AT THE MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" - November
6, 2003
3. MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: NOVEMBER 11, 2003
4. MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: NOVEMBER 12, 2003
5. DUTCHBAT COMMANDER SAW NO EXECUTIONS IN SREBRENICA - November 13, 2003
=== 1 ===
SYNOPSIS: LORD OWEN TESTIFIES AT THE MILOSEVIC "TRIAL"
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - November 5, 2003
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
Lord David Owen, former chief negotiator of the European Union, and author
of the book ?Balkan Odyssey? testified at the so-called ?trial? of Slobodan
Milosevic on Monday and Tuesday of this week.
Lord Owen did not testify as a prosecution witness, in fact he refused
to testify as a prosecution witness, rather he testified simply as a witness
for the court.
He was examined first by Mr. Nice, then by President Milosevic, and finally
by the Amicus Curiae Mr. Kay.
Lord Owen as the E.U.?s chief negotiator was in frequent contact with Milosevic,
and he believed that President Milosevic was totally committed to the Vance-Owen
plan. Owen also said that President Milosevic insisted on a solution that
was equal to all three sides.
Owen testified that President Milosevic supported various peace plans.
For example President Milosevic supported: the Cutileiro plan in March
of 1992, the Vance-Owen plan in May of 1993, the Owen-Stoltenberg plan
(a.k.a. the ?invincible plan?) in September of 1993, the European Union
Action plan in December of 1993, the Contact Group plan in July of 1994,
and ultimately the Dayton peace plan in 1995.
Lord Owen also testified that President Milosevic entreated the Bosnian
Serb leadership to accept all of these plans. Owen also confirmed that
without the contribution of Serbia, and President Milosevic in particular
that Dayton never would have happened. In fact it was Slobodan Milosevic
who cast the deciding vote for peace at Dayton.
According to Owen the Bosnian Serb leadership was not a pack of mindless
automatons operating at the whim and will of Milosevic. First of all the
politics were different in Pale than in Belgrade, for example Slobodan
Milosevic is a communist and Radovan Karadzic is not a communist.
Indeed the Bosnian Serbs acted against the will of President Milosevic
when the Republika Srpska Assembly rejected the Vance-Owen plan, and also
the Contact Group plan. Lord Owen confirmed that President Milosevic traveled
to Pale and did everything he could, short of using force, to convince
the Bosnian Serbs to accept the Vance-Owen plan. And according to Owen
this episode damaged Milosevic politically and significantly reduced what
influence he did have in Pale.
According to Lord Owen, President Milosevic was ?very helpful? in the peace
negotiations. Owen explained that President Milosevic would use logic and
put forward arguments to try and influence the decisions made by Pale,
but that he would acquiesce and tell them that at the end of the day it
was up to them to decide what course they would take. This was Owen?s main
problem with Milosevic. Owen considered that Milosevic should have used
force with the Bosnian Serbs, and forced them to accept his point of view.
This is a rather dramatic blow to the prosecution?s case. Here is one of
the highest international officials to be on the scene in Bosnia during
the war and he is upset with Milosevic, because Milosevic *did not* control
the Bosnian Serb leadership.
Not only did Milosevic *not* control the Bosnian Serb leadership, but he
also did *not* control the Krajina Serb leadership. Owen had a low opinion
of Milan Martic, and explained that he saw on numerous occasions that Slobodan
Milosevic would also be frustrated and angry with Mr. Martic. It has been
said in the past that Milosevic controlled Martic. Owen?s account blows
that idea to pieces. Why would Milosevic be frustrated and angry with somebody,
if he was the one controlling them?
Owen considered that Milosevic was somewhat afraid of his nationalistic
political opposition in Belgrade; namely Seselj and Draskovic. If we follow
Lord Owen?s position then perhaps we can see what would have been done
to Milosevic if he had attempted to use force against the Serbs in Bosnia.
I emphasize that this is just hypothetical because Slobodan Milosevic would
never have used force against the Bosnian Serbs in the first place. The
point of this hypothesis is to demonstrate that even if he had wanted to,
President Milosevic could not have used force against the Bosnian Serbs,
because he would have been overthrown if he had tried.
President Milosevic did of course exert pressure; he blockaded the Drina
River when the Bosnian Serbs did not adopt the Contact Group plan.
Owen explained to a disappointed Mr. Nice that Slobodan Milosevic is not
a racist, and never was a racist. According to Owen, President Milosevic,
and his wife Mira Markovic are repulsed by ethnic racism. Owen said that
the ethnic make-up of Serbia proves that President Milosevic is not now,
and never has been a racist. As Owen explained there are Muslims, Croats,
and people of all ethnicities who lived and are still living freely in
Serbia. Indeed, Serbia is the most ethnically mixed part of the Balkan
Peninsula.
As for this business of a so-called ?greater Serbia? plan. According to
Owen, Milosevic was reconciled with the idea that Krajina Serbs would live
in Croatia, and Bosnian Serbs would live in Bosnia.
Owen said that he didn?t know what Milosevic?s position on ?greater Serbia?
was before he got there, so Milosevic reminded him of the fact that he
had supported both the Cutileiro plan and the Vance Plan. With that Owen
admitted that President Milosevic?s support for the plans indicated that
he never had any ideas about creating any ?greater Serbia.?
A document was exhibited in ?court? that was signed both by Slobodan Milosevic
and Franjo Tudjman. The document denied that the so-called ?Karadjordjevo
meeting? had ever taken place. According to the document, the two men had
never had any plan or conspiracy to divide Bosnia up between the two of
them, and indeed Owen confirmed that President Milosevic had never said
that he wanted even an inch of territory in Bosnia. But Owen said that
Tudjman openly claimed Herzeg-Bosna as Croatian territory and openly sent
troops into Bosnia from Croatia.
To completely and totally refute this ?greater Serbia? propaganda President
Milosevic presented the 1992 declaration of the FRY government stating
that the FRY made no territorial claims on any of the former SFRY republics.
Lord Owen denounced the so-called ?safe-areas? (Srebrenica, Zepa, Gorazde,
etc?) as a scam and a farce. The UN had inadequate troops and resources
to protect them, and the Muslims refused to demilitarize the safe areas
and indeed carried out attacks from them. The whole thing was a joke.
When President Milosevic examined Lord Owen one of the first things that
was established was that Belgrade did *not* control the VRS.
To drive the point home President Milosevic showed a report written by
former UN Secretary General, Butros Butros Ghali (exhibit D-91) to Lord
Owen. The report was dated 30 May 1992, and stated in no uncertain terms
that the VRS was not under the control of Belgrade.
The report said that the VRS was formed out of the JNA troops who were
originally from Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The report stated that on 4 May 1992 Belgrade authorities ordered the evacuation
of the JNA from Bosnia and that on 18 May 1992 all JNA personnel who were
not originally from Bosnia-Herzegovina were withdrawn from Bosnia Herzegovina,
except in limited cases when hostile forces prevented the JNA?s immediate
withdrawal, by measures such as the blockading of barracks.
Owen stated that he believed the Secretary General?s report to be accurate.
President Milosevic then noted that in spite of the Secretary General?s
report, which clearly placed the VRS outside of Belgrade?s control that
in spite of that on the same day as the report was issued that the Security
Council imposed sanctions on the FRY.
President Milosevic claimed that there was no aggression against Bosnia-Herzegovina
that it was a civil war, and to any normal person this can clearly be seen.
Slobodan Milosevic said that the JNA did not occupy Bosnia. The JNA had
always been in Bosnia, because Bosnia was part of Yugoslavia, and the JNA
was Yugoslavia?s national army. Lord Owen agreed.
Slobodan Milosevic observed that the Bosnian-Serbs were not occupying Bosnia.
They had always lived there, and that the VRS was made-up of Bosnian-Serbs,
and again Lord Owen agreed.
President Milosevic said that since there was no occupation, and the fighting
was between the people who lived in Bosnia then the war was a civil war
and not a war of aggression. Lord Owen disagreed.
The bottom line according to Owen was that Bosnia was the UN Security Council?s
creation. Owen had to explain that the UN Security Council had recognized
Bosnia as an independent country, and that it had recognized Alija Izetbegovic?s
government as the legitimate government. Therefore, anybody who was at
war with Izetbegovic and his regime was technically engaged in aggression,
even if they did live in Bosnia.
It is interesting to note here that in the beginning everybody supported
keeping Yugoslavia as one united country. The EC, the OSCE, and the United
States all initially supported keeping Yugoslavia as one united country.
Lord Owen indicated that this all changed when Clinton took office.
In the opinion of Lord Owen it would have been better had the SFRY not
dissolved. He said that the recognition of Bosnia was premature, and was
a catastrophic mistake. Lord Owen also said that Cyrus Vance shared his
opinion and viewed the premature recognition as being an absolute scandal,
and a tragic mistake.
The premature recognition of the secessionist Yugoslav republics was scandalous.
President Milosevic read out a quote from Lord Carrington in which it states
that they were near reaching a political solution with Croatia regarding
Slavonia and Krajina, but that the premature recognition of Croatia toppled
the peace process. Carrington considered that the recognition was ?a treacherous
act? by the Security Council.
As for the allegations that Serbia was arming the Bosnian Serbs, Owen said
that he had no proof of that. According to Owen the Bosnian Serbs had the
ability to produce their own weapons and their own ammunition.
Lord Owen spoke of the roll that the Washington D.C. based public relations
firm Ruder-Finn played on behalf of the Muslims and Croats. How Ruder-Finn
would pay people to write editorials and letters to the editor, how Ruder-Finn
would arrange for Western journalists and politicians to speak with Muslim
and Croat officials.
According to Lord Owen, Ejup Ganic was the mastermind behind Muslim propaganda.
Owen said that the strategy of the Muslim propaganda was to portray themselves
as the victims in the hopes that the United States would intervene on their
side militarily.
Indeed Owen confirmed that Ganic used all means to achieve his goals. He
even said that Ganic preferred to have Sarajevo under siege.
Owen also confirmed that Milosevic wanted the siege stopped. In fact Owen
acknowledged that President Milosevic wanted to send the International
Red Cross into Bosnia. So here we have Milosevic who wants to stop the
siege and bring in the Red Cross, and Ganic who wants the war to continue
because it helps him in his drive to portray the Muslims as the victims.
While there is no doubt that President Milosevic wanted peace. The United
States and the Clinton Administration in particular are a different story.
According to Lord Owen the United States was hostile to the Vance-Owen
Peace plan, and to the peace process in general. The United States would
encourage the Muslims to make absurd demands in order to derail the peace
process.
Lord Owen confirmed that the United States was pro-Croat. President Milosevic
read out a quote from Stoltenberg where he said that Tudjman was preparing
an offensive with the approval of the White House, and this was during
a cease fire when nobody was supposed to be mounting offensives. Of course
everybody knows, and it was confirmed by Lord Owen that the biggest ethnic
cleansing operation in all of those Balkan wars was the "operation storm"
that was perpetrated by Croatia against the Krajina Serbs.
All in all the testimony of Lord Owen was very interesting, and rather
educational. For the record I note that the full text of the Cutileiro
plan was exhibited, and its exhibit number is D-209.
The main thing that was established by Lord Owen?s testimony is that President
Slobodan Milosevic is a man of peace. The prosecution is almost finished
presenting its case and it is clearer now than it ever has been that Slobodan
Milosevic is not a war criminal. After seeing the prosecution?s total lack
of evidence, and after observing the underhanded tactics that they employ
all I can say is: Congratulations Ms. del Ponte! If you wanted to convince
me that Slobodan Milosevic is a hero then you?ve certainly been successful.
=== 2 ===
SYNOPSIS: DAVID HARLAND CONCLUDES HIS TESTIMONY AT THE MILOSEVIC "TRIAL"
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - November 6, 2003
David Harland, the United Nations civil and political affairs officer in
Sarajevo was recalled at the ?trial? of Slobodan Milosevic on Wednesday.
Mr. Harland was the longest serving UN official in Bosnia. He had originally
begun his testimony on September 18th. He returned on Wednesday to complete
his cross examination.
First of all, here is a summary of Harland?s September 18th appearance
at the ?Tribunal.?
While speaking of ethnic cleansing, Mr. Harland confirmed that Radovan
Karadzic never challenged the rights of non-Serbs to live on Bosnian Serb
territory.
Harland did, however, confirm that ethnic cleansing did take place, and
that all three sides were guilty of perpetrating that crime.
Harland also affirmed that President Milosevic supported the Vance-Owen
plan, and that his goal and the goal of Serbia was ?for the Serb people
to be free and equal, not more, not less than that.?
President Milosevic?s words at the Bosnian Serb assembly in Pale confirm
that his aim in supporting the Vance-Owen plan was equality. President
Milosevic said in his speech to the Bosnian Serb Assembly that "With this
plan, the Serb people have restored their right to be treated equally as
a constituent nation and with this plan its fate will be in its hands,
as it will be in the hands of the other two peoples on an equal footing
and in freedom."
Harland tried to say that the Bosnian Serbs wanted 70% of Bosnia for themselves,
and so President Milosevic pointed out that the Bosnian Serbs had agreed
to the Cutileiro Plan and also to the Contact Group plan, and that neither
one of those plans envisioned 70% of the territory for the Serbs. Harland
then admitted that it was correct that the Bosnian Serbs had accepted those
plans and that neither of those plans called for 70% to go to the Serbs.
President Milosevic observed, and Harland grudgingly confirmed that Radovan
Karadzic was constantly trying to bring the Muslims to the negotiating
table.
When President Milosevic asked what goals that the Bosnian Muslims had
Mr. Harland said, ?I think that there was one group which felt that the
Muslims are the largest community in Bosnia and Herzegovina and therefore
they had an interest in keeping Bosnia and Herzegovina together as a single
state in which they would not be threatened in any way because they would
be almost a majority. And, in fact, of course there is -- there is language
in Mr. Izetbegovic's Islamic declaration which refers to the -- the role
that will be played by a Muslim community once they become a majority in
a -- in a given country.?
President Milosevic observed the contents of Izetbegovic?s Islamic Declaration
in which it says that "there can be neither peace nor coexistence between
the Islamic faith and non-Islamic social and political institutions" and
"the Islamic movement must and can, take over political power as soon as
it is morally and numerically so strong that it can not only destroy the
existing non-Islamic power, but also to build up a new Islamic one?.
In connection with what is stated in the Islamic Declaration of Alija Izetbegovic,
President Milosevic asked the following question of Mr. Harland: ?Do you
then consider that the Serbs could have accepted a state conceived along
those lines, the Serbs which had until then lived as a nation on a footing
of equality with everybody else in the area? Could they have accepted that??
Harland didn?t answer the question. Instead he decided to make accusations
against the Serbs because he realized that the Bosnian war was the Muslims
fault and he wasn?t ready to admit that. By then it was 1:45 and the September
18th session ended.
When Harland returned to finish his cross-examination last Wednesday president
Milosevic showed him an ethnic map of Sarajevo based on the 1981 census,
and it was observed that the Serbs did not ?occupy? Sarajevo. It could
be clearly seen on the map that the Serbs were indigenous to Sarajevo,
and Harland confirmed that the VRS positions around Sarajevo roughly confirmed
to the territory that the Serbs were shown to be living on already by the
1981 census.
It was also confirmed by Mr. Harland that the 40,000 Serb civilians who
were trapped behind Muslim lines in Sarajevo were not allowed to leave
the theatre of combat. It was observed that it is a serious violation of
international law to hold a civilian inside of a combat area against their
will.
President Milosevic brought up the Mt. Igman agreement. In the agreement
Ravovan Karadzic agreed to withdraw VRS troops from Mt. Igman and handover
control of 13 checkpoints to UNPROFOR.
Harland confirmed that Karadzic had indeed made this agreement in order
to get the Muslims to come to the negotiating table.
But what happened after Karadzic withdrew the VRS from Mt. Igman and the
13 checkpoints was that the Muslims moved in and took all of that over.
The agreement was for UNPROFOR to take over Mt. Igman and the 13 checkpoints,
but the Muslims violated the agreement and took it over for themselves.
Mr. Harland was in an unenviable position. He clearly wanted to attribute
all of the blame to the Bosnian Serbs, but Slobodan Milosevic kept on bringing
up facts that demonstrated that the Muslims were the ones who were prolonging
the war, by violating ceasefires and refusing to negotiate a political
settlement, and Harland had no option but to confirm those facts.
The Muslim side frequently and most often violated cease-fire agreements.
In fact had Harland had to admit that the Muslims violated 514 of the cease-fire
agreements that they had entered into with the Bosnian Serbs.
Harland also had to admit that the UNPROFOR Commander, General Michael
Rose, felt that the Muslim policy of violating cease-fires came from Izetbegovic?s
vice-president, Ejup Ganic.
Amazingly Harland tried to defend the Muslim policy of violating cease-fires.
According to Harland it was understandable for the Muslims to violate the
cease-fire because they didn?t want to freeze the confrontation lines.
In other words the Muslims wanted to prolong the war, and didn?t want a
cease-fire at all. They just wanted to exploit the good will of the Serbs
and use the ?cease-fires? as an opportunity to regroup and launch fresh
offensives in order to move the confrontation lines.
Another Muslim policy that Harland defended was their militarization of
the so-called ?safe areas.? Harland pointed out that the UNSC Resolutions
that created the ?safe areas? enshrined the rights of the Muslims to keep
arms there.
The ?safe area? idea has got to be one of the dumbest things that the UN
Security Council has ever come-up with, right behind the Hague Tribunal.
The Security Council prohibited one side from attacking the so-called ?safe
area,? while simultaneously allowing the other side to militarize the ?safe
area? and launch attacks out from it.
Harland also had to admit that he was aware of General Rose?s reports which
stated that the Muslims were firing mortars on their own people from a
mobile launcher and that they were carrying-out sniper attacks against
their own people for propaganda purposes.
Harland himself confirmed that most of the Serbian shelling of Sarajevo
was done in retaliation. Harland admitted that the Muslim strategy in Sarajevo
was to fire shells at the Serbs from built-up civilian areas in hopes of
provoking a Serb response that would be filmed by the media and presented
to the world as some sort of ?Serb aggression?.
He recounted one example when the Muslims fired mortars on Serbian artillery
positions from the Kasova Hospital. Obviously the objective here was to
get the Serbs to shell the position that the fire on them was emanating
from ? the hospital.
The Markale Market massacre was brought up and Slobodan Milosevic had the
UN report on the incident and it stated that the shell that fell on the
market was fired from a range of less than 2,000 meters, which means that
the shell came from inside - not outside of Muslim the lines.
In addition to killing their own people for propaganda, the B-H Army killed
for the purposes of ethnic cleansing. Harland recounted how the 5th Corps
of the B-H Army attacked the Serbs in Western Bosnia.
Harland did his best to try and help the prosecution, but he failed. In
a final blow to the prosecutor?s case Harland said that the Bosnian Serb
leadership in Pale was angry with Milosevic because he refused to provide
them with troops. At the same time Harland said that Croatia was openly
sending uniformed regular army troops into Bosnia.
Another witness was also heard on Wednesday. The secret witness B-1531,
who continued his testimony from Tuesday, concluded his testimony. Unfortunately,
because of the extensive use of private sessions, and the extensive use
of Rule 89(F) by the prosecutor I have no idea what he was getting on about.
B-1531 was appointed to some anonymous high office in Foca by the SDA,
and he was apparently somebody close to the B-H Defense Minister, Hassan
Chengic. Other than that I don?t know anything about him.
=== 3 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg111103.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: NOVEMBER 11, 2003
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - November 11, 2003
Robert Donia, a so-called expert witness, returned to finish his cross-examination
today. Mr. Donia first testified on September 12, 2003 [http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg091203.htm%5d.
Mr. Donia examined transcripts taken from the Republika Srpska assembly,
and then ?interpreted them? for the ?court.?
The most important thing that Mr. Donia analyzed was two speeches that
President Milosevic gave to the Republika Srpska assembly to convince
the Bosnian-Serbs to accept the Vance-Owen peace plan. To illustrate
the quality of Donia?s so-called ?analysis? I will re-publish the text
from President Milosevic?s two speeches and then I will tell you what
conclusions that Donia drew from them:
///START FIRST SPEECH///
Let me say straight away that I consider that there's no alternative
to a decision in favor of peace, a decision for peace and for the reinforcement
of the signature put by Radovan Karadzic in Athens is in the interest
of the Serbian people in Republika Srpska and in the interest of the
whole Serbian people. The basic issue which has been raised from the
very beginning - and we have jointly defined what the aim of the Serbian
people in the Balkans is - I would say quite briefly the aim of the Serbian
people in the Balkans has been and remains to be free and equal.
The offered proposal, in my opinion, for that very reason for the Serb
people to be free and equal should be viewed from the standpoint to what
extent that freedom and equality is ensured through such an approach.
In the provinces which will not be under the control of the Serb authorities
and there are still Serbs living there, it is explicitly stated that
access will be denied to the HVO and Green Berets and that they will
be accessed only by the UN, which means that they will provide a security
zone which will make it possible for no one to have to leave their homes,
which means that that freedom is guaranteed and a condition that has
been achieved in the proposed solution, but it also means that this is
a freedom that the Serbian people in Bosnia have won for themselves.
The plan also restores the status of a constituent people. You remember
well that the conflict started when the rights of the Serbian people
as a constituent people in Bosnia and Herzegovina were trampled upon,
when decisions started to be made without consulting them and without
their participation and against their will. This solution, the Vance-Owen
Plan, envisages such equality in rights so that the Serbian people in
BH can be said to have restored their position of a constituent people
through their struggle.
Therefore, it is fully and equally in the hands of the Serbian people,
as in the hands of other peoples. They have the right and ability to
make decisions that decisively affect their destiny.
If that main issue and main goal of the Serbian people in the Balkans,
that is, to be free and equal, is assessed from the standpoint of the
solutions offered, then we see that it has restored freedom and equality
and that after the struggle whereby it has won that freedom and equality,
it can decide not to reject its remaining demands but to try and address
those requests through peace and not war, at a conference table, through
political negotiations, and not by sacrificing more victims. Every sacrifice
has a justification if it achieves goals, but it has no justification
if the solution offered guarantees freedom and equality.
Let me tell you in the end, don't tell us that you feel abandoned; we
shared all your worries throughout this period. Not only did we worry
for you, but we assisted you at the expense and sacrifice by 10 million
Serbs.
///END FIRST SPEECH///
[Note: Between these two speeches R.S. MP's made their own speeches and
debated whether or not to accept the plan.]
///START SECOND SPEECH///
I will try very briefly, but with the highest possible degree of responsibility
to say a few words. But before doing that, I wish to convey to you my
impressions. You spoke openly and from the heart. Most of what you said
related to the cruelties and injustices of war. In the Serbian people,
throughout their history, unfortunately there is too -- there are too
many truthful testimonies of the horrors of war. However, all that we heard
today regarding the testimony and the horrors of war, all of this can
be formed into one single argument and a single statement and message,
that the war should cease as soon as possible, that the war should cease
immediately.
However, let me go back to the question we are addressing today. The
question is not how much horrors -- how many horrors there were in this
war. This people has felt this on their own shoulders throughout their
history. The question today is whether we should consolidate what has
been achieved and through a peaceful process, under conditions of security,
achieve what remains to be done, what we call "outstanding matters."
There were many outstanding issues, but the plan envisaged that those
problems be addressed in negotiations.
So whether we should seek to address what we call 'outstanding problems'
through negotiation or should we destroy what has been achieved at the
expense of enormous sacrifice. That is the real issue that this Assembly
should decide. So the question, when talking about the plan, is not whether
we are departing from our goals. Of course not.
The question is whether that plan represents the path towards the ultimate
goal. The plan is not the final fulfillment of the justified demands
of the Serbian people, but it certainly represents the path towards the
ultimate goal. But now we must make much more effort through our wisdom
and less bloodshed. I think that should be an advantage, not a disadvantage.
And this Assembly must have the courage and self-confidence under these
circumstances on the basis of the plan, which must -- which is a sufficient
basis to achieve our goal, rather than committing a tragic error which
will cruelly cut across or put an obstacle on the way to success.
Will the Assembly opt for a reasonable or an unreasonable path? I think
no one needs to persuade this Assembly about. I think peace is the reasonable,
the sensible way. On the contrary, if the slogan is spread about that
the Serbs don't want peace, that could only justify crimes against the
Serbs, and this is something you should bear in mind. When the road towards
peace is being opened, you must explain to the people that they -- why
should they sacrifice their lives in even crueller ways up to now? You
cannot explain the reasons to the Serbian people in Bosnia or in Serbia.
And let me say finally, one must sacrifice everything for the people
except the people. You cannot sacrifice the people. You do not have the
right to do that as an Assembly or as anyone else.
///END SECOND SPEECH///
President Milosevic stated quite unequivocally that there was no alternative
to peace, that the war had to end immediately, that the aim is for the
Serbian people in the Balkans is to be free and equal, and that their
destiny will be in their hands, as it is in the hands of the other two
peoples if they accept the Vance-Owen plan, and that things should be
resolved by consensus and through negotiations.
Anybody with a brain can easily understand what President Milosevic was
saying. Donia, on the other hand, claimed that with those two speeches
President Milosevic was advocating ?greater Serbia? and that he wasn?t
seriously endorsing the Vance-Owen plan.
When Lord Owen testified he said quite unequivocally that Milosevic did
seriously endorse the Vance-Owen peace plan, so who are we to believe?
Should we believe Lord Owen who was one of the chief negotiators for
whom the plan was named? Or should we believe some jerk who was working
for Merrill-Lynch at the time?
This was typical for the quality of Donia?s analysis. The basic premise
that Donia operated on was that Serbs are an evil scheming bunch who
always mean the opposite of what they are actually saying.
Mr. Donia considered that eventhough the term ?greater Serbia? never
appeared in any of the transcripts that ?greater Serbia? was exactly what
the Serbs were trying to accomplish.
Mr. Donia only selectively analyzed RS assembly sessions, he didn?t even
look at any of the documents issued by the assembly, and he selectively
took quotes out of their proper context in order to misrepresent them
so that they would fit his anti-Serb thesis.
On another occasion Radovan Karadzic was speaking about finding a political
solution to the situation in Gorazde. Karadzic said quite literally in
the transcript that ?not a single shot should be fired.? And Donia interpreted
this as meaning that Karadzic wanted to incite an armed conflict around
Gorazde.
Mr. Donia, who was working for Merrill-Lynch in New York at the time,
stated that he knew that VJ troops were in Bosnia even though none of the
transcripts he that ?analyzed? reflected such a thing. But when he was
asked about Croatian troops all of the sudden he wasn?t a military expert
and wasn?t competent to testify about such things as whose troops were
where.
Mr. Donia was quick to defend Warren Zimmerman, saying that Zimmerman
didn?t tell Izetbegovic to withdraw from the Cutliero plan. But when asked
about the Cutlitero plan all of the sudden Donia remembered that it was
outside of his mandate as a witness.
But because this so-called ?expert witness? brought bits and pieces of the
transcripts to the ?court? with him some interesting things were established.
During the cross-examination by the Amicus Mr. Tapuskovic it was proven
that Belgrade did not command the VRS. In the 39th session transcript
of the Republika Srpska assembly of March 1994 Radovan Karadzic says,
?I am responsible to the people, and the commanders are responsible to
me. I sign the orders.?
It was brought out by Mr. Tapuskovic that Dr. Karadzic signed military 7
directives. The 7th directive stipulated that the VRS should thwart
enemy war plans and prevent a breakthrough at Srebrenica. Donia, of course,
misinterpreted this as meaning that Karadzic ordered a massacre at Srebrenica.
It was also brought out during President Milosevic?s cross-examination of
Donia that according to the transcripts it was only by the grace of the
R.S. Assembly that UN troops were allowed to deploy in Srebrenica, Gorazde
and Zepa.
A 1993 speech of Karadzic?s was also read out where Karadzic is saying that
it is good that UNPROFOR is in Srebrenica because if the VRS had taken
it then there could have been ?blood to the knees? because of the revenge
that might have been taken by the soldiers who had had their families
massacred by Muslim troops who were attacking out from Srebrenica.
Karadzic said that it was actually in the Republika Srpska?s strategic
interest to stay out of Srebrenica, because a massacre there could jeopardize
the very existence of Republika Srpska. Therefore, it is quite unlikely
that Karadzic would order a massacre 2 years later, because he was certainly
aware of what the consequences would be if there was one.
After Donia withdrew the secret witness B-1097 was recalled to finish his
cross-examination. B-1097 had originally testified on July 25th.
B-1097 claimed to have been taken prisoner at the Karakaj Technical School
in Zvornik where a large number of Muslims were apparently killed.
B-1097 could not identify his captors, except as ?Serbs.? He couldn?t
say which unit they were from, and he didn?t see any executions.
After he got away from the technical school he went to Serbia. He lived
freely in Novi Sad. Nobody mistreated him in Serbia, and he was even
issued a passport by the FRY authorities.
B-1097 did have some interesting things to say about Zvornik. First of
all he admitted that the Muslim paramilitary formation known as the Patriotic
League was active there.
He also admitted, or should I say was forced to admit, that the Muslim
T.O. in Zvornik had threatened to blow-up the hydroelectric dam. At first
he tried to deny this. The Amicus Mr. Kay asked him 4 times if this had
happened and B-1097 never answered the question, and so Mr. Kay pointed-out
paragraph 7 of the whiteness?s own statement where it said that the Muslim
T.O. had threatened to blow-up the dam.
After B-1097 was done, another secret witness came along. B-1399 was
apparently a survivor of the Srebrenica massacre, and most of B-1399?s
testimony was dealt with in secret - in so-called ?closed session.?
From what could be gathered in open session it can be concluded that B-1097
is a liar. B-1097 claimed that Srebrenica had been demilitarized and
that only UNPROFOR had weapons. B-1097 stated unequivocally that no Muslims
in Srebrenica had any weapons, because UNPROFOR had taken them all away.
B-1097 also stated that no Muslim-led attacks had emanated from Srebrenica.
B-1097?s testimony here is in direct contradiction of the UNPROFOR commander
Rupert Smith?s testimony. According to Smith?s testimony on October 9,
2003 ?UNPROFOR was not tasked with demilitarizing Srebrenica.? and the
Muslim forces of the 28th Infantry Division were, ?conducting raids out
from Srebrenica into the Serb-held territory.?
B-1097 is scheduled to finish his cross-examination tomorrow.
=== 4 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg111203.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: NOVEMBER 12, 2003
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - November 12, 2003
B-1399 Finished his testimony at the Hague Tribunal. He recounted the story
of how he allegedly survived execution at Srebrenica. He says that he was
part of a group of men, that he was blindfolded, and that the executioners
opened fire on the group. The corpses fell on top of him and the dead bodies
shielded him from further gunfire. He later crawled out from the pile of
corpses.
According to B-1399 armed men saw him escaping and opened fire on him as
he ran away, but they missed.
He recounted that while he was at the execution site he saw trucks bringing
Muslims for execution every 10 minutes.
B-1399 has given numerous statements about his alleged experience. The
first statements that he gave were in 1995 and 1997, and in those statements
no mention was made about trucks bringing in people to execute, nor was
any mention made of the ?fact? that B-1399 was shot at as he was fleeing.
We established yesterday that B-1399?s account of the military situation
in Srebrenica was in direct contradiction of the UNPROFOR commander Rupert
Smith?s testimony, and now we have B-1399 coming up with this new ?evidence?
8 years after the fact.
It was obvious that B-1399 was lying. When asked about discrepancies between
his testimony and his written statements he got very defensive. At one
point he snapped at the Amicus Curiae, Mr. Tapuskovic, and told him that
he should not ask those sorts of questions.
The next witness was the Canadian Major Roy F. Thomas. Maj. Thomas was
the senior UN Military Observer in Sarajevo for 9 months spanning 1993
and 1994.
During Maj. Thomas?s tenure he did not see any attacks by the Serbs on
Sarajevo, he claimed that the Serbs were in a holding pattern around the
city, and did not try to take it.
Under cross-examination from President Milosevic, Maj. Thomas spoke of
some of the underhanded strategies that the Muslims would employ.
For example, Maj. Thomas testified that there were occasions when the Muslim
soldiers would open fire on the Serbs from behind the UNPROFOR position
in order that the UNPROFOR soldiers would provide a sort of shield for
their attack.
Maj. Thomas corroborated the testimony of David Harland (United Nations
civil and political affairs officer in Sarajevo) that Muslim forces were
using the Kosevo Hospital as a mortar plate. The Muslims were firing mortars
at the Serbs from the hospital in order to provoke the Serbs into firing
on the hospital.
On another occasion Maj. Thomas recounted that Muslims opened fire from
the PTT building at Serb positions, with a view to getting the Serbs to
fire on the PTT building. At the time, the PTT building was the UN headquarters
in Sarajevo. The Muslims were trying to get the Serbs to shoot at the UN.
Maj. Thomas recounted yet another occasion when Muslims disguised themselves
as Bosnian-Serb soldiers and tried to kill the UNPROFOR commander. Fortunately
according to Maj. Thomas they weren?t smart enough to pull it off and got
caught. So here we have Muslims plotting to kill the UNPROFOR commander,
and engaging in a conspiracy to make it look like the Serbs did it.
The Muslims would not always wear military uniforms. According to Maj.
Thomas he, the Senior UN Military Observer, had no idea who was a soldier
and who was a civilian, and so he had no choice other than to regard all
able bodied men as soldiers.
Maj. Thomas spoke of one occasion when the 10th Mountain Brigade of the
B-H Army, led by the notorious criminal Musan Topalovic - Caco, captured
a group of UNPROFOR soldiers, and stole their equipment and their money.
According to Maj. Thomas the media did not portray a balanced view of sniping
incidents in Sarajevo. He said that all sides engaged in sniper activity.
He said that the main objective of the Muslim snipers was to provoke the
Serbs into abandoning cease-fires. As a case in point he gave an example
where Muslim snipers shot and killed 3 pregnant Serb women during a cease-fire,
and that the following day the Serbs shot at every Muslim soldier they
saw.
Maj. Thomas accompanied General Rose (UNPROFOR commander) to the negotiations
at the Sarajevo Airport. At those negotiations the Serb side, led by Ratko
Mladic, proposed a general cease-fire throughout Bosnia. The Muslims, on
the other hand, did not want a ceasefire.
Gen. Rose supported the cease-fire idea, because as he says in his book,
and as Maj. Thomas confirmed that he said at the time, only with a ceasefire
can negotiations take place, and a solution be found that can end the war.
None the less, after the negotiations failed, because the Muslims refused
to agree to a ceasefire; NATO proceeded to bomb the Bosnian Serbs.
I believe that the prosecution brought Maj. Thomas to testify about the
Markale Market incident but he didn?t really do them any good. He said
that he couldn?t determine who had fired the shell at the market place.
There was however a document produced by one of Maj. Thomas?s men, and
president Milosevic read it out, and it said that a 120mm mortar launcher
on wheels was seen at a location in Muslim held territory from which it
could have fired the deadly shell.
It was also borne out by Maj. Thomas that UNMO?s were permitted to investigate
in the Serbian territory immediately after the incident.
In spite of evidence that the Muslims shelled their own people or at least
in view of the lack of evidence that the Serbs did it; NATO used the Markale
Market incident as a justification to bomb the Bosnian Serbs.
Maj. Thomas also corroborated David Harland?s testimony about the Muslim
violation of the Mt. Igman agreement, when Muslim soldiers illegally took
over positions on Mt. Igman that were supposed to be occupied by UNPROFOR.
After Maj. Thomas withdrew, Merced Kucanin a Muslim police officer from
Sarajevo took the witness stand.
Kucanin alleged that the Serbs fired shells on a number of targets in Sarajevo,
and he proceeded to enumerate them.
He also testified about Jusuf Prazina, called Juka. Mr. Kucanin confirmed
that Juka was a criminal and that he commanded an armed unit, but Kucanin
insisted that it was OK since Juka was working for the police!
So the Sarajevo police put a convicted criminal in charge of an armed unit,
and this guy thinks it?s OK. What sort of police employs criminals? Apparently
it is the sort of police that our gallant witness worked for.
When President Milosevic asked whether or not the Sarajevo authorities
prevented the civilian population from leaving Sarajevo this guy?s answer
was that he didn?t know if they did or not. He didn?t know? A man who, by
then, had been a police officer for 10 years didn?t know?! Or is it that
he did know, but he didn?t want to admit that civilians were prohibited
from leaving, and so he said that he didn?t know?
President Milosevic has 30 more minutes to cross-examine Kucanin tomorrow.
After Kucanin, apparently the witnesses B-1524 and Franken will be heard
from.
=== 5 ===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg111303.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: DUTCHBAT COMMANDER SAW NO EXECUTIONS IN SREBRENICA
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - November 13, 2003
Merced Kucanin finished his testimony today at the Hague Tribunal. As you
remember from yesterday Kucanin was a Sarajevo police officer who testified
about shelling and sniping in Sarajevo.
He testified today about a certain Milo Vaselovic who had been shot by
a sniper in Sarajevo. Vaselovic was a Serb, and Kucanin testified that
he had been shot by Vojislav Seselj. He didn?t do any ballistic analysis
on the corpse or anything like that but he saw Seselj on Television that
night and so he concluded that Seselj must have been the gunman?impeccable
logic indeed.
Kucanin also retracted his previous assertion that he didn?t know if civilians
could leave Sarajevo or not. Today he confirmed that civilians were not
allowed to leave the city. He said that there was only one way out and
that a pass, issued by the B-H Interior Ministry, was required in order
to leave the city. He also confirmed that very few people actually received
this pass. But he only admitted that people couldn?t leave the city when
confronted with the fact that his witness statement said that people couldn?t
leave.
Kucanin, when asked by President Milosevic, also confirmed that the first
victims of the war in Sarajevo were the members of a Serb wedding party
who were fired on and killed while en route to the Orthodox Church in Sarajevo.
The next witness to testify was Col. Robert Franken. Franken was a DutchBat
Major, and he was the deputy UNPROFOR commander in Srebrenica in July of
1995.
First of all I should say that Col. Franken said quite unequivocally that
he saw no evidence which would indicate that there was any political or
military cooperation between Belgrade and the VRS units that came into
Srebrenica when the enclave fell. The Dutch Government conducted an exhaustive
investigation into the alleged events at Srebrenica and drew the conclusion
in point 10 of their report that Belgrade had nothing to do with any of
the events in Srebrenica.
This evidence exonerates Slobodan Milosevic personally, but since the Serbs
are on trial as a group at the Hague and President Milosevic is their foremost
defender. President Milosevic is none the less endeavoring to prove the
truth about what happened at Srebrenica even though it is totally outside
the realm of possibility that he could in any way be connected to the events
there.
According to Col. Franken Srebrenica was supposed to be demilitarized.
However Franken said that the Muslims did not demilitarize, in fact he
says the Muslims even received weapons at the airport and UNPROFOR was
unable to stop them.
Col. Franken confirmed that the Muslims had a whole division of troops
stationed in Srebrenica. He testified that the 8th Operation Group was
there, and that it later became known as the 28th Infantry Division. The
28th Infantry Division consisted of the 280th Brigade, the 281st Brigade,
the 282nd Brigade, the 283rd Brigade, the 284th Brigade, a Mountain battalion,
9 sabotage groups and a reserve police force. At a given time the 28th
Division had over 4,000 men under arms, and Franken confirmed that every
man in Srebrenica was at the disposal of the 28th Division. There was also
a special unit that Srebrenica?s notorious Muslim war-lord Nasir Oric had
at his own personal disposal. The 28th Infantry Division, according to
Franken, was a poorly trained and poorly disciplined group.
Col. Franken testified that there was heavy fighting around Srebrenica.
He testified that thousands of members of the 28th Infantry Division tried
to break-out of the enclave across Serbian territory towards Tuzla, and
that they took massive casualties in the process.
Franken also testified that there was internal Muslim fighting among the
members of the 28th Infantry Division in Srebrenica and that casualties
were inflicted by the Muslims on each other over the course of that fighting.
Franken also confirmed that Muslim soldiers attempted to attack the eastern
flank of the VRS near Srebrenica and that they took heavy casualties during
that offensive.
President Milosevic asked the obvious question. He asked if the members
of the 28th Infantry Division who died during combat operations were being
counted as the victims of the alleged ?massacre? at Srebrenica. Col. Franken
didn?t know.
An important point to observe here is that Col. Franken testified that
none of the UN soldiers who were in Srebrenica at the critical time saw
any executions taking place. In fact the only casualties they saw were
of people who had been killed in the fighting. Again, none of the DutchBat
personnel who composed the UNPROFOR battalion in Srebrenica saw any executions
or mass-killings taking place there.
Col. Franken also testified that before the break-out operation that the
Muslim Soldiers in Srebrenica would launch attacks out of the enclave onto
the surrounding Serbian villages. To bear this out President Milosevic
cited examples such as the time when Visnica was attacked by Muslim troops
from Srebrenica and many Serbs were killed, and he cited the example when
Muslim soldiers attacked and killed a group of Serbian woodcutters who
were just cutting down trees in a forested area near Srebrenica, and of
course there are many more examples.
Col. Franken testified that the only ones to kill a UNPROFOR soldier in
Srebrenica were the Muslims. The VRS did not kill a single UNPROFOR soldier.
Col. Franken testified that the Muslims in Srebrenica would position themselves
near UNPROFOR observation posts and then open fire on the Serbs in order
to make the Serbs think that UNPROFOR was firing on them, with the ultimate
objective being for the Serbs to retaliate and shoot at the UNPROFOR observation
post.
Col. Franken recounted one occasion when Muslim soldiers in Srebrenica
stole some UNPROFOR uniforms, disguised themselves as UNPROFOR members,
approached a UN observation post and opened fire on the real UNPROFOR personnel
who were there.
Lt. Col. Ton Karremans was Col. Franken?s commanding officer and President
Milosevic read from a briefing paper that Karremans provided to Franken.
Karremans negotiated the evacuation of the civilian population from Srebrenica
with Ratko Mladic. It should also be noted here that it was Akashi?s idea
that Srebrenica should be evacuated.
From the briefing paper we can see that Mladic wanted the evacuation of
Srebrenica to be voluntary. Mladic explained that the refugees could stay
because he didn?t have any problems with civilians since they were not
to blame for anything.
It was Mladic?s position that the wounded, the elderly, and the women and
children should be evacuated first. Mladic also wanted the Red Cross to
escort the refugees, according to the briefing paper.
Mladic wanted the men to be questioned before being allowed to leave, and
indeed men were questioned at a place near Potocari called the ?white house,?
an UNMO (UN Military Observer) was stationed at that location and saw as
many men leaving the white house as he saw going in.
President Milosevic?s cross-examination was cut short because of time restrictions
imposed by the so-called ?court.? Col. Franken was what the so-called ?tribunal?
calls a ?92-bis witness?. This means that a summary of his testimony is
read out by the prosecutor, followed by a very brief examination-in-chief.
President Milosevic then only has 1 hour for cross-examination. This practice
frequently means that President Milosevic is unable to fully cross-examine
important witnesses and that was again the case today.
After President Milosevic?s cross-examination, the Amicus Curiae Mr. Tapuskovic
was able to cross-examine Col. Franken for approximately 15 minutes.
Col. Franken told Mr. Tapuskovic that the Muslim forces inside of Srebrenica
were essentially using UNPROFOR as a cover for carrying out prohibited
military activities. In other words they were abusing the safe area.
Mr. Tapuskovic then embarked on an interesting line of questioning that
I feel needs to be explored much further.
One of Col. Franken?s subordinates named Van Duyn had testified at another
trial, I believe Tapuskovic said that it was at Obrenovic?s trial, but
I?m not sure. I?ll have to go back and look at the tape when it is available.
Apparently, this Van Duyn testified in that trial that the UNPROFOR battalion
in Srebrenica had been ordered to fire on Serbian artillery positions that
were just minding their own business on the mountain tops some 10 to 15
kilometers away from the enclave.
The objective was apparently to induce the Serbs to attack the enclave
itself and thereby provide a justification for NATO air strikes. Or could
the objective have been to suck the Serbs into the enclave so that they
could be accused of perpetrating a massacre there later on?
Unfortunately, Mr. Nice intervened, questioning the relevance, and Tapuskovic?s
cross-examination was abruptly ended.
After Col. Franken was finished with his testimony a secret witness called
?B-1524? was called to testify. B-1524 was allegedly a Serb from Zvornik
that the SDA had recruited to spy on the SDS. B-1524 was also allegedly
taken prisoner by Arkan.
B-1524?s cross-examination will take place next Tuesday.
__________________________________________________________________
Tiscali ADSL SENZA CANONE, paghi solo quando navighi!
E in più il modem e' GRATIS! Abbonati subito.
http://point.tiscali.it/adsl/index.shtml
--- In This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., "decani3" wrote:
Politika daily, Belgrade
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
CROATIAN FORMER BALKANS CORRESPONDENT CLAIMS
UN "dressed up" reports
World organization "adjusts its reports" prior to "bombing uncooperative
regimes so they come to their senses", emphasizes reporter Tonchi Percan
Stockholm, November 17 (Tanjug) - There are indications that the United
Nations exaggerated the Serbian evil and demonized the Serbs in a report
that served as the basis on which the international community formulated
its policy toward the Balkans and military activities in the region in
the last decade of the previous millennium, says an article published
this weekend in the Swedish daily "Svenska Dagbladet".
In a text entitled "Can we believe the United Nations" the author, a
Croatian TV correspondent who lived in and reported from the Balkans
during the 1990s asks the question whether the world organization is
"adjusting its reports" prior to "bombing uncooperative regimes so they
come to their senses," as Washington and London recently did in Iraq,
where the danger from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was
exaggerated.
Percan claims that the so-called Final Report of the UN Expert
Commission from December 1994 accused the Serbs of carrying out genocide
against the Bosnian Muslims in Prijedor in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the
summer of 1992. Namely, the report states that the Hague tribunal for
crimes committed in ex-Yugoslavia will probably determine the following:
"It will probably be determined in court and according to law that these
events represent genocide." However, the UN war crimes court in The
Hague released the indicted in this specific case, says the article.
"The United Nations attempted to convince the global community that
genocide had occurred through formulations such as 'the total number of
killed or deported persons totals 52,811 out of a total population of
112,470'. The fact that the UN did not make any distinction between the
number killed and the number deported suggests that the world
organization wanted to 'dress up' the report on Serbian crimes," assess
the author.
Percan also recalls the mention of three concentration camps run by the
Serbs in the region, two of which were allegedly "death camps". One of
them, Omarska, with pictures of the malnourished Fikret Alic behind
barbed wire, became the symbol of Serbian brutality.
However, Percan goes on to write, those who took the photographs seen
around the world were probably the ones behind the barbed wire, not the
prisoners; and the pictures were taken in the village of Trnopolje, not
in Omarska.
The author further cites Christian Palme's book "Evil in Our Time" and
an award-winning Swedish documentary film from the year 2000 that also
concern themselves with the crimes in Prijedor. All of them base their
texts or reports on the aforementioned UN report.
The author of the article concludes that the accusations that the Serbs
committed genocide in Prijedor are unsubstantiated. Nonetheless, those
accusations served at the basis for military action by the UN and NATO
in the Balkans.
Tonchi Percan was born in Pula. In the 1980s he worked as a program
editor for Swedish television on current problems of immigrants. During
the Balkan wars he worked with many Swedish journalists in the region of
the former Yugoslavia.
Translated by www.serbian-translation.com (November 18, 2003)
--- End forwarded message ---
Politika daily, Belgrade
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
CROATIAN FORMER BALKANS CORRESPONDENT CLAIMS
UN "dressed up" reports
World organization "adjusts its reports" prior to "bombing uncooperative
regimes so they come to their senses", emphasizes reporter Tonchi Percan
Stockholm, November 17 (Tanjug) - There are indications that the United
Nations exaggerated the Serbian evil and demonized the Serbs in a report
that served as the basis on which the international community formulated
its policy toward the Balkans and military activities in the region in
the last decade of the previous millennium, says an article published
this weekend in the Swedish daily "Svenska Dagbladet".
In a text entitled "Can we believe the United Nations" the author, a
Croatian TV correspondent who lived in and reported from the Balkans
during the 1990s asks the question whether the world organization is
"adjusting its reports" prior to "bombing uncooperative regimes so they
come to their senses," as Washington and London recently did in Iraq,
where the danger from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was
exaggerated.
Percan claims that the so-called Final Report of the UN Expert
Commission from December 1994 accused the Serbs of carrying out genocide
against the Bosnian Muslims in Prijedor in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the
summer of 1992. Namely, the report states that the Hague tribunal for
crimes committed in ex-Yugoslavia will probably determine the following:
"It will probably be determined in court and according to law that these
events represent genocide." However, the UN war crimes court in The
Hague released the indicted in this specific case, says the article.
"The United Nations attempted to convince the global community that
genocide had occurred through formulations such as 'the total number of
killed or deported persons totals 52,811 out of a total population of
112,470'. The fact that the UN did not make any distinction between the
number killed and the number deported suggests that the world
organization wanted to 'dress up' the report on Serbian crimes," assess
the author.
Percan also recalls the mention of three concentration camps run by the
Serbs in the region, two of which were allegedly "death camps". One of
them, Omarska, with pictures of the malnourished Fikret Alic behind
barbed wire, became the symbol of Serbian brutality.
However, Percan goes on to write, those who took the photographs seen
around the world were probably the ones behind the barbed wire, not the
prisoners; and the pictures were taken in the village of Trnopolje, not
in Omarska.
The author further cites Christian Palme's book "Evil in Our Time" and
an award-winning Swedish documentary film from the year 2000 that also
concern themselves with the crimes in Prijedor. All of them base their
texts or reports on the aforementioned UN report.
The author of the article concludes that the accusations that the Serbs
committed genocide in Prijedor are unsubstantiated. Nonetheless, those
accusations served at the basis for military action by the UN and NATO
in the Balkans.
Tonchi Percan was born in Pula. In the 1980s he worked as a program
editor for Swedish television on current problems of immigrants. During
the Balkan wars he worked with many Swedish journalists in the region of
the former Yugoslavia.
Translated by www.serbian-translation.com (November 18, 2003)
--- End forwarded message ---