Informazione
0) L'adesione del CNJ alla manifestazione dell'8/11 a Roma
1) Appello per la manifestazione nazionale dell'8 novembre
2) Aggiornamento adesioni
3) Alcune iniziative di preparazione
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
0)
Ai promotori della manifestazione dell'8 Novembre 2003:
VITA, TERRA, LIBERTA' PER IL POPOLO PALESTINESE
E TUTTI I POPOLI DEL MEDIORIENTE
Cari amici, cari compagni,
Il Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia aderisce
alla manifestazione da voi indetta ed invita tutti gli
internazionalisti, gli antimperialisti e gli amici sinceri della pace e
della vera autodeterminazione dei popoli ad unirsi a noi in questa
occasione.
Le ragioni della nostra adesione
In Palestina, la costruzione di un enorme muro divisorio a spaccare in
due la terra dei palestinesi rappresenta un ennesimo colpo contro quel
popolo gia' vittima di decenni di violenza e di ingiustizie.
La costruzione di un muro cosi' imponente simboleggia pero' anche la
perfetta ipocrisia delle potenze occidentali e di tutti i loro
"suonatori di piffero". E' oramai evidente agli occhi di chiunque che
in occasione dell'abbattimento del Muro di Berlino ci avevano
raccontato solo favole sull'"era di pace" che si sarebbe dovuta aprire.
E' proprio da allora, infatti, che i muri si sono moltiplicati, insieme
agli scenari internazionali di crisi, e questi ultimi si sono
trasformati rapidamente in guerre di aggressione da parte occidentale.
Dal Medioriente la destabilizzazione si allarga oggi in Asia, mirando
verso la Cina. Ma la violenza imperialista non ha risparmiato nemmeno
il cuore dell'Europa. In Europa, per adesso, sono gli jugoslavi a dover
pagare il prezzo piu' caro di una ristrutturazione geopolitica decisa
contro di loro ed a loro insaputa. A partire dal riconoscimento
diplomatico delle Repubbliche secessioniste (1991) l'Occidente ha fatto
il "doppio gioco" con la Jugoslavia, proclamandosi pompiere mentre
gettava benzina. Un "doppio gioco" che ha causato indicibili tragedie
umane, ridisegnando i Balcani secondo protettorati coloniali come ai
tempi dell'occupazione nazifascista, trasformandone i territori in
servitu' militari occidentali e bacini di sfruttamento delle risorse e
della forza-lavoro, devastando le basi della convivenza civile e della
cultura comune di quelle genti.
Nel 1999 si raggiunse l'apice dell'accanimento occidentale con una
aggressione cui l'Italia prese parte direttamente, e che fu condotta
con mezzi impari e con modalita' da vigliacchi: proprio come le
aggressioni contro l'Afghanistan e contro l'Iraq. Hanno bombardato
infrastrutture ed obiettivi civili, con armi illegali, allo scopo
preciso di causare conseguenze ecologiche e sanitarie irreparabili.
Hanno bombardato le fabbriche, incuranti degli operai che le
presidiavano. Hanno ridotto la popolazione in condizioni misere.
Oggi i cittadini della Serbia non hanno piu' uno Stato (la Repubblica
Federale di Jugoslavia e' stata sciolta per decreto), ne' un
presidente, ne' un governo: l'ultimo governo-fantoccio e' entrato in
crisi, dopo avere interrotto ogni sforzo di ricostruzione e avere messo
in svendita tutte le ricchezze del paese, preso tra mille scandali ed
episodi di corruzione e violenza. Nel Kosovo-Metohija occupato dalle
"nostre" truppe regna da quattro anni un regime del terrore: i
"desaparecidos" sono migliaia, gli attentati a sfondo razzista
continuano, fioriscono solo i traffici di droga, armi e prostituzione.
Le grandissime risorse della provincia, specialmente minerarie, sono
state subito espropriate allo Stato jugoslavo, e la produzione di ogni
tipo e' stata bloccata. Le poche possibilita' di lavoro "onesto" per i
giovani kosovaro-albanesi vengono dalle truppe straniere di
occupazione: ad esempio nell'immensa base militare USA di Camp
Bondsteel, presso Urosevac, il piu' grande insediamento militare USA
all'estero dai tempi del Vietnam.
Come in Jugoslavia, anche in Iraq la promessa di "dare alla
popolazione locale un governo democratico" si e' subito rivelata come
una ignobile truffa: l'Occidente ha portato distruzione, truppe ed
insediamenti militari, disoccupazione e miseria. L'occupazione militare
portera' solo nuovi confini a dividere le genti, portera' divisione ed
odio "etnico", e regimi coloniali repressivi. Come in Jugoslavia, anche
in Iraq l'Occidente sottrae le risorse, ruba le materie prime ai loro
legittimi detentori, si accanisce per gestire il petrolio ed il gas
naturale e per controllare tutte le rotte per il loro transito.
E' importante ricordare la sequenza logica e cronologica con cui queste
"crisi" internazionali si succedono, perche' tutte sono collegate fra
loro e tutte derivano dalla stessa fonte: cioe' la prepotenza cieca
dell'imperialismo occidentale nella fase della espansione del capitale
monopolistico - anche detta "globalizzazione".
E' importante ricordare che, di queste crisi, quella jugoslava e' a noi
la piu' vicina. Essa non e' finita: viceversa va riacutizzandosi,
proprio mentre a migliaia sono i soldati italiani su quei territori.
E' dunque importante legare insieme le campagne di solidarieta'
internazionalista, perche' l'imperialismo strappa a tutti i popoli le
prerogative di indipendenza e di autonomia in nome di
"autodeterminazioni" false e bugiarde; distrugge Stati e sottomette
governi legittimi in nome di una "democrazia" che si misura in
petrodollari; costruisce nuove barriere sociali, inediti confini
"etnici", e ciclopiche mura di cemento armato, sempre e solamente in
nome della "Pace".
CONTRO I MURI ED I CONFINI COSTRUITI DALL'IMPERIALISMO
CONTRO IL NEOCOLONIALISMO DI USA ED UE
PER IL RITIRO IMMEDIATO DEI SOLDATI ITALIANI
DA TUTTE LE MISSIONI ALL'ESTERO
PER LA PACE E LA SOLIDARIETA' FRA TUTTI I POPOLI
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia
Ottobre 2003
Per contatti con il CNJ:
jugocoord@...
Comitato promotore della manifestazione:
stopthewall@...
---
Data: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:21:48 +0200
Da: "Assemblea Nazionale Anticapitalista"
Oggetto: 8 novembre: per la Palestina e per l'Iraq
1) Appello per la manifestazione nazonale dell'8 novembre
2) Aggiornamento adesioni
3) Alcune iniziative di preparazione
Aggiornamenti sui siti: www.forumpalestina.org e www.arcipelago.org
1) L'appello:
STOP THE WALL, STOP THE WAR
VITA, TERRA, LIBERTA' PER IL POPOLO PALESTINESE E TUTTI I POPOLI DEL
MEDIORIENTE
Il 9 novembre del 1989 cadeva il muro di Berlino. Nel novembre del
2003 un altro muro sta sorgendo in Palestina, nei territori occupati
nel 1967, ad opera del governo israeliano di Ariel Sharon. Il muro
dell'apartheid si prospetta come il più grande furto di terre dal 1967
in poi tanto che, una volta completato, avrà una lunghezza di 650
chilometri e permetterà ad Israele di controllare definitivamente più
della metà della Cisgiordania rendendo così impossibile qualsiasi
soluzione negoziata del conflitto israelo-palestinese.
Questa costruzione - chiamata con eufemismo «barriera di sicurezza»-
non segue infatti il confine tra Israele e la Cisgiordania occupata ma
penetra all'interno della West Bank per oltre 20 chilometri connettendo
tra di loro e con Israele la stragrande maggioranza delle colonie
ebraiche (illegali per la Convenzione di Ginevra e la comunità
internazionale) che sarebbero così annesse definitivamente allo stato
ebraico con una buona metà delle terre palestinesi della Cisgiordania,
e con la gran parte delle fonti idriche della regione. Un altro muro è
previsto nella valle del Giordano, scorrendo a 20-30 chilometri
all'interno della Cisgiordania occupata, con l'obiettivo di tagliare
fuori i palestinesi da terre fertili, risorse idriche e da ogni sbocco
verso la Giordania. In tal modo, con questo secondo muro, verranno
definitivamente annesse ad Israele sia la valle del Giordano che il
«deserto della Giudea».
La vita dentro il muro, in particolare nel nord-ovest della
Cisgiordania sarà impossibile: il popolo palestinese, imprigionato
dentro vere e proprie "riserve" circondati da muri e con una sola porta
di entrata e di uscita per ogni città e villaggio perderà la
possibilità di coltivare le sue terre rimaste al di fuori del muro, le
risorse d'acqua e quindi i suoi mezzi di sostentamento oltre alla
possibilità di recarsi a scuola o negli ospedali del centri maggiori. I
primi 150 chilometri del muro sono già completi oltre il 10% dei
palestinesi della Cisgiordania, in particolare quelli delle comunità
più vicine al confine con Israele, Qalqiliya, Tulkarem etc, sono già
imprigionati dentro il muro come avveniva nei ghetti ebraici delle
nostre città nei tempi più bui della storia europea.
Secondo l'organismo israeliano per i diritti umani Betzelem circa
80.000 palestinesi perderanno ogni forma di sostentamento dal momento
che le loro terre sono rimaste al di là del muro. Questi terreni nella
parte nord-occidentale della West Bank (Jenin, Tulkarem, Khaliliya)
costituiscono il 40% delle terre coltivabili della Cisgiordania e sono
tra le più produttive con una resa doppia rispetto a quelle delle altre
regioni.
In questa zona, già investita dal muro, ci sono inoltre i 2/3 delle
sorgenti della West Bank e ben 28 pozzi si trovano ormai al di là della
muraglia, verso Israele.
Ancora più tragica la sorte di quei palestinesi, circa 30.000, che
abitano 13 villaggi che si sono trovati ad ovest del muro tra il
confine con Israele e la grande muraglia, impossibilitati ad andare
nello stato ebraico, impossibilitati a recarsi nel resto della
Cisgiordania e persino nelle città più vicine alle quali facevano
riferimento per gran parte delle loro esigenze lavorative, di studio,
familiari e per accedere ad ogni servizio di base. Impossibilitati a
raggiungere i campi da cui traggono il loro sostentamento.
La costruzione di alcune «porte» di passaggio, dal momento che la loro
apertura è decisa dall'umore dei soldati israeliani, si è rivelata una
tragica beffa. In tal modo non solo verrà annesso ad Israele circa il
60% della Cisgiordania ma, rendendo loro la vita impossibile,
privandoli dei loro mezzi di sussistenza e di ogni prospettiva di
studio, di lavoro e di movimento verrà realizzata una vera e propria
pulizia etnica ai danni di un numero di palestinesi compreso tra i
90.000 e i 200.000.
Una volta che il muro sarà stato costruito i palestinesi saranno
rinchiusi in tre grandi «riserve» (una sorta di salsiccia da Jenin a
Ramallah, un'altra da Betlemme a Hebron e una terza attorno a Gerico)
separate le une dalle altre, e da ogni sbocco esterno, su una
superficie pari all'incirca al 40% della Cisgiordania (il 9% della
Palestina mandataria).
In tal modo emerge chiaramente come l?obiettivo del muro sia non certo
la «sicurezza» di Israele, raggiungibile solamente con una giusta pace
tra i due popoli, ma l'annessione allo stato ebraico della "maggior
parte delle terre con il minimo di arabi" che invece verranno
concentrati all'interno delle città e dei villaggi privi ormai di ogni
retroterra.
Uno stato palestinese libero e indipendente diventerà quindi
impossibile dal momento che le condizioni minime perché possa
costituirsi sono: il ritiro di Israele, colonie, coloni e soldati, alle
frontiere del 1967, una continuità territoriale all'interno
dell'entità palestinese e un suo sbocco verso l'esterno, la Giordania e
l'Egitto, oltre naturalmente al riconoscimento del diritto al ritorno
dei profughi - la cui attuazione andrà poi negoziata. Eppure di fronte
a questo vero e proprio tentativo di distruzione dell'esistenza del
popolo palestinese come una legittima entità sociale, politica ed
economica attraverso la distruzione della sfera pubblica e privata
degli abitanti della West Bank e di Gaza, le reazioni internazionali e
nazionali sono praticamente inesistenti.
Per questa ragione un vasto arco di forze politiche e sociali del
nostro paese, raccogliendo l'invito proveniente dalla Palestina per una
mobilitazione internazionale, ha proposto una manifestazione nazionale
a Roma il prossimo otto novembre contro il muro dell'apartheid, contro
l'occupazione israeliana della West Bank e di Gaza e a sostegno del
diritto inalienabile del popolo palestinese alla vita, alla terra, alla
libertà.
Una manifestazione dall'alto profilo che chieda al governo,
all'opposizione, all'opinione pubblica, alle forze politiche e
sindacali, alle singole persone impegnate per il raggiungimento di una
pace giusta in Medioriente di pronunciarsi chiaramente contro il muro
della vergogna e l'occupazione israeliana e di adottare concrete misure
di pressione su Israele - come il congelamento, sulla base della
clausola sui diritti umani, del trattato di associazione di Tel Aviv
all'Unione Europea.
Una mobilitazione, il più vasta possibile, punto di arrivo ma anche
punto di partenza perché l'Italia dica No al muro della vergogna, No
all'occupazione, No alla prigionia del legittimo presidente palestinese
Yasser Arafat, di Marwan Barghouti e di tutti i prigionieri politici
palestinesi nelle carceri israeliane e in quella di Gerico.
Un No che, nel solco delle grandi mobilitazioni per la pace dello
scorso anno, rifiuti la teoria e la pratica della «guerra preventiva» e
la follia della «guerra permanente» di Bush e Sharon contro gli stati e
i popoli del Medioriente - dall'Iraq, alla Siria, al Libano, all'Iran -
e la partecipazione italiana a tali avventure coloniali tese a
disgregare, «balcanizzare» e dominare la regione mediorientale.
Una manifestazione che invece chieda una soluzione negoziata del
conflitto israelo-palestinese, che riaffermi la necessità del rispetto
della Convenzione di Ginevra sulla protezione delle popolazioni dei
territori occupati (in Palestina come in Iraq), del rispetto e
dell?attuazione delle risoluzioni dell'Onu sulla questione palestinese
-181 (divisione della Palestina in due stati), 242 (ritiro da tutti i
territori occupati), 194 (diritto al ritorno dei profughi palestinesi)
- e dei diritti umani e nazionali del popolo palestinese e di tutti i
popoli del Medioriente.
No al muro dell'apartheid in Palestina
No all'occupazione israeliana della West Bank, di Gaza e delle alture
del Golan
No alla guerra permanente di Bush e Sharon contro gli stati e i popoli
del Medioriente
No alla partecipazione italiana all'occupazione Usa dell'Iraq
Si al ritiro israeliano alle frontiere del 1967 e alla nascita dello
stato palestinese
Si al rispetto delle risoluzioni dell'Onu e della Convenzione di Ginevra
Si alla liberazione di Yasser Arafat, Marwan Barghouti e di tutti i
prigionieri politici palestinesi
Si ad un Medioriente di pace senza armi di distruzione di massa
Si al ritiro del contingente italiano dall'Iraq
Il Comitato promotore della manifestazione dell’otto novembre a Roma
PER ADERIRE ALLA MANIFESTAZIONE: stopthewall@...
2) Le adesioni:
FORUM PALESTINA; Comitato per non dimenticare Sabra e Chatila; Comitato
di Solidarietà con l'Intifada; Comunità Palestinese di Roma e del
Lazio; Associazione Amici della Mezzaluna Rossa Palestinese in Italia;
Mauro BULGARELLI (Deputato dei Verdi); Maurizio MUSOLINO (giornalista
de La Rinascita - PdCI); Letizia MANCUSI (CPN del PRC); Bruno STERI
(Dip. Esteri del PRC); Partito dei Comunisti Italiani; Confederazione
COBAS; Associazione SOCIALISMO 2000; Alberto BURGIO (Dip.to Giustizia
PRC); Vauro SENESI (giornalista del Manifesto); Luciano PETTINARI
(Deputato DS); Joseph HALEVI (Docente Università di Sidney);
Associazione Al Awda - Emergenza Palestina; Comitato contro la guerra
Roma sud; CUB Scuola - Federazione romana; Associazione JENIN (Roma);
Adriana SPERA (Consigliera comunale PRC - Roma); Federazione delle
RAPPRESENTANZE DI BASE; i VERDI; ASSOCIAZIONE PROGETTO COMUNISTA
(Sinistra del PRC); Giovanni BARBAGLI, Capogruppo PRC in Cons° Region.
Toscano; Claudio BICCHIELLI, Segreteria region. toscana PRC, Capogruppo
PRC in Comune di Empoli; Alessandro LEONI, CPN del PRC, Segreteria
federale fiorentina PRC; Tiberio TANZINI, Presidente Consiglio Comunale
di Empoli; Mauro LENZI, consigliere provinciale PRC Siena; Stefano
CRISTIANO, Assessore comunale a Pistoia, CPN del PRC; Roberto
CAPPELLINI, Segretario federazione PRC di Pistoia; Marta BILLO,
capogruppo PRC in Consiglio comunale Sesto Fiorentino ( Fi. ); Sergio
BOVICELLI, assessore PRC in Provincia di Grosseto; Luciano GIANNONI,
capogruppo PRC in Consiglio provinciale di Livorno; Letizia LINDI,
Coordinamento nazionale Giovani Comunisti; Rosalia BILLERO, capogruppo
PRC in Consiglio comunale di Pistoia; Ugo BAZZANI, Collegio di Garanzia
federaz. PRC di Pistoia; Maurizio BROTINI, Direttivo CGIL di Empoli;
Adriana MINIATI, Direttivo CdL°m di Firenze CGIL; Luca ROVAI, assessore
PRC al comune di Montelupo Fiorentino; Antonino MOSCATO Comitato
Antimperialista Antifascista fiorentino "Spartaco Lavagnini"; Gualtiero
ALUNNI (Assessore PRC Municipio 8 - Roma); Associazione Sardegna -
Palestina; Gruppo Palestina del Forum Sociale di Modena; Comunità
Palestinese Toscana; Circolo ARCI Agorà (Pisa); Fulvio GRIMALDI
(giornalista); I Verdi di Ravenna; Associazione I Fenicotteri
(Viareggio); la redazione di Tombo (Viareggio); Veneto controguerra
(ANSWER Italia); Associazione BKP (Roma); Circolo Italia - Cuba Valle
del Tevere; Associazione "La goccia e la pietra" di Fara Sabina
(Rieti); Associazione Italia - Nicaragua; 100 idee per la pace (Siena);
Democrazia Popolare; Sandro CANGEMI (giornalista - Torino); Nora
GUERALLA (poetessa - Villafranca, TO); la redazione di Nuova Unità;
Angelo MARZOLLO (docente Università di Udine e consulente UNESCO); CSA
Asilo Politico (Salerno); Unione Generale Ingegneri e Architetti
Palestinesi - sezione Italia; Collettivo Aula C Scienze Politiche
(Bologna); Michela CHIMETTO (Segreteria DS di Vicenza); Collettivo di
Lingue e Filosofia della Sapienza (Roma); Network per i Diritti Globali
(Barletta); Coordinamento di lotta per la Palestina (Milano); Franco
FUSELLI (PRC Genova); Marina CRISCUOLI - Comunità di S. Benedetto al
Porto (Genova); Assemblea Nazionale Anticapitalista; Collettivo di
Scienze Università La Sapienza (Roma); Ramon PARRAL (poeta); Servizio
Civile Internazionale; Centro di Solidarietà Internazionalista Alta
Maremma; Circolo Pink (Verona); Mirella CANINI VENTURINI (Cons. Com.
Verdi Alternativi S. Arcangelo di Romagna - RN); Serena ANTONELLI
(Roma); Comitato Antimperialista Antifascista (Prato); Comitato
"Spartaco Lavagnini" (Firenze); Ass. Progetto Comunista - Collettivo di
Rieti; Filippo BIANCHETTI (Varese); Andrea GENOVALI - associazione
PUNTO CRITICO; Giorgio STERN - Salaam Ragazzi dell'Ulivo (Trieste) -
Unione Comunale dei DS (Vicenza); Associazione Benefica di Solidarietà
con il Popolo Palestinese (ABSPP); CSA Vittoria (Milano); CSOA Ex
carcere (Palermo); Coordinamento Palestina (Palermo); Mario GALASSO
(Progetto Città - Cantiere sociale); Franco FERIOLI - Chango ONLUS
(Ferrara); Circolo PRC "A. Tognetti" (Pisa); Osservatorio Permanente
sulle Carceri; Paola FERRONI - Aiutiamo la Jugoslavia; Gianluca CERRINA
FERONI (portavoce "Insieme a Sinistra"); Angelo GRACCI (medaglia
d'argento della "Resistenza", ANPI Fi.); Nino FROSINI (consigliere
regionale PdCI); Vanna GIAMMARTINI (Direttivo CdL°m CGIL Fi); Claudia
ROSATI, Segretaria Circolo PRC "Lenin" di Fi.; Alessandro PALLASSINI
(Comit° Diret° Region. PRC Toscana); Gino BENVENUTI (Capogruppo PRC
Provincia Prato); Bernardo FALLANI (Direttivo CdL°m CGIL Fi.);
Quintilio CHERUBINI (Vicepresid. Cons° comunale Campi B°, DS ); Maria
L. MANCINI (delegata sindacale S.In.Cobas comune Campi B°); Andrea
MONTAGNI (Segreteria CdL°m CGIL Fi.); Avv. Desi Bruno - Associazione
Giuristi Democratici; Fabio MARCELLI - Coord. Naz. Giuristi
Democratici; Comitato Palestina (Firenze); Fausto SORINI (Dir. Naz.
PRC); Fabio ALBERTI - Un ponte per...; Centro Popolare Autogestito
(Firenze) - Luca FONTANA (Segretario Circolo PRC "Che Guevara" - Roma);
Mauro GEMMA (Direttivo Camera del Lavoro di Torino); Circolo
Bolivariano (Roma); Vito BISCEGLIE (Resp.le Comm.ne Internazionale PRC
di Torino); SALAAM - Ragazzi dell'Ulivo (Vicenza); Associazione
Cagliari mon amour; Antonio DELLA CORTE - Circolo di Velletri Ass.ne
Italia - Cuba; Cesare MANGIANTI (Presidente Consiglio Comunale di
Rimini); Network Antagonista Piemontese; Centro Sociale Askatasuna
(Torino); Centro Sociale Murazzi (Torino); Massimo MARCORI - Segretario
Circolo PRC Bassa Valle Susa Avigliana; Campo Antimperialista; Adriana
BERNARDESCHI (Milano); Giorgio RIBOLDI - SLAI Cobas RSU Regione
Lombardia; Ascanio BERNARDESCHI - Consigliere Provinciale PRC (Pisa);
Mariella MEGNA - Cobas Regione Lombardia; SLAI Cobas (Cremona);
Corrispondenze Metropolitane (Roma); Associazione Giusti Consumi
(Volterra); Laboratorio Sociale Autogestito 100celle - Roma; Enzo
CERRETINI - Presidente Comitato ARCI di Pisa; Redazione de Il
Grandevetro (Pisa) - L.U.P.O. di Osimo; Network Antagonista
Palermitano; Centro Sociale Coska (Palermo); Imola Social Forum;
Associazione interculturale di donne "Trama di terre" (Imola); Antonio
MAZZEO - redazione di Terrelibere.it; Dario GIULIANI - CGIL (Milano);
Gruppo Consiliare Alternativa per Volterra - Ugo RICOTTI, Alessandro
TOGOLI, Massimiliano CASALINI; Manola GUAZZINI - Assessore Politiche
Sociali Provincia di Pisa; Circolo PRC "Guido Puletti" (Roma);
Valentina STERI - Assessore PRC Municipio XVI (Roma) - Massimiliano
ORTU - Capogruppo PRC Municipio XVI (Roma) - Antonio MAIELLI e Serena
BACCI (Volterra) - Circolo PRC "Guido D'Angelo" (Roma); Circolo PRC
Fonte Ostiense (Roma); Tina COSTA - Direzione PRC di Roma; Franco
PALLONE - Consigliere PRC Municipio VIII (Roma); Unione delle Comunità
Islamiche in Italia (UCOII); Mauro TESAURO - Assessore Politiche
Ambientali Comune di Modena; Tavolo Paese Palestina di Modena;
Giampaolo SILVESTRI - Responsabile nazionale Diritti Civili dei Verdi;
Agostino GIANELLI - Consigliere Provinciale PRC di Genova; Corrado
PERNA - Datanews (Roma); Associazione Walter Rossi (Roma); Società
archeologica ARCHEODOMANI; Gianni LUCINI - giornalista di Liberazione;
Casa per la Pace (Trento); Franco ZAVATTI - Segretario SPI CGIL di
Modena; Associazione Il Filo Rosso (Firenze); Nicoletta DOSIO (Torino);
Circolo PRC di Bussoleno (Torino); Massimo CAPORUSSO - Capogruppo PRC
Consiglio Comunale di Barletta (Bari); Pasquale Ranghelli ed il circolo
«Il Pane e le Rose» - Casalpalocco (Roma); Maurizio PROIETTO -
Direttivo Regionale CGIL Piemonte; Beatrice GIAVAZZI - Collegio
Nazionale di Garanzia del PRC; Aldo BERNARDINI - Docente di Diritto
Internazionale Università di Teramo; Avv. Antonio FABI - Urbino;
Legambiente di Pisa; Unione Inquilini (Pisa); Virgilio BARACHINI -
Direzione Provinciale PRC di Pisa; Associazione "Chicco di senape"
(Pisa); Legambiente di Chianciano; Forum Sociale della Valdichiana
Senese; Comprendre et Agir Contre la Guerre (Marsiglia); Irene NESI e
Fabio BERNARDINI (Volterra); Umbria contro la guerra; Marco SCHETTINI -
Delegato CGIL FP Roma est; Nuclei Anarchici Pacifisti; Giovani Verdi
(Roma); Associazione AMAL Bambini per la Pace (Milano).
3) Alcune iniziative a Roma:
ROMPIAMO IL MURO DEL SILENZIO!
MERCOLEDI' 29 OTTOBRE - ORE 16.00
ASSEMBLEA ALL'UNIVERSITA' "LA SAPIENZA"
AULA II FACOLTA' DI LETTERE
Intervengono:
Maren - Campagna Internazionale Stopthewall
Stefano Chiarini - il manifesto
Mauro Bulgarelli - deputato dei Verdi
Bassam Saleh - Presidente della Comunità Palestinese di Roma
Germano Monti - Forum Palestina
IL MURO CI STA SULLO STOMACO...
ROMA - VENERDI' 31 OTTOBRE - ore 20.30
c/o il Circolo PRC "Guido D'Angelo"
Via Baldassarre Orero, 59 (Casal Bertone)
IN SOTTOSCRIZIONE PER LA MANIFESTAZIONE NAZIONALE DELL'8 NOVEMBRE
MERCOLEDI' 5 NOVEMBRE alle ore 19
ASSEMBLEA A CENTOCELLE:
Organizza: il Comitato contro la Guerra - Roma Sud*
1) Appello per la manifestazione nazionale dell'8 novembre
2) Aggiornamento adesioni
3) Alcune iniziative di preparazione
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
0)
Ai promotori della manifestazione dell'8 Novembre 2003:
VITA, TERRA, LIBERTA' PER IL POPOLO PALESTINESE
E TUTTI I POPOLI DEL MEDIORIENTE
Cari amici, cari compagni,
Il Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia aderisce
alla manifestazione da voi indetta ed invita tutti gli
internazionalisti, gli antimperialisti e gli amici sinceri della pace e
della vera autodeterminazione dei popoli ad unirsi a noi in questa
occasione.
Le ragioni della nostra adesione
In Palestina, la costruzione di un enorme muro divisorio a spaccare in
due la terra dei palestinesi rappresenta un ennesimo colpo contro quel
popolo gia' vittima di decenni di violenza e di ingiustizie.
La costruzione di un muro cosi' imponente simboleggia pero' anche la
perfetta ipocrisia delle potenze occidentali e di tutti i loro
"suonatori di piffero". E' oramai evidente agli occhi di chiunque che
in occasione dell'abbattimento del Muro di Berlino ci avevano
raccontato solo favole sull'"era di pace" che si sarebbe dovuta aprire.
E' proprio da allora, infatti, che i muri si sono moltiplicati, insieme
agli scenari internazionali di crisi, e questi ultimi si sono
trasformati rapidamente in guerre di aggressione da parte occidentale.
Dal Medioriente la destabilizzazione si allarga oggi in Asia, mirando
verso la Cina. Ma la violenza imperialista non ha risparmiato nemmeno
il cuore dell'Europa. In Europa, per adesso, sono gli jugoslavi a dover
pagare il prezzo piu' caro di una ristrutturazione geopolitica decisa
contro di loro ed a loro insaputa. A partire dal riconoscimento
diplomatico delle Repubbliche secessioniste (1991) l'Occidente ha fatto
il "doppio gioco" con la Jugoslavia, proclamandosi pompiere mentre
gettava benzina. Un "doppio gioco" che ha causato indicibili tragedie
umane, ridisegnando i Balcani secondo protettorati coloniali come ai
tempi dell'occupazione nazifascista, trasformandone i territori in
servitu' militari occidentali e bacini di sfruttamento delle risorse e
della forza-lavoro, devastando le basi della convivenza civile e della
cultura comune di quelle genti.
Nel 1999 si raggiunse l'apice dell'accanimento occidentale con una
aggressione cui l'Italia prese parte direttamente, e che fu condotta
con mezzi impari e con modalita' da vigliacchi: proprio come le
aggressioni contro l'Afghanistan e contro l'Iraq. Hanno bombardato
infrastrutture ed obiettivi civili, con armi illegali, allo scopo
preciso di causare conseguenze ecologiche e sanitarie irreparabili.
Hanno bombardato le fabbriche, incuranti degli operai che le
presidiavano. Hanno ridotto la popolazione in condizioni misere.
Oggi i cittadini della Serbia non hanno piu' uno Stato (la Repubblica
Federale di Jugoslavia e' stata sciolta per decreto), ne' un
presidente, ne' un governo: l'ultimo governo-fantoccio e' entrato in
crisi, dopo avere interrotto ogni sforzo di ricostruzione e avere messo
in svendita tutte le ricchezze del paese, preso tra mille scandali ed
episodi di corruzione e violenza. Nel Kosovo-Metohija occupato dalle
"nostre" truppe regna da quattro anni un regime del terrore: i
"desaparecidos" sono migliaia, gli attentati a sfondo razzista
continuano, fioriscono solo i traffici di droga, armi e prostituzione.
Le grandissime risorse della provincia, specialmente minerarie, sono
state subito espropriate allo Stato jugoslavo, e la produzione di ogni
tipo e' stata bloccata. Le poche possibilita' di lavoro "onesto" per i
giovani kosovaro-albanesi vengono dalle truppe straniere di
occupazione: ad esempio nell'immensa base militare USA di Camp
Bondsteel, presso Urosevac, il piu' grande insediamento militare USA
all'estero dai tempi del Vietnam.
Come in Jugoslavia, anche in Iraq la promessa di "dare alla
popolazione locale un governo democratico" si e' subito rivelata come
una ignobile truffa: l'Occidente ha portato distruzione, truppe ed
insediamenti militari, disoccupazione e miseria. L'occupazione militare
portera' solo nuovi confini a dividere le genti, portera' divisione ed
odio "etnico", e regimi coloniali repressivi. Come in Jugoslavia, anche
in Iraq l'Occidente sottrae le risorse, ruba le materie prime ai loro
legittimi detentori, si accanisce per gestire il petrolio ed il gas
naturale e per controllare tutte le rotte per il loro transito.
E' importante ricordare la sequenza logica e cronologica con cui queste
"crisi" internazionali si succedono, perche' tutte sono collegate fra
loro e tutte derivano dalla stessa fonte: cioe' la prepotenza cieca
dell'imperialismo occidentale nella fase della espansione del capitale
monopolistico - anche detta "globalizzazione".
E' importante ricordare che, di queste crisi, quella jugoslava e' a noi
la piu' vicina. Essa non e' finita: viceversa va riacutizzandosi,
proprio mentre a migliaia sono i soldati italiani su quei territori.
E' dunque importante legare insieme le campagne di solidarieta'
internazionalista, perche' l'imperialismo strappa a tutti i popoli le
prerogative di indipendenza e di autonomia in nome di
"autodeterminazioni" false e bugiarde; distrugge Stati e sottomette
governi legittimi in nome di una "democrazia" che si misura in
petrodollari; costruisce nuove barriere sociali, inediti confini
"etnici", e ciclopiche mura di cemento armato, sempre e solamente in
nome della "Pace".
CONTRO I MURI ED I CONFINI COSTRUITI DALL'IMPERIALISMO
CONTRO IL NEOCOLONIALISMO DI USA ED UE
PER IL RITIRO IMMEDIATO DEI SOLDATI ITALIANI
DA TUTTE LE MISSIONI ALL'ESTERO
PER LA PACE E LA SOLIDARIETA' FRA TUTTI I POPOLI
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia
Ottobre 2003
Per contatti con il CNJ:
jugocoord@...
Comitato promotore della manifestazione:
stopthewall@...
---
Data: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:21:48 +0200
Da: "Assemblea Nazionale Anticapitalista"
Oggetto: 8 novembre: per la Palestina e per l'Iraq
1) Appello per la manifestazione nazonale dell'8 novembre
2) Aggiornamento adesioni
3) Alcune iniziative di preparazione
Aggiornamenti sui siti: www.forumpalestina.org e www.arcipelago.org
1) L'appello:
STOP THE WALL, STOP THE WAR
VITA, TERRA, LIBERTA' PER IL POPOLO PALESTINESE E TUTTI I POPOLI DEL
MEDIORIENTE
Il 9 novembre del 1989 cadeva il muro di Berlino. Nel novembre del
2003 un altro muro sta sorgendo in Palestina, nei territori occupati
nel 1967, ad opera del governo israeliano di Ariel Sharon. Il muro
dell'apartheid si prospetta come il più grande furto di terre dal 1967
in poi tanto che, una volta completato, avrà una lunghezza di 650
chilometri e permetterà ad Israele di controllare definitivamente più
della metà della Cisgiordania rendendo così impossibile qualsiasi
soluzione negoziata del conflitto israelo-palestinese.
Questa costruzione - chiamata con eufemismo «barriera di sicurezza»-
non segue infatti il confine tra Israele e la Cisgiordania occupata ma
penetra all'interno della West Bank per oltre 20 chilometri connettendo
tra di loro e con Israele la stragrande maggioranza delle colonie
ebraiche (illegali per la Convenzione di Ginevra e la comunità
internazionale) che sarebbero così annesse definitivamente allo stato
ebraico con una buona metà delle terre palestinesi della Cisgiordania,
e con la gran parte delle fonti idriche della regione. Un altro muro è
previsto nella valle del Giordano, scorrendo a 20-30 chilometri
all'interno della Cisgiordania occupata, con l'obiettivo di tagliare
fuori i palestinesi da terre fertili, risorse idriche e da ogni sbocco
verso la Giordania. In tal modo, con questo secondo muro, verranno
definitivamente annesse ad Israele sia la valle del Giordano che il
«deserto della Giudea».
La vita dentro il muro, in particolare nel nord-ovest della
Cisgiordania sarà impossibile: il popolo palestinese, imprigionato
dentro vere e proprie "riserve" circondati da muri e con una sola porta
di entrata e di uscita per ogni città e villaggio perderà la
possibilità di coltivare le sue terre rimaste al di fuori del muro, le
risorse d'acqua e quindi i suoi mezzi di sostentamento oltre alla
possibilità di recarsi a scuola o negli ospedali del centri maggiori. I
primi 150 chilometri del muro sono già completi oltre il 10% dei
palestinesi della Cisgiordania, in particolare quelli delle comunità
più vicine al confine con Israele, Qalqiliya, Tulkarem etc, sono già
imprigionati dentro il muro come avveniva nei ghetti ebraici delle
nostre città nei tempi più bui della storia europea.
Secondo l'organismo israeliano per i diritti umani Betzelem circa
80.000 palestinesi perderanno ogni forma di sostentamento dal momento
che le loro terre sono rimaste al di là del muro. Questi terreni nella
parte nord-occidentale della West Bank (Jenin, Tulkarem, Khaliliya)
costituiscono il 40% delle terre coltivabili della Cisgiordania e sono
tra le più produttive con una resa doppia rispetto a quelle delle altre
regioni.
In questa zona, già investita dal muro, ci sono inoltre i 2/3 delle
sorgenti della West Bank e ben 28 pozzi si trovano ormai al di là della
muraglia, verso Israele.
Ancora più tragica la sorte di quei palestinesi, circa 30.000, che
abitano 13 villaggi che si sono trovati ad ovest del muro tra il
confine con Israele e la grande muraglia, impossibilitati ad andare
nello stato ebraico, impossibilitati a recarsi nel resto della
Cisgiordania e persino nelle città più vicine alle quali facevano
riferimento per gran parte delle loro esigenze lavorative, di studio,
familiari e per accedere ad ogni servizio di base. Impossibilitati a
raggiungere i campi da cui traggono il loro sostentamento.
La costruzione di alcune «porte» di passaggio, dal momento che la loro
apertura è decisa dall'umore dei soldati israeliani, si è rivelata una
tragica beffa. In tal modo non solo verrà annesso ad Israele circa il
60% della Cisgiordania ma, rendendo loro la vita impossibile,
privandoli dei loro mezzi di sussistenza e di ogni prospettiva di
studio, di lavoro e di movimento verrà realizzata una vera e propria
pulizia etnica ai danni di un numero di palestinesi compreso tra i
90.000 e i 200.000.
Una volta che il muro sarà stato costruito i palestinesi saranno
rinchiusi in tre grandi «riserve» (una sorta di salsiccia da Jenin a
Ramallah, un'altra da Betlemme a Hebron e una terza attorno a Gerico)
separate le une dalle altre, e da ogni sbocco esterno, su una
superficie pari all'incirca al 40% della Cisgiordania (il 9% della
Palestina mandataria).
In tal modo emerge chiaramente come l?obiettivo del muro sia non certo
la «sicurezza» di Israele, raggiungibile solamente con una giusta pace
tra i due popoli, ma l'annessione allo stato ebraico della "maggior
parte delle terre con il minimo di arabi" che invece verranno
concentrati all'interno delle città e dei villaggi privi ormai di ogni
retroterra.
Uno stato palestinese libero e indipendente diventerà quindi
impossibile dal momento che le condizioni minime perché possa
costituirsi sono: il ritiro di Israele, colonie, coloni e soldati, alle
frontiere del 1967, una continuità territoriale all'interno
dell'entità palestinese e un suo sbocco verso l'esterno, la Giordania e
l'Egitto, oltre naturalmente al riconoscimento del diritto al ritorno
dei profughi - la cui attuazione andrà poi negoziata. Eppure di fronte
a questo vero e proprio tentativo di distruzione dell'esistenza del
popolo palestinese come una legittima entità sociale, politica ed
economica attraverso la distruzione della sfera pubblica e privata
degli abitanti della West Bank e di Gaza, le reazioni internazionali e
nazionali sono praticamente inesistenti.
Per questa ragione un vasto arco di forze politiche e sociali del
nostro paese, raccogliendo l'invito proveniente dalla Palestina per una
mobilitazione internazionale, ha proposto una manifestazione nazionale
a Roma il prossimo otto novembre contro il muro dell'apartheid, contro
l'occupazione israeliana della West Bank e di Gaza e a sostegno del
diritto inalienabile del popolo palestinese alla vita, alla terra, alla
libertà.
Una manifestazione dall'alto profilo che chieda al governo,
all'opposizione, all'opinione pubblica, alle forze politiche e
sindacali, alle singole persone impegnate per il raggiungimento di una
pace giusta in Medioriente di pronunciarsi chiaramente contro il muro
della vergogna e l'occupazione israeliana e di adottare concrete misure
di pressione su Israele - come il congelamento, sulla base della
clausola sui diritti umani, del trattato di associazione di Tel Aviv
all'Unione Europea.
Una mobilitazione, il più vasta possibile, punto di arrivo ma anche
punto di partenza perché l'Italia dica No al muro della vergogna, No
all'occupazione, No alla prigionia del legittimo presidente palestinese
Yasser Arafat, di Marwan Barghouti e di tutti i prigionieri politici
palestinesi nelle carceri israeliane e in quella di Gerico.
Un No che, nel solco delle grandi mobilitazioni per la pace dello
scorso anno, rifiuti la teoria e la pratica della «guerra preventiva» e
la follia della «guerra permanente» di Bush e Sharon contro gli stati e
i popoli del Medioriente - dall'Iraq, alla Siria, al Libano, all'Iran -
e la partecipazione italiana a tali avventure coloniali tese a
disgregare, «balcanizzare» e dominare la regione mediorientale.
Una manifestazione che invece chieda una soluzione negoziata del
conflitto israelo-palestinese, che riaffermi la necessità del rispetto
della Convenzione di Ginevra sulla protezione delle popolazioni dei
territori occupati (in Palestina come in Iraq), del rispetto e
dell?attuazione delle risoluzioni dell'Onu sulla questione palestinese
-181 (divisione della Palestina in due stati), 242 (ritiro da tutti i
territori occupati), 194 (diritto al ritorno dei profughi palestinesi)
- e dei diritti umani e nazionali del popolo palestinese e di tutti i
popoli del Medioriente.
No al muro dell'apartheid in Palestina
No all'occupazione israeliana della West Bank, di Gaza e delle alture
del Golan
No alla guerra permanente di Bush e Sharon contro gli stati e i popoli
del Medioriente
No alla partecipazione italiana all'occupazione Usa dell'Iraq
Si al ritiro israeliano alle frontiere del 1967 e alla nascita dello
stato palestinese
Si al rispetto delle risoluzioni dell'Onu e della Convenzione di Ginevra
Si alla liberazione di Yasser Arafat, Marwan Barghouti e di tutti i
prigionieri politici palestinesi
Si ad un Medioriente di pace senza armi di distruzione di massa
Si al ritiro del contingente italiano dall'Iraq
Il Comitato promotore della manifestazione dell’otto novembre a Roma
PER ADERIRE ALLA MANIFESTAZIONE: stopthewall@...
2) Le adesioni:
FORUM PALESTINA; Comitato per non dimenticare Sabra e Chatila; Comitato
di Solidarietà con l'Intifada; Comunità Palestinese di Roma e del
Lazio; Associazione Amici della Mezzaluna Rossa Palestinese in Italia;
Mauro BULGARELLI (Deputato dei Verdi); Maurizio MUSOLINO (giornalista
de La Rinascita - PdCI); Letizia MANCUSI (CPN del PRC); Bruno STERI
(Dip. Esteri del PRC); Partito dei Comunisti Italiani; Confederazione
COBAS; Associazione SOCIALISMO 2000; Alberto BURGIO (Dip.to Giustizia
PRC); Vauro SENESI (giornalista del Manifesto); Luciano PETTINARI
(Deputato DS); Joseph HALEVI (Docente Università di Sidney);
Associazione Al Awda - Emergenza Palestina; Comitato contro la guerra
Roma sud; CUB Scuola - Federazione romana; Associazione JENIN (Roma);
Adriana SPERA (Consigliera comunale PRC - Roma); Federazione delle
RAPPRESENTANZE DI BASE; i VERDI; ASSOCIAZIONE PROGETTO COMUNISTA
(Sinistra del PRC); Giovanni BARBAGLI, Capogruppo PRC in Cons° Region.
Toscano; Claudio BICCHIELLI, Segreteria region. toscana PRC, Capogruppo
PRC in Comune di Empoli; Alessandro LEONI, CPN del PRC, Segreteria
federale fiorentina PRC; Tiberio TANZINI, Presidente Consiglio Comunale
di Empoli; Mauro LENZI, consigliere provinciale PRC Siena; Stefano
CRISTIANO, Assessore comunale a Pistoia, CPN del PRC; Roberto
CAPPELLINI, Segretario federazione PRC di Pistoia; Marta BILLO,
capogruppo PRC in Consiglio comunale Sesto Fiorentino ( Fi. ); Sergio
BOVICELLI, assessore PRC in Provincia di Grosseto; Luciano GIANNONI,
capogruppo PRC in Consiglio provinciale di Livorno; Letizia LINDI,
Coordinamento nazionale Giovani Comunisti; Rosalia BILLERO, capogruppo
PRC in Consiglio comunale di Pistoia; Ugo BAZZANI, Collegio di Garanzia
federaz. PRC di Pistoia; Maurizio BROTINI, Direttivo CGIL di Empoli;
Adriana MINIATI, Direttivo CdL°m di Firenze CGIL; Luca ROVAI, assessore
PRC al comune di Montelupo Fiorentino; Antonino MOSCATO Comitato
Antimperialista Antifascista fiorentino "Spartaco Lavagnini"; Gualtiero
ALUNNI (Assessore PRC Municipio 8 - Roma); Associazione Sardegna -
Palestina; Gruppo Palestina del Forum Sociale di Modena; Comunità
Palestinese Toscana; Circolo ARCI Agorà (Pisa); Fulvio GRIMALDI
(giornalista); I Verdi di Ravenna; Associazione I Fenicotteri
(Viareggio); la redazione di Tombo (Viareggio); Veneto controguerra
(ANSWER Italia); Associazione BKP (Roma); Circolo Italia - Cuba Valle
del Tevere; Associazione "La goccia e la pietra" di Fara Sabina
(Rieti); Associazione Italia - Nicaragua; 100 idee per la pace (Siena);
Democrazia Popolare; Sandro CANGEMI (giornalista - Torino); Nora
GUERALLA (poetessa - Villafranca, TO); la redazione di Nuova Unità;
Angelo MARZOLLO (docente Università di Udine e consulente UNESCO); CSA
Asilo Politico (Salerno); Unione Generale Ingegneri e Architetti
Palestinesi - sezione Italia; Collettivo Aula C Scienze Politiche
(Bologna); Michela CHIMETTO (Segreteria DS di Vicenza); Collettivo di
Lingue e Filosofia della Sapienza (Roma); Network per i Diritti Globali
(Barletta); Coordinamento di lotta per la Palestina (Milano); Franco
FUSELLI (PRC Genova); Marina CRISCUOLI - Comunità di S. Benedetto al
Porto (Genova); Assemblea Nazionale Anticapitalista; Collettivo di
Scienze Università La Sapienza (Roma); Ramon PARRAL (poeta); Servizio
Civile Internazionale; Centro di Solidarietà Internazionalista Alta
Maremma; Circolo Pink (Verona); Mirella CANINI VENTURINI (Cons. Com.
Verdi Alternativi S. Arcangelo di Romagna - RN); Serena ANTONELLI
(Roma); Comitato Antimperialista Antifascista (Prato); Comitato
"Spartaco Lavagnini" (Firenze); Ass. Progetto Comunista - Collettivo di
Rieti; Filippo BIANCHETTI (Varese); Andrea GENOVALI - associazione
PUNTO CRITICO; Giorgio STERN - Salaam Ragazzi dell'Ulivo (Trieste) -
Unione Comunale dei DS (Vicenza); Associazione Benefica di Solidarietà
con il Popolo Palestinese (ABSPP); CSA Vittoria (Milano); CSOA Ex
carcere (Palermo); Coordinamento Palestina (Palermo); Mario GALASSO
(Progetto Città - Cantiere sociale); Franco FERIOLI - Chango ONLUS
(Ferrara); Circolo PRC "A. Tognetti" (Pisa); Osservatorio Permanente
sulle Carceri; Paola FERRONI - Aiutiamo la Jugoslavia; Gianluca CERRINA
FERONI (portavoce "Insieme a Sinistra"); Angelo GRACCI (medaglia
d'argento della "Resistenza", ANPI Fi.); Nino FROSINI (consigliere
regionale PdCI); Vanna GIAMMARTINI (Direttivo CdL°m CGIL Fi); Claudia
ROSATI, Segretaria Circolo PRC "Lenin" di Fi.; Alessandro PALLASSINI
(Comit° Diret° Region. PRC Toscana); Gino BENVENUTI (Capogruppo PRC
Provincia Prato); Bernardo FALLANI (Direttivo CdL°m CGIL Fi.);
Quintilio CHERUBINI (Vicepresid. Cons° comunale Campi B°, DS ); Maria
L. MANCINI (delegata sindacale S.In.Cobas comune Campi B°); Andrea
MONTAGNI (Segreteria CdL°m CGIL Fi.); Avv. Desi Bruno - Associazione
Giuristi Democratici; Fabio MARCELLI - Coord. Naz. Giuristi
Democratici; Comitato Palestina (Firenze); Fausto SORINI (Dir. Naz.
PRC); Fabio ALBERTI - Un ponte per...; Centro Popolare Autogestito
(Firenze) - Luca FONTANA (Segretario Circolo PRC "Che Guevara" - Roma);
Mauro GEMMA (Direttivo Camera del Lavoro di Torino); Circolo
Bolivariano (Roma); Vito BISCEGLIE (Resp.le Comm.ne Internazionale PRC
di Torino); SALAAM - Ragazzi dell'Ulivo (Vicenza); Associazione
Cagliari mon amour; Antonio DELLA CORTE - Circolo di Velletri Ass.ne
Italia - Cuba; Cesare MANGIANTI (Presidente Consiglio Comunale di
Rimini); Network Antagonista Piemontese; Centro Sociale Askatasuna
(Torino); Centro Sociale Murazzi (Torino); Massimo MARCORI - Segretario
Circolo PRC Bassa Valle Susa Avigliana; Campo Antimperialista; Adriana
BERNARDESCHI (Milano); Giorgio RIBOLDI - SLAI Cobas RSU Regione
Lombardia; Ascanio BERNARDESCHI - Consigliere Provinciale PRC (Pisa);
Mariella MEGNA - Cobas Regione Lombardia; SLAI Cobas (Cremona);
Corrispondenze Metropolitane (Roma); Associazione Giusti Consumi
(Volterra); Laboratorio Sociale Autogestito 100celle - Roma; Enzo
CERRETINI - Presidente Comitato ARCI di Pisa; Redazione de Il
Grandevetro (Pisa) - L.U.P.O. di Osimo; Network Antagonista
Palermitano; Centro Sociale Coska (Palermo); Imola Social Forum;
Associazione interculturale di donne "Trama di terre" (Imola); Antonio
MAZZEO - redazione di Terrelibere.it; Dario GIULIANI - CGIL (Milano);
Gruppo Consiliare Alternativa per Volterra - Ugo RICOTTI, Alessandro
TOGOLI, Massimiliano CASALINI; Manola GUAZZINI - Assessore Politiche
Sociali Provincia di Pisa; Circolo PRC "Guido Puletti" (Roma);
Valentina STERI - Assessore PRC Municipio XVI (Roma) - Massimiliano
ORTU - Capogruppo PRC Municipio XVI (Roma) - Antonio MAIELLI e Serena
BACCI (Volterra) - Circolo PRC "Guido D'Angelo" (Roma); Circolo PRC
Fonte Ostiense (Roma); Tina COSTA - Direzione PRC di Roma; Franco
PALLONE - Consigliere PRC Municipio VIII (Roma); Unione delle Comunità
Islamiche in Italia (UCOII); Mauro TESAURO - Assessore Politiche
Ambientali Comune di Modena; Tavolo Paese Palestina di Modena;
Giampaolo SILVESTRI - Responsabile nazionale Diritti Civili dei Verdi;
Agostino GIANELLI - Consigliere Provinciale PRC di Genova; Corrado
PERNA - Datanews (Roma); Associazione Walter Rossi (Roma); Società
archeologica ARCHEODOMANI; Gianni LUCINI - giornalista di Liberazione;
Casa per la Pace (Trento); Franco ZAVATTI - Segretario SPI CGIL di
Modena; Associazione Il Filo Rosso (Firenze); Nicoletta DOSIO (Torino);
Circolo PRC di Bussoleno (Torino); Massimo CAPORUSSO - Capogruppo PRC
Consiglio Comunale di Barletta (Bari); Pasquale Ranghelli ed il circolo
«Il Pane e le Rose» - Casalpalocco (Roma); Maurizio PROIETTO -
Direttivo Regionale CGIL Piemonte; Beatrice GIAVAZZI - Collegio
Nazionale di Garanzia del PRC; Aldo BERNARDINI - Docente di Diritto
Internazionale Università di Teramo; Avv. Antonio FABI - Urbino;
Legambiente di Pisa; Unione Inquilini (Pisa); Virgilio BARACHINI -
Direzione Provinciale PRC di Pisa; Associazione "Chicco di senape"
(Pisa); Legambiente di Chianciano; Forum Sociale della Valdichiana
Senese; Comprendre et Agir Contre la Guerre (Marsiglia); Irene NESI e
Fabio BERNARDINI (Volterra); Umbria contro la guerra; Marco SCHETTINI -
Delegato CGIL FP Roma est; Nuclei Anarchici Pacifisti; Giovani Verdi
(Roma); Associazione AMAL Bambini per la Pace (Milano).
3) Alcune iniziative a Roma:
ROMPIAMO IL MURO DEL SILENZIO!
MERCOLEDI' 29 OTTOBRE - ORE 16.00
ASSEMBLEA ALL'UNIVERSITA' "LA SAPIENZA"
AULA II FACOLTA' DI LETTERE
Intervengono:
Maren - Campagna Internazionale Stopthewall
Stefano Chiarini - il manifesto
Mauro Bulgarelli - deputato dei Verdi
Bassam Saleh - Presidente della Comunità Palestinese di Roma
Germano Monti - Forum Palestina
IL MURO CI STA SULLO STOMACO...
ROMA - VENERDI' 31 OTTOBRE - ore 20.30
c/o il Circolo PRC "Guido D'Angelo"
Via Baldassarre Orero, 59 (Casal Bertone)
IN SOTTOSCRIZIONE PER LA MANIFESTAZIONE NAZIONALE DELL'8 NOVEMBRE
MERCOLEDI' 5 NOVEMBRE alle ore 19
ASSEMBLEA A CENTOCELLE:
Organizza: il Comitato contro la Guerra - Roma Sud*
Milosevic "trial" synopses, October 1-15, 2003:
TRIBUNAL ATTEMPTS TO HIDE ITS SHAMEFUL FARCE FROM THE PUBLIC
---
An important LINK:
Dutch TV documentary on the Hague process, in two parts:
http://info.vpro.nl/info/tegenlicht/index.shtml?7738514+7738518+8048024
===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg100703.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 7, 2003
After nearly a 3 week break taken due to the continued illness of
President Milosevic the Hague Tribunal again resumed the so-called
"trial." President Milosevic is still ill, his blood pressure today
was measured to be 160 over 110 mm Hg.
The "trial" started off with Mr. Nice announcing that they would not
be hearing from Maj. Russo of the Canadian Armed Forces, because he
had decided not to come to the tribunal. According to Mr. Nice the
Office of the Prosecutor arranged his flight but when it came time to
leave, he simply decided not to get on the plane.
Then the so-called "presiding judge" Mr. May made a ruling regarding
the prosecution's September 23rd submission. The prosecution was
seeking to videotape examinations in chief on days when President
Milosevic is unable to attend due to illness. The so-called "trial
chamber" denied this request. The Prosecution had also sought to have
defense counsel imposed on President Milosevic, the "court" didn't
rule one way or the other on that. They simply said that they would
keep it under consideration.
The witness today was a Ms. Eva Tabo. Ms. Tabo is a demographer, and
an employee of the Office of the Prosecutor. She has worked for the
Prosecution since December of 2000.
Ms. Tabo wrote two reports. One report was on the displacement of
persons in the so-called "Milosevic case area." This report focused on
47 municipalities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and highlighted 7
municipalities as case-studies. The other report dealt with the
so-called "Siege of Sarajevo" and the war-related mortalities in the
Sarajevo area.
President Milosevic denounced Ms. Tabo's reports as "a malicious
manipulation of statistics," and when one looks at the methods and
sources that she employed in order to write her reports it is obvious
that she is in fact making malicious manipulations of fact. Her
objective is clearly to demonize the Serbs, and to paint them as
aggressors against their own country.
First of all, in her report on displacement, she arrives at her
conclusions by taking the 1991 census and comparing it with OSCE voter
registration lists from 1997 and 1998. She concludes that anybody who
was in a different location in 1997-98 than they were in 1991 is a
refugee or an IDP.
It is useful at this point to remind ourselves of what a refugee is.
According to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
(the Refugee Convention), Article 1A(2), the term refugee is applied
to a person who owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for
reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his(/her)
nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to
avail himself (/herself) of the protection of his(/her) country; or
who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of
his(/her) former habitual residence as a result of such events, is
unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
In her report, Ms. Tabo counted migrant migrant workers as "refugees."
She counted citizens who were working abroad before the war in 1991,
and who were still working abroad in 1997-98 as refugees.
Her objective here can only be to falsely inflate the number of
refugees emanating from the so-called "Milosevic case area."
Even Mr. Robinson had trouble accepting that persons such as migrant
workers who were working abroad before the war even started could be
considered to be refugees. Mr. Robinson asked her if she was even
aware of what constitutes a refugee.
Ms. Tabo sheepishly responded by saying that she wasn't using any
"legal definition" to define refugees, but that for the purposes of
her report she was using a statistical definition of her own making.
Ms. Tabo eventually admitted that her report did not take into account
any of the reasons why her so-called "refugees" had left the country,
which means that according to the definition of a refugee used by
everybody else she has no basis for calling these people refugees.
As President Milosevic observed, if one employed Ms. Tabo's
definition, a tourist could be called a refugee.
Another problem is the question of IDPs. Ms. Tabo defined an IDP as
anybody who was living in one place at the time of the 1991 census and
was living in another place when they registered to vote in 1997-98.
A problem arises here because the information she is using is not
limited to the period of the war. People who moved before the war in
1991-92 and after the war between 1995 and 1997-98 are counted as IDP's
(or as refugees if they moved out of the country).
President Milosevic pointed out that there were massive migrations of
persons that took place after Dayton. He pointed to the example of the
Sarajevo Serbs, where 150,000 Serbs left Sarajevo after the end of the
war.
Ms. Tabo's data is not limited to the period of the war, nor does it
take into account any of the reasons why her so-called "refugees" or
"IDPs" moved from one place to the other. Many people moved solely
because of economic reasons yet in her reports they are considered to
be some sort of refugee or IDP.
Ms. Tabo, in her crusade to Satanize the Serbs, referred in court,
almost exclusively to municipalities in the Republika Srpska where the
Muslim declined and the Serb populations increased. The truth about
Bosnia is that 88.2% of the pre-war Serb population has left the B-H
Federation, and 95.5% of the pre-war Muslim population has left the
R.S. The differences in their respective migrations is less than 8%,
and not even Ms. Tabo's report, as misleading as it is, makes an
attempt to hide that, in fact that statistic is contained in her
report.
Ms. Tabo also grudgingly admitted to President Milosevic, during
cross-examination, that Serbia gave safe heaven to 70,000 Muslim
refugees from Bosnia.
Ms. Tabo's other report dealt with the so-called "Siege of Sarajevo"
and it's war related mortalities. For her data sources she extensively
relied on Muslim sources. She took the International Red Cross's
reports into account in her report and used them as one of 7 data
sources, but the other 6 sources were Muslim sources.
She admitted that because of her extensive reliance on Muslim sources
that her statistics could be prejudiced by any biases that the Muslims
had when collecting the data. Such as in the case of one of her
sources known as the "Household Survey," conducted by Muslim
researchers, in which Serbs were referred to simply as "the
aggressors."
Even though she extensively used Muslim sources she still had to admit
that the "vast majority of casualties in Sarajevo were combatants" and
not civilians. But because she relied so heavily on Muslim sources,
information about casualties among Serb civilians was not sufficiently
dealt with in her report.
At the end of the proceedings President Milosevic learned of a new
practice that will be employed by the prosecution. The appeals chamber
changed the rules and now the prosecution has the option of not
conducting the examination-in-chief.
This new practice goes even further than 92-bis. The prosecution
compiles a witness statement, then the prosecution writes the
witness's testimony for the witness, at that point the witness signs
his pre-written testimony and that counts as the evidence in chief. So
essentially the witness only has to come to court to be cross-examined.
This new practice is scandalous. First of all, it allows the
prosecution to present more "evidence" in less time. Essentially
meaning that the prosecution is producing "evidence" faster than the
defense can refute it. This practice is like to pouring water into
somebody's mouth, not allowing them to breathe, and waiting for them
to choke.
Secondly, it makes it extremely difficult for the public to follow the
"trial" because we won't have any idea what exactly it is that the
defense is trying to refute or accomplish while it is cross-examining
the witness. If we don't know what the evidence in chief is we won't be
able to understand what point defense is trying to make.
===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg100803.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 8, 2003:
TRIBUNAL ATTEMPTS TO HIDE IT'S SHAMEFUL FARCE FROM THE PUBLIC
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
A new procedure was initiated at the Hague Tribunal today. Prosecution
witnesses can now give their examination-in-chief in whole or in part
via statements written for them by the prosecutor.
The witness doesn't write the statement that is used for his
evidence-in-chief, the prosecutor writes it, and it is treated as
"evidence" by the so-called "trial chamber."
This so-called "trial" is secretive enough already. The extensive use
of so-called "closed sessions" already hides vast portions of the
"trial" from public scrutiny. The use of so-called "protected
witnesses" keeps the public into the dark as to who the witness even
is, thus making it impossible for the public to judge the credibility
of a witness.
As for the secret witnesses, there have been occasions when these
witnesses have divulged enough information about themselves, such as
the position they held at a given time that one can figure out who
they are, or at least who they are pretending to be. For example, the
secret witness known as "B-24" claimed to have been a member of the
crisis staff in of Zvornik from the inception of the crisis staff
until 12 April 1992, while serving in the crisis staff “B-24” said
that he was the commander of the police station. “B-24” also claimed
that he was a member of the SDS, and president of the local government
in Zvornik from February 1993 until September 1993.
Based on the information that "B-24" divulged about himself during his
open-session testimony one can conclude that "B-24" is Dragan
Spasojevic, or that he is somebody who is pretending to be Dragan
Spasojevic. You can conclude this by just looking through media
reports to see who held the positions that he claimed to hold at the
times he claimed to have held them. His identity was revealed to me
simply by using public information that I obtained from the information
media. Anybody who wanted to could figure out who he was.
Armed with the identity of "B-24" one is able to find out that Dragan
Spasojevic was threatened with an EU travel ban, due to his links with
organized crime, but was able to avoid the ban because of cooperation
with the Hague Tribunal. Spasojevic is accused of war crimes himself,
he is alleged to have participated in the massacre of some 750
Muslims. On top of this, Mr. Spasojevic has a hatred for Milosevic,
Spasojevic told the May 16, 1993 edition of The Sunday Times that "We
[the Bosnian Serbs] have been betrayed by Milosevic."
With this additional information (that the tribunal wants to keep
hidden from you) you can see all sorts of things. Since Spasojevic is
accused by the Muslims of taking part in the alleged massacre of 750
of them it is possible that the "tribunal" told him that if he
testified against Milosevic, who he hated anyway that they would let
him off the hook and not prosecute him for his alleged war crimes.
Another possibility is that the "tribunal" offered Spasojevic a new
identity in exchange for his testimony. A new identity could come in
handy for a criminal couldn't it? It would allow him to avoid the E.U.
travel ban and continue his criminal activities unhindered.
No doubt many of you have figured out the identity of certain secret
witnesses yourselves. When the identity of the tribunal's secret
witnesses is ascertained you can almost always figure out why their
identity is kept a secret. If the witness is a criminal they become a
"protected witness" and their identity is hidden from the public so
that the public won't know that they are a criminal.
This new invention of admitting written statements that have been
prepared by the prosecutor as "evidence", only hides the so-called
"judicial" process even further. The examination-in-chief is
practically abolished, and the point of the alleged "evidence" is lost
as far as the public is concerned.
Mr. Nice even admitted that this new practice hides the "trial" from
the public. Nice wants all witnesses to be dealt with in this fashion.
Nice says that even witnesses whose testimony would be particularly
damning to Milosevic should be dealt with in this fashion, and that he
was willing to lose the advantage that publicly hearing these witnesses
would give to the OTP in the eyes of the public. I hate to break it to
you Mr. Nice, but in the over 250 witnesses that you have called not
one of them has had any testimony that was damning in the least to
President Milosevic.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees
the right to a public trial, but this is apparently something that the
Hague Tribunal feels doesn't apply to it. The "tribunal" regularly
hides its "trials" from the public. One has to wonder what they are so
ashamed of? After all, if they had a case wouldn't they want the
public to see that?
This new practice of using written testimony is based on Rule 89(f)
which reads: A Chamber may receive the evidence of a witness orally
or, where the interests of justice allow, in written form.
President Milosevic categorically objected to this new practice.
President Milosevic's argument is that it is clearly not in the
interests of justice to hide the proceedings from the public in this
way, he also argued that Rule 89(f) says "A Chamber may receive," not
must receive, evidence in written form when the interests of justice
allow.
President Milosevic rightly argued that it can not possibly be in the
interests of justice for evidence to be given against him where he is
not present. He argued that witnesses must give their evidence live,
in front of him, in front of the "trial chamber," and ultimately in
front of the public.
President Milosevic correctly argued that it is definitely not in the
interests of justice if evidence is only given in the prosecutors
office. Who knows what sort of important information that the
prosecutor might decide to omit from the "evidence" if it doesn't fit
its case.
President Milosevic also argued that this is a way for the prosecutor
to present more evidence than the defense can prepare for and deal
with in the time allotted for cross-examination. The situation is bad
enough already, President Milosevic is frequently denied the
opportunity to complete his cross-examination. Because "judge" May's
primary concern is the clock, and not conducting any sort of fair
trial cross-examination is frequently cut short when the time limit
imposed by Mr. May has expired.
President Milosevic pointed out that witness statements that are
already prepared by the prosecution in much the same fashion as will
be employed with this new practice are frequently inaccurate, with
witnesses frequently claiming in court that they never said the things
that the prosecution put into their statements.
The other side argued that there are safe-guards that ensure that this
new process doesn't jeopardize the "fair trial" (which is a joke
coming from them anyway). They say that the witness will be
cross-examined, and they say that the witness will have to sign the
written "testimony" and attest to its truthfulness after taking the
solemn declaration.
Another point raised by Mr. Nice is that if the witness says something
different in court than what is contained in his pre-written
testimony, Mr. Nice says that the witness will be exposed to sanction.
So essentially what we have here is witnesses who are testifying from
a script that has been written for them by the prosecutor, and if they
deviate from the prosecution's script they will be punished.
In yet another slap to the face of justice, the trial chamber ruled
that this new practice is acceptable, and it was applied to the
witness Milan Milanovic.
The interesting thing here is that Milan Milanovic doesn't speak
English. His testimony was written for him in English by the
prosecution. No Serbian version was available. Milanovic none the less
signed his pre-written English "testimony", and attested to its
truthfulness while under the solemn declaration.
The question here is how can Mr. Milanovic possibly sign a document
and attest to its truthfulness if he doesn't even understand it?
President Milosevic, and the Amicus Mr. Kay both raised this point,
but the prosecutor and the "judges" didn't seem to give a damn.
This exposes this new procedure as a scam right out of the box. The
Hague Tribunal has sunk to a new low. Secret witnesses, closed
sessions, and now scripted testimony.
As for Mr. Milanovic the prosecution spent the last 2 sessions of the
day asking him about things that weren't in his script. Apparently his
claim is that the VJ was active in the Krajina, and that President
Milosevic knew something about this. The most time was spent showing
the witness documents and asking him if he recognized them as authentic.
Mr. Milanovic will be cross-examined sometime in the future,
apparently a General Smith will be testifying tomorrow, but maybe not.
At the end of the day Mr. Nice asked for a closed session to discuss
when Milanovic would return and who was going to testify tomorrow.
===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg100903.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 9, 2003
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
The Hague "tribunal" heard testimony from the retired British Army
General Sir Rupert Smith today. Smith was the UNPROFOR (United Nations
Protection Force) commander in Bosnia in 1995, and he was the Deputy
Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from 1998 until 2001.
Immediately the objectivity of Smith is called into question. It was
General Smith who "turned the key" on behalf of the UN to unleash NATO
air strikes on the Bosnian Serbs after the so-called "Markale Market
Massacre." It is also this same General Smith who was the Deputy Allied
Commander of NATO at the time of NATO's criminal aggression against
Yugoslavia in 1999.
So we can see right off the bat that General Smith has an interest in
painting the Serbs as mad killers in order to justify his own criminal
aggression against the Serbs.
To begin with General Smith clings to the notion that the Bosnian
Serbs perpetrated the so-called "Markale Market Massacre" in Sarajevo
in August 1995, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. This is not
surprising since it was this alleged act by the Bosnian Serbs that lit
the fuse for the NATO air strikes against them that General Smith
personally authorized on behalf of the UN.
The UNMOs (UN Military Observers) issued a report stating that the
deadly mortars were fired from inside the Muslim lines, a group of
French engineers also conducted an investigation and they too concluded
that the mortars had come from inside of the Muslim lines. The
Sarajevo sector UNPROFOR commander also believed that the shells had
emanated from inside of the Muslim lines. He even went on television
and said that there was only a one in a million chance that the Serbs
could have hit that spot.
In spite of the fact that all of the evidence indicated that the
Muslims had massacred their own civilians. General Smith none the less
dismissed all of the evidence in the first UN report, issued a second
report stating that the Serbs did it, and authorized the air strikes.
General Mladic even contacted Smith and asked that a joint
investigation be carried out with the participation of Serb, Muslim,
and UN investigators, but Smith who was apparently intent on waging
war against the Serbs declined.
If the Muslims massacred their own civilians in order to get NATO to
attack the Serbs, then the trick worked, because that is precisely
what did happen.
The strategy of the prosecution is shameful. Mr. Nice and General
Smith were observing examples when Milosevic negotiated the freeing UN
personnel taken as hostages by the VRS, and when Milosevic negotiated
the peace agreement at Dayton as being proof of his alleged "control"
over the Bosnian Serbs. So here is President Milosevic working for
peace, and this is used against him as some sort of "proof" that he is
a war criminal. However, when Milosevic pressed Smith on this point;
Smith was forced to admit that he didn't see any indication that
Milosevic had any direct control over the VRS.
A meeting was also mentioned at which Mladic, Milosevic, Bildt,
Stoltenberg, Akashi, and Smith were all present. This was seen as some
sort of sinister conspiracy because here are Mladic and Milosevic at
the same meeting together. Smith was however forced, under
cross-examination, to admit that Mladic's attendance at the meeting
was Carl Bildt's idea, and not any sort of a plan between General
Mladic and President Milosevic.
Another interesting piece of information came when Smith was speaking
about the Muslim enclaves in Eastern Bosnia (Srebrenica, Zepa,
Gorazde, etc...) According to Smith the Muslims would use these
enclaves, these so-called "safe areas" established by the UN, to
launch attacks against the surrounding Serb areas.
President Milosevic asked if UNPROFOR had done anything to
demilitarize the so-called "safe areas." Smith attempted to evade the
question, and so President Milosevic asked Smith if he considered that
it was the UNPROFOR's responsibility to demilitarize the "safe areas,"
and Smith said that it wasn't UNPROFOR's job to demilitarize it's own
"safe areas."
So here we have UNPROFOR knowing that the Muslims are using it's "safe
areas" as military bases from which to attack the Serbs from, and
UNPROFOR doing nothing about it. But when the VRS is forced to protect
it's people by retaliating against these attacks the VRS is accused of
genocide.
Srebrenica was a matter of particular discussion. President Milosevic
cited the April 2001 report issued by the Dutch Government which
categorically stated that there was no political or military connection
between Belgrade and the events in Srebrenica. General Smith then
confirmed that he had no knowledge that would indicate that anybody
from either Serbia or Yugoslavia had any involvement in any of the
events at Srebrenica.
The Dutch Government report is of particular importance because
Dutchbat soldiers were at Srebrenica when the enclave fell, and they
saw nothing that could indicate Belgrade's involvement, and now we have
the UNPROFOR commander saying the same thing.
===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg101403.htm
MILOSEVIC “TRIAL” SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 14, 2003
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
The prosecution finished its abbreviated examination-in-chief of Milan
Milanovic today. Milanovic served as the Deputy Defense Minister for
the Republika Srpska Krajina, and he was the leader of the Serb
negotiating team when the Erdut agreement was signed.
The Erdut Agreement
[http://www.usip.org/library/pa/croatia/croatia_erdut_11121995.html%5d
was signed on November 12, 1995. It guarantees Serbs living in Eastern
Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem the right to form a joint council
of municipalities, it provides for the return of refugees, and for the
restoration of refugee’s property. Unfortunately, the Croatian side has
to this day failed to implement its end of the agreement. The refugees
have not returned and some even left after the signing of the
agreement, and no joint council of municipalities exists.
Mr. Milanovic claimed that President Milosevic’s associates would
harass him because he signed the Erdut Agreement. However, Mr.
Milanovic said that when he met with Milosevic that he was supportive
of him for signing the agreement. Milanovic says that Milosevic even
asked him if any of his associates were giving him a hard time, and
Milanovic told him that they weren’t.
Another allegation raised by the prosecution was that the VJ was
active in Krajina. Under cross-examination this turned out not to be
true. According to Milanovic the VJ was only active on the territory
of the FRY. There were times when the VJ was on the border of the FRY,
but it never crossed into Krajina.
The witness admitted that Belgrade had no direct command over the VRS
or the Serbian Army of Krajina.
This witness was frequently confused by names. He would refer to the
JNA as the “Yugoslav Army”, in stead of by its proper name which is of
course the Yugoslav People’s Army. The Yugoslav Army on the other hand
is the VJ, but that isn’t what the witness meant. The witness was also
confused and repeatedly referred to the Vance Plan as the “Vance-Owen
Plan.” The Vance Plan was of course for Croatia, and the Vance-Owen
Plan was for Bosnia. But like I said, the witness was confused.
The prosecution exploited the new practice of Rule 89(F). The
prosecution submitted various exhibits which had no relevance at all.
It is obvious that the prosecution is only trying to waste time.
President Milosevic and his associates have to go through all of this
so-called “evidence” and for the prosecutor to be dumping all of these
piles of pointless exhibits into the evidence pool only wastes time,
because the documents have to be read and the witness has to be
questioned about them.
The strategy of the prosecution is clear. They want to drown the
defense in a sea of irrelevant documents that it will have to deal
with, and then the prosecutor hopes that time will expire on the
defense before it can ask the witness about everything. They want to
bog down the defense in pointless documents in the hopes that they
won’t have time to refute some important point.
For example documents were produced about a Krajina Government office
that was in Belgrade. This office would arrange accommodation for
Serbian citizens who wished to volunteer to assist the Krajina Serbs.
This was totally the endeavor of the Krajina Government, nobody in
Serbia was forced to volunteer, but these documents were none the less
presented as “evidence” against Milosevic. Evidence of what you ask;
well as far as Milosevic is concerned nothing. I only regard this sort
of “evidence” as evidence of the prosecution’s plan that I outlined
above.
A point raised by the prosecution was the presence of Radovan
Stojicic “Badza” in Krajina. Badza was a commander in the Serbian MUP,
and he came to Krajina with 15 other members of the MUP of Serbia.
They were integrated into the T.O. and were suborned to the JNA. Badza
was promoted to the T.O. command by Goran Hadzic, and not by anybody
from Serbia.
These men, by virtue of the fact that they were suborned to the JNA,
were obviously volunteers, but the witness tried to deny that and say
that they were something else. None the less, the witness said that
neither Badza, nor any of the men who came with him committed any
crimes.
Badza came to Krajina to help the JNA liberate Vukovar. In Vukovar the
ZNG (Croatian National Guard) attacked JNA columns. The ZNG blockaded
and laid siege on the JNA barracks in Vukovar, killing and wounding
several JNA soldiers.
It was only after the ZNG’s barbaric attacks that the JNA engaged in
operations to rid Vukovar of the ZNG. The JNA was defending itself on
its own territory. Vukovar, whether the Croats liked it or not, was at
that time, part of the SFRY and the JNA was the national army of the
SFRY.
Badza and the men who accompanied him may have been from the republic
of Serbia, but Serbia and Vukovar were both part of the SFR
Yugoslavia. Badza was only volunteering to help his country’s army at
a time when it was being attacked inside of its own territory. Quite
honestly, I can’t imagine what could be wrong with that. I don’t see
what the prosecution is trying to prove here. What kind of patriot
could just stand by and watch his country’s army being attacked on its
own territory?
The witness did give some useful evidence about the origins of the war
in Croatia. According to the witness tensions started in 1990 and
1991, when elections were held and the HDZ and Tudjman were coming to
power.
The Serbian people in Croatia voted for the League of Communists,
because that party was against war and favored the preservation of
Yugoslavia. The Croats, on the other hand, voted for the HDZ and for
the destruction of Yugoslavia.
Once the HDZ attained power in 1991 they removed the Serbian people as
a constituent people from the Croatian constitution. The Croats began
illegally importing arms, formed paramilitary formations, and fired
Serbs from their jobs en masse. The Croats resurrected the symbols
used by the Ustasha (Croatia’s Nazi puppet regime) during the 2nd
World War, such as the checkerboard emblem that appears to this day on
the Croatian flag.
All of these actions by the Croats caused discomfort and fear among
the Serbs who were living in Croatia. The fears of the Serbs were
proven to be justified when on May 2, 1991 Croatian policemen entered
Borovo Selo, the largest Serbian settlement in the Vukovar
municipality. When the Croatian police rolled into Borovo Selo they
opened fire on Serbian houses in the center of Borovo Selo, killing
several civilians.
The witness spoke about the Vance Plan and how the Serbs abided by the
agreement, but that the Croats violated the agreement when they
stormed UN Protected Areas such as the Miljevac Plateau and the Medak
Pocket. These attacks were completely unprovoked. The Serbs did not
launch a single attack after the UNPAs were set-up, but the Croats
attacked them anyway.
The witness went all through the war. He confirmed that the Croats had
formed camps for Serbs, and that the war ultimately culminated in the
Croat operations Storm and Flash, in which many Serbs were killed, and
hundreds of thousands were expelled from Croatia.
The witness also spoke of a time when a ZDF news crew from Germany
came to his village of Polaca. When the ZDF crew was there they filmed
as Croats from Laslovo came and attacked the Serbs living in Polaca,
but when ZDF aired the tape they said that it was Serbs from Polaca
who were attacking the Croats in Laslovo.
This is only one of many examples where the international media lied.
ZDF reported the exact opposite of the truth. ZDF turned the victim
into the aggressor, and the aggressor into the victim.
This witness will conclude his testimony tomorrow. The troika has
granted Slobodan Milosevic 50 more minutes to conclude his
cross-examination.
===
http://slobodan-milosevic.ihostsites.net/news/smorg101503.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 15, 2003
The witness Milan Milanovic finished his testimony today. President
Milosevic used this occasion to expose the strategy of the prosecutor.
President Milosevic showed the witness documents that were submitted
by the prosecutor as evidence in conjunction with his testimony.
Among the documents were invoices from the Zastava Promot Company in
Sombor. The Krajina T.O. had purchased items for their uniforms from
that company, belts, t-shirts, berets, etc… They paid for the items,
and they were shipped.
President Milosevic asked the witness what that was supposed to prove?
He wondered was there anything illegal about a company selling
merchandise to somebody? The witness had no explanation as to why
these documents were exhibited as evidence in conjunction with his
testimony. He couldn’t see anything illegal.
In addition to vast lists of bank accounts were submitted. Bank
account information for bowling clubs, cinemas, butcher shops, and
even the Red Cross was submitted as “evidence” with this witness by
the prosecution. Again the witness didn’t know how to explain this.
Again today we can see that the prosecution is abusing Rule 89(F). The
prosecution has no case and so they are abusing Rule 89(F) in order to
overwhelm the defense with piles of irrelevant documents.
The prosecutor has even submitted obviously forged documents as
evidence. One example came today with a document from a Dusko Babic
that was stamped as received the day before it was ever sent.
This witness has proven nothing against Milosevic. On the contrary,
his testimony only proves what President Milosevic has been saying.
The witness said that Milosevic contacted him and advised him to sign
the Erdut peace agreement. The witness signed the agreement, and
claimed that Milan Martic, Milan Babic and Goran Hadzic were all angry
with him for signing it.
If the whole Krajina leadership was angry with the witness for signing
an agreement that Milosevic supported, then this clearly proves that
they were not under the control of Milosevic. All this proves is that
President Milosevic used his influence to achieve peace, and it proves
that all he had was influence and not any sort of control outside of
Serbia.
After Milan Milanovic withdrew a secret witness codenamed “B-1115”
took the witness stand. B-1115 was a 92-bis witness, and the gist of
his “testimony” was that the Serbs attacked his unarmed Muslim village
for no reason took him prisoner and then abused the prisoners.
B-1115 was allegedly from Doboj. B-1115 was a member of what he called
a “reserve police unit” which consisted of 36 armed Muslims.
Milosevic however viewed this 36 man unit as a paramilitary formation,
and the real police had seen it the same way. Milosevic produced the
documents proving that B-1115 and his so-called “reserve police” were
all arrested by the real police and charged with armed insurrection
under article 124 of the penal code; so much for B-1115’s claim about
being the innocent unarmed civilian.
B-1115 also claimed to have seen Montenegrin Red Berets training the
VRS at a base near Doboj while he was allegedly being held prisoner.
The problem with this is that there has never been any such thing as
Montenegrin Red Berets. They are a figment of B-1115’s imagination.
So B-1115 was a member of a Muslim paramilitary group that was
engaging in armed insurrection, yet he claimed to be an unarmed
civilian living in a village where no armed conflicts were taking
place. B-1115 claimed to be the Serb’s prisoner, but at the times he
was allegedly being held he saw things that never existed. He is very
typical for the sorts of witness’s that the prosecution likes to bring.
After B-1115 finished another secret witness testifying under the
pseudonym of “B-1445” took the stand.
B-1445 was a member of the B-H parliament from Doboj and one of the
founders of the SDA.
According to B-1445 the attack on Doboj took place on May 3, 1992.
B-1445 said that he witnessed the attack and that members of Arkan’s
Tigers and Seselj’s White Eagles took part in the attack. Of course
B-1445 didn’t actually see Tigers and White Eagles taking part in the
attack he only heard about that later on from some other people.
B-1445, who claimed to have witnessed the attack, said that he fled
Doboj on the afternoon of May 3, 1992. This is interesting since the
previous secret witness (B-1115) said that the attack didn’t begin
until 5 PM, so how could B-1445 have witnessed the attack if he wasn’t
even there when it happened?
Because B-1445 was an SDA MP and one of the founders of the party,
President Milosevic asked him whether or not it was true that the SDA
was the first party formed on an ethnic basis. B-1445 confirmed that
the SDA had been founded before the SDS and the HDZ.
B-1445 also confirmed that in 1992 the Bosnian constitution explicitly
stated that decisions had to be made on the basis of consensus of
Bosnia’s 3 constituent peoples: the Serbs, the Croats, and the Muslims.
Because B-1445 had admitted that decisions had to be made on the basis
of consensus of all 3 peoples, he put himself in a very uncomfortable
position. President Milosevic asked him if he was aware that the
Serbian people had been against succession, but that the decision was
none the less made to separate from Yugoslavia against the will of the
Serbian people?
Because he had admitted what the law was, B-1445 was stuck, and so he
decided to lie and say that the Serbs were not against succession. I
don’t know what sort of Serbs that B-1445 has been talking to, but I
have certainly never met the Serb who favored the succession of
Bosnia-Herzegovina from Yugoslavia.
President Milosevic asked B-1445 if Alija Izetbegovic favored the
establishment of an Islamic state. B-1445 said that Izetbegovic didn’t
want any such thing. However Alija Izetbegovic’s “Islamic Declaration”
indicates something quite different.
President Milosevic began to ask B-1445 about the presence of Arab
mujahedeens in Bosnia. It was at this point that the so-called “judge”
May had to intervene and save the witness. May prohibited Milosevic
from pursuing this line of questioning.
President Milosevic observed that the first killing that took place
after the illegal referendum on succession was the killing of a Serb
by four Muslims at a Serbian wedding celebration in Sarajevo.
President Milosevic then asked if this killing caused tensions to
increase.
The witness’s explanation was that murders happened all of the time in
Sarajevo, this was nothing remarkable, and besides the Serb who got
killed provoked his Muslim killers.
President Milosevic was clearly shocked that this witness had the gall
to claim that killings are something that is routine and that the
victim deserved to be murdered because he had allegedly provoked his
killer, and it was on that note that the proceedings ended. President
Milosevic will cross-examine the witness for 70 more minutes tomorrow.
TRIBUNAL ATTEMPTS TO HIDE ITS SHAMEFUL FARCE FROM THE PUBLIC
---
An important LINK:
Dutch TV documentary on the Hague process, in two parts:
http://info.vpro.nl/info/tegenlicht/index.shtml?7738514+7738518+8048024
===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg100703.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 7, 2003
After nearly a 3 week break taken due to the continued illness of
President Milosevic the Hague Tribunal again resumed the so-called
"trial." President Milosevic is still ill, his blood pressure today
was measured to be 160 over 110 mm Hg.
The "trial" started off with Mr. Nice announcing that they would not
be hearing from Maj. Russo of the Canadian Armed Forces, because he
had decided not to come to the tribunal. According to Mr. Nice the
Office of the Prosecutor arranged his flight but when it came time to
leave, he simply decided not to get on the plane.
Then the so-called "presiding judge" Mr. May made a ruling regarding
the prosecution's September 23rd submission. The prosecution was
seeking to videotape examinations in chief on days when President
Milosevic is unable to attend due to illness. The so-called "trial
chamber" denied this request. The Prosecution had also sought to have
defense counsel imposed on President Milosevic, the "court" didn't
rule one way or the other on that. They simply said that they would
keep it under consideration.
The witness today was a Ms. Eva Tabo. Ms. Tabo is a demographer, and
an employee of the Office of the Prosecutor. She has worked for the
Prosecution since December of 2000.
Ms. Tabo wrote two reports. One report was on the displacement of
persons in the so-called "Milosevic case area." This report focused on
47 municipalities in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and highlighted 7
municipalities as case-studies. The other report dealt with the
so-called "Siege of Sarajevo" and the war-related mortalities in the
Sarajevo area.
President Milosevic denounced Ms. Tabo's reports as "a malicious
manipulation of statistics," and when one looks at the methods and
sources that she employed in order to write her reports it is obvious
that she is in fact making malicious manipulations of fact. Her
objective is clearly to demonize the Serbs, and to paint them as
aggressors against their own country.
First of all, in her report on displacement, she arrives at her
conclusions by taking the 1991 census and comparing it with OSCE voter
registration lists from 1997 and 1998. She concludes that anybody who
was in a different location in 1997-98 than they were in 1991 is a
refugee or an IDP.
It is useful at this point to remind ourselves of what a refugee is.
According to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
(the Refugee Convention), Article 1A(2), the term refugee is applied
to a person who owing to well founded fear of being persecuted for
reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his(/her)
nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to
avail himself (/herself) of the protection of his(/her) country; or
who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of
his(/her) former habitual residence as a result of such events, is
unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
In her report, Ms. Tabo counted migrant migrant workers as "refugees."
She counted citizens who were working abroad before the war in 1991,
and who were still working abroad in 1997-98 as refugees.
Her objective here can only be to falsely inflate the number of
refugees emanating from the so-called "Milosevic case area."
Even Mr. Robinson had trouble accepting that persons such as migrant
workers who were working abroad before the war even started could be
considered to be refugees. Mr. Robinson asked her if she was even
aware of what constitutes a refugee.
Ms. Tabo sheepishly responded by saying that she wasn't using any
"legal definition" to define refugees, but that for the purposes of
her report she was using a statistical definition of her own making.
Ms. Tabo eventually admitted that her report did not take into account
any of the reasons why her so-called "refugees" had left the country,
which means that according to the definition of a refugee used by
everybody else she has no basis for calling these people refugees.
As President Milosevic observed, if one employed Ms. Tabo's
definition, a tourist could be called a refugee.
Another problem is the question of IDPs. Ms. Tabo defined an IDP as
anybody who was living in one place at the time of the 1991 census and
was living in another place when they registered to vote in 1997-98.
A problem arises here because the information she is using is not
limited to the period of the war. People who moved before the war in
1991-92 and after the war between 1995 and 1997-98 are counted as IDP's
(or as refugees if they moved out of the country).
President Milosevic pointed out that there were massive migrations of
persons that took place after Dayton. He pointed to the example of the
Sarajevo Serbs, where 150,000 Serbs left Sarajevo after the end of the
war.
Ms. Tabo's data is not limited to the period of the war, nor does it
take into account any of the reasons why her so-called "refugees" or
"IDPs" moved from one place to the other. Many people moved solely
because of economic reasons yet in her reports they are considered to
be some sort of refugee or IDP.
Ms. Tabo, in her crusade to Satanize the Serbs, referred in court,
almost exclusively to municipalities in the Republika Srpska where the
Muslim declined and the Serb populations increased. The truth about
Bosnia is that 88.2% of the pre-war Serb population has left the B-H
Federation, and 95.5% of the pre-war Muslim population has left the
R.S. The differences in their respective migrations is less than 8%,
and not even Ms. Tabo's report, as misleading as it is, makes an
attempt to hide that, in fact that statistic is contained in her
report.
Ms. Tabo also grudgingly admitted to President Milosevic, during
cross-examination, that Serbia gave safe heaven to 70,000 Muslim
refugees from Bosnia.
Ms. Tabo's other report dealt with the so-called "Siege of Sarajevo"
and it's war related mortalities. For her data sources she extensively
relied on Muslim sources. She took the International Red Cross's
reports into account in her report and used them as one of 7 data
sources, but the other 6 sources were Muslim sources.
She admitted that because of her extensive reliance on Muslim sources
that her statistics could be prejudiced by any biases that the Muslims
had when collecting the data. Such as in the case of one of her
sources known as the "Household Survey," conducted by Muslim
researchers, in which Serbs were referred to simply as "the
aggressors."
Even though she extensively used Muslim sources she still had to admit
that the "vast majority of casualties in Sarajevo were combatants" and
not civilians. But because she relied so heavily on Muslim sources,
information about casualties among Serb civilians was not sufficiently
dealt with in her report.
At the end of the proceedings President Milosevic learned of a new
practice that will be employed by the prosecution. The appeals chamber
changed the rules and now the prosecution has the option of not
conducting the examination-in-chief.
This new practice goes even further than 92-bis. The prosecution
compiles a witness statement, then the prosecution writes the
witness's testimony for the witness, at that point the witness signs
his pre-written testimony and that counts as the evidence in chief. So
essentially the witness only has to come to court to be cross-examined.
This new practice is scandalous. First of all, it allows the
prosecution to present more "evidence" in less time. Essentially
meaning that the prosecution is producing "evidence" faster than the
defense can refute it. This practice is like to pouring water into
somebody's mouth, not allowing them to breathe, and waiting for them
to choke.
Secondly, it makes it extremely difficult for the public to follow the
"trial" because we won't have any idea what exactly it is that the
defense is trying to refute or accomplish while it is cross-examining
the witness. If we don't know what the evidence in chief is we won't be
able to understand what point defense is trying to make.
===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg100803.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 8, 2003:
TRIBUNAL ATTEMPTS TO HIDE IT'S SHAMEFUL FARCE FROM THE PUBLIC
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
A new procedure was initiated at the Hague Tribunal today. Prosecution
witnesses can now give their examination-in-chief in whole or in part
via statements written for them by the prosecutor.
The witness doesn't write the statement that is used for his
evidence-in-chief, the prosecutor writes it, and it is treated as
"evidence" by the so-called "trial chamber."
This so-called "trial" is secretive enough already. The extensive use
of so-called "closed sessions" already hides vast portions of the
"trial" from public scrutiny. The use of so-called "protected
witnesses" keeps the public into the dark as to who the witness even
is, thus making it impossible for the public to judge the credibility
of a witness.
As for the secret witnesses, there have been occasions when these
witnesses have divulged enough information about themselves, such as
the position they held at a given time that one can figure out who
they are, or at least who they are pretending to be. For example, the
secret witness known as "B-24" claimed to have been a member of the
crisis staff in of Zvornik from the inception of the crisis staff
until 12 April 1992, while serving in the crisis staff “B-24” said
that he was the commander of the police station. “B-24” also claimed
that he was a member of the SDS, and president of the local government
in Zvornik from February 1993 until September 1993.
Based on the information that "B-24" divulged about himself during his
open-session testimony one can conclude that "B-24" is Dragan
Spasojevic, or that he is somebody who is pretending to be Dragan
Spasojevic. You can conclude this by just looking through media
reports to see who held the positions that he claimed to hold at the
times he claimed to have held them. His identity was revealed to me
simply by using public information that I obtained from the information
media. Anybody who wanted to could figure out who he was.
Armed with the identity of "B-24" one is able to find out that Dragan
Spasojevic was threatened with an EU travel ban, due to his links with
organized crime, but was able to avoid the ban because of cooperation
with the Hague Tribunal. Spasojevic is accused of war crimes himself,
he is alleged to have participated in the massacre of some 750
Muslims. On top of this, Mr. Spasojevic has a hatred for Milosevic,
Spasojevic told the May 16, 1993 edition of The Sunday Times that "We
[the Bosnian Serbs] have been betrayed by Milosevic."
With this additional information (that the tribunal wants to keep
hidden from you) you can see all sorts of things. Since Spasojevic is
accused by the Muslims of taking part in the alleged massacre of 750
of them it is possible that the "tribunal" told him that if he
testified against Milosevic, who he hated anyway that they would let
him off the hook and not prosecute him for his alleged war crimes.
Another possibility is that the "tribunal" offered Spasojevic a new
identity in exchange for his testimony. A new identity could come in
handy for a criminal couldn't it? It would allow him to avoid the E.U.
travel ban and continue his criminal activities unhindered.
No doubt many of you have figured out the identity of certain secret
witnesses yourselves. When the identity of the tribunal's secret
witnesses is ascertained you can almost always figure out why their
identity is kept a secret. If the witness is a criminal they become a
"protected witness" and their identity is hidden from the public so
that the public won't know that they are a criminal.
This new invention of admitting written statements that have been
prepared by the prosecutor as "evidence", only hides the so-called
"judicial" process even further. The examination-in-chief is
practically abolished, and the point of the alleged "evidence" is lost
as far as the public is concerned.
Mr. Nice even admitted that this new practice hides the "trial" from
the public. Nice wants all witnesses to be dealt with in this fashion.
Nice says that even witnesses whose testimony would be particularly
damning to Milosevic should be dealt with in this fashion, and that he
was willing to lose the advantage that publicly hearing these witnesses
would give to the OTP in the eyes of the public. I hate to break it to
you Mr. Nice, but in the over 250 witnesses that you have called not
one of them has had any testimony that was damning in the least to
President Milosevic.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees
the right to a public trial, but this is apparently something that the
Hague Tribunal feels doesn't apply to it. The "tribunal" regularly
hides its "trials" from the public. One has to wonder what they are so
ashamed of? After all, if they had a case wouldn't they want the
public to see that?
This new practice of using written testimony is based on Rule 89(f)
which reads: A Chamber may receive the evidence of a witness orally
or, where the interests of justice allow, in written form.
President Milosevic categorically objected to this new practice.
President Milosevic's argument is that it is clearly not in the
interests of justice to hide the proceedings from the public in this
way, he also argued that Rule 89(f) says "A Chamber may receive," not
must receive, evidence in written form when the interests of justice
allow.
President Milosevic rightly argued that it can not possibly be in the
interests of justice for evidence to be given against him where he is
not present. He argued that witnesses must give their evidence live,
in front of him, in front of the "trial chamber," and ultimately in
front of the public.
President Milosevic correctly argued that it is definitely not in the
interests of justice if evidence is only given in the prosecutors
office. Who knows what sort of important information that the
prosecutor might decide to omit from the "evidence" if it doesn't fit
its case.
President Milosevic also argued that this is a way for the prosecutor
to present more evidence than the defense can prepare for and deal
with in the time allotted for cross-examination. The situation is bad
enough already, President Milosevic is frequently denied the
opportunity to complete his cross-examination. Because "judge" May's
primary concern is the clock, and not conducting any sort of fair
trial cross-examination is frequently cut short when the time limit
imposed by Mr. May has expired.
President Milosevic pointed out that witness statements that are
already prepared by the prosecution in much the same fashion as will
be employed with this new practice are frequently inaccurate, with
witnesses frequently claiming in court that they never said the things
that the prosecution put into their statements.
The other side argued that there are safe-guards that ensure that this
new process doesn't jeopardize the "fair trial" (which is a joke
coming from them anyway). They say that the witness will be
cross-examined, and they say that the witness will have to sign the
written "testimony" and attest to its truthfulness after taking the
solemn declaration.
Another point raised by Mr. Nice is that if the witness says something
different in court than what is contained in his pre-written
testimony, Mr. Nice says that the witness will be exposed to sanction.
So essentially what we have here is witnesses who are testifying from
a script that has been written for them by the prosecutor, and if they
deviate from the prosecution's script they will be punished.
In yet another slap to the face of justice, the trial chamber ruled
that this new practice is acceptable, and it was applied to the
witness Milan Milanovic.
The interesting thing here is that Milan Milanovic doesn't speak
English. His testimony was written for him in English by the
prosecution. No Serbian version was available. Milanovic none the less
signed his pre-written English "testimony", and attested to its
truthfulness while under the solemn declaration.
The question here is how can Mr. Milanovic possibly sign a document
and attest to its truthfulness if he doesn't even understand it?
President Milosevic, and the Amicus Mr. Kay both raised this point,
but the prosecutor and the "judges" didn't seem to give a damn.
This exposes this new procedure as a scam right out of the box. The
Hague Tribunal has sunk to a new low. Secret witnesses, closed
sessions, and now scripted testimony.
As for Mr. Milanovic the prosecution spent the last 2 sessions of the
day asking him about things that weren't in his script. Apparently his
claim is that the VJ was active in the Krajina, and that President
Milosevic knew something about this. The most time was spent showing
the witness documents and asking him if he recognized them as authentic.
Mr. Milanovic will be cross-examined sometime in the future,
apparently a General Smith will be testifying tomorrow, but maybe not.
At the end of the day Mr. Nice asked for a closed session to discuss
when Milanovic would return and who was going to testify tomorrow.
===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg100903.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 9, 2003
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
The Hague "tribunal" heard testimony from the retired British Army
General Sir Rupert Smith today. Smith was the UNPROFOR (United Nations
Protection Force) commander in Bosnia in 1995, and he was the Deputy
Supreme Allied Commander of NATO from 1998 until 2001.
Immediately the objectivity of Smith is called into question. It was
General Smith who "turned the key" on behalf of the UN to unleash NATO
air strikes on the Bosnian Serbs after the so-called "Markale Market
Massacre." It is also this same General Smith who was the Deputy Allied
Commander of NATO at the time of NATO's criminal aggression against
Yugoslavia in 1999.
So we can see right off the bat that General Smith has an interest in
painting the Serbs as mad killers in order to justify his own criminal
aggression against the Serbs.
To begin with General Smith clings to the notion that the Bosnian
Serbs perpetrated the so-called "Markale Market Massacre" in Sarajevo
in August 1995, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. This is not
surprising since it was this alleged act by the Bosnian Serbs that lit
the fuse for the NATO air strikes against them that General Smith
personally authorized on behalf of the UN.
The UNMOs (UN Military Observers) issued a report stating that the
deadly mortars were fired from inside the Muslim lines, a group of
French engineers also conducted an investigation and they too concluded
that the mortars had come from inside of the Muslim lines. The
Sarajevo sector UNPROFOR commander also believed that the shells had
emanated from inside of the Muslim lines. He even went on television
and said that there was only a one in a million chance that the Serbs
could have hit that spot.
In spite of the fact that all of the evidence indicated that the
Muslims had massacred their own civilians. General Smith none the less
dismissed all of the evidence in the first UN report, issued a second
report stating that the Serbs did it, and authorized the air strikes.
General Mladic even contacted Smith and asked that a joint
investigation be carried out with the participation of Serb, Muslim,
and UN investigators, but Smith who was apparently intent on waging
war against the Serbs declined.
If the Muslims massacred their own civilians in order to get NATO to
attack the Serbs, then the trick worked, because that is precisely
what did happen.
The strategy of the prosecution is shameful. Mr. Nice and General
Smith were observing examples when Milosevic negotiated the freeing UN
personnel taken as hostages by the VRS, and when Milosevic negotiated
the peace agreement at Dayton as being proof of his alleged "control"
over the Bosnian Serbs. So here is President Milosevic working for
peace, and this is used against him as some sort of "proof" that he is
a war criminal. However, when Milosevic pressed Smith on this point;
Smith was forced to admit that he didn't see any indication that
Milosevic had any direct control over the VRS.
A meeting was also mentioned at which Mladic, Milosevic, Bildt,
Stoltenberg, Akashi, and Smith were all present. This was seen as some
sort of sinister conspiracy because here are Mladic and Milosevic at
the same meeting together. Smith was however forced, under
cross-examination, to admit that Mladic's attendance at the meeting
was Carl Bildt's idea, and not any sort of a plan between General
Mladic and President Milosevic.
Another interesting piece of information came when Smith was speaking
about the Muslim enclaves in Eastern Bosnia (Srebrenica, Zepa,
Gorazde, etc...) According to Smith the Muslims would use these
enclaves, these so-called "safe areas" established by the UN, to
launch attacks against the surrounding Serb areas.
President Milosevic asked if UNPROFOR had done anything to
demilitarize the so-called "safe areas." Smith attempted to evade the
question, and so President Milosevic asked Smith if he considered that
it was the UNPROFOR's responsibility to demilitarize the "safe areas,"
and Smith said that it wasn't UNPROFOR's job to demilitarize it's own
"safe areas."
So here we have UNPROFOR knowing that the Muslims are using it's "safe
areas" as military bases from which to attack the Serbs from, and
UNPROFOR doing nothing about it. But when the VRS is forced to protect
it's people by retaliating against these attacks the VRS is accused of
genocide.
Srebrenica was a matter of particular discussion. President Milosevic
cited the April 2001 report issued by the Dutch Government which
categorically stated that there was no political or military connection
between Belgrade and the events in Srebrenica. General Smith then
confirmed that he had no knowledge that would indicate that anybody
from either Serbia or Yugoslavia had any involvement in any of the
events at Srebrenica.
The Dutch Government report is of particular importance because
Dutchbat soldiers were at Srebrenica when the enclave fell, and they
saw nothing that could indicate Belgrade's involvement, and now we have
the UNPROFOR commander saying the same thing.
===
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg101403.htm
MILOSEVIC “TRIAL” SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 14, 2003
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
The prosecution finished its abbreviated examination-in-chief of Milan
Milanovic today. Milanovic served as the Deputy Defense Minister for
the Republika Srpska Krajina, and he was the leader of the Serb
negotiating team when the Erdut agreement was signed.
The Erdut Agreement
[http://www.usip.org/library/pa/croatia/croatia_erdut_11121995.html%5d
was signed on November 12, 1995. It guarantees Serbs living in Eastern
Slavonia, Baranja and Western Srem the right to form a joint council
of municipalities, it provides for the return of refugees, and for the
restoration of refugee’s property. Unfortunately, the Croatian side has
to this day failed to implement its end of the agreement. The refugees
have not returned and some even left after the signing of the
agreement, and no joint council of municipalities exists.
Mr. Milanovic claimed that President Milosevic’s associates would
harass him because he signed the Erdut Agreement. However, Mr.
Milanovic said that when he met with Milosevic that he was supportive
of him for signing the agreement. Milanovic says that Milosevic even
asked him if any of his associates were giving him a hard time, and
Milanovic told him that they weren’t.
Another allegation raised by the prosecution was that the VJ was
active in Krajina. Under cross-examination this turned out not to be
true. According to Milanovic the VJ was only active on the territory
of the FRY. There were times when the VJ was on the border of the FRY,
but it never crossed into Krajina.
The witness admitted that Belgrade had no direct command over the VRS
or the Serbian Army of Krajina.
This witness was frequently confused by names. He would refer to the
JNA as the “Yugoslav Army”, in stead of by its proper name which is of
course the Yugoslav People’s Army. The Yugoslav Army on the other hand
is the VJ, but that isn’t what the witness meant. The witness was also
confused and repeatedly referred to the Vance Plan as the “Vance-Owen
Plan.” The Vance Plan was of course for Croatia, and the Vance-Owen
Plan was for Bosnia. But like I said, the witness was confused.
The prosecution exploited the new practice of Rule 89(F). The
prosecution submitted various exhibits which had no relevance at all.
It is obvious that the prosecution is only trying to waste time.
President Milosevic and his associates have to go through all of this
so-called “evidence” and for the prosecutor to be dumping all of these
piles of pointless exhibits into the evidence pool only wastes time,
because the documents have to be read and the witness has to be
questioned about them.
The strategy of the prosecution is clear. They want to drown the
defense in a sea of irrelevant documents that it will have to deal
with, and then the prosecutor hopes that time will expire on the
defense before it can ask the witness about everything. They want to
bog down the defense in pointless documents in the hopes that they
won’t have time to refute some important point.
For example documents were produced about a Krajina Government office
that was in Belgrade. This office would arrange accommodation for
Serbian citizens who wished to volunteer to assist the Krajina Serbs.
This was totally the endeavor of the Krajina Government, nobody in
Serbia was forced to volunteer, but these documents were none the less
presented as “evidence” against Milosevic. Evidence of what you ask;
well as far as Milosevic is concerned nothing. I only regard this sort
of “evidence” as evidence of the prosecution’s plan that I outlined
above.
A point raised by the prosecution was the presence of Radovan
Stojicic “Badza” in Krajina. Badza was a commander in the Serbian MUP,
and he came to Krajina with 15 other members of the MUP of Serbia.
They were integrated into the T.O. and were suborned to the JNA. Badza
was promoted to the T.O. command by Goran Hadzic, and not by anybody
from Serbia.
These men, by virtue of the fact that they were suborned to the JNA,
were obviously volunteers, but the witness tried to deny that and say
that they were something else. None the less, the witness said that
neither Badza, nor any of the men who came with him committed any
crimes.
Badza came to Krajina to help the JNA liberate Vukovar. In Vukovar the
ZNG (Croatian National Guard) attacked JNA columns. The ZNG blockaded
and laid siege on the JNA barracks in Vukovar, killing and wounding
several JNA soldiers.
It was only after the ZNG’s barbaric attacks that the JNA engaged in
operations to rid Vukovar of the ZNG. The JNA was defending itself on
its own territory. Vukovar, whether the Croats liked it or not, was at
that time, part of the SFRY and the JNA was the national army of the
SFRY.
Badza and the men who accompanied him may have been from the republic
of Serbia, but Serbia and Vukovar were both part of the SFR
Yugoslavia. Badza was only volunteering to help his country’s army at
a time when it was being attacked inside of its own territory. Quite
honestly, I can’t imagine what could be wrong with that. I don’t see
what the prosecution is trying to prove here. What kind of patriot
could just stand by and watch his country’s army being attacked on its
own territory?
The witness did give some useful evidence about the origins of the war
in Croatia. According to the witness tensions started in 1990 and
1991, when elections were held and the HDZ and Tudjman were coming to
power.
The Serbian people in Croatia voted for the League of Communists,
because that party was against war and favored the preservation of
Yugoslavia. The Croats, on the other hand, voted for the HDZ and for
the destruction of Yugoslavia.
Once the HDZ attained power in 1991 they removed the Serbian people as
a constituent people from the Croatian constitution. The Croats began
illegally importing arms, formed paramilitary formations, and fired
Serbs from their jobs en masse. The Croats resurrected the symbols
used by the Ustasha (Croatia’s Nazi puppet regime) during the 2nd
World War, such as the checkerboard emblem that appears to this day on
the Croatian flag.
All of these actions by the Croats caused discomfort and fear among
the Serbs who were living in Croatia. The fears of the Serbs were
proven to be justified when on May 2, 1991 Croatian policemen entered
Borovo Selo, the largest Serbian settlement in the Vukovar
municipality. When the Croatian police rolled into Borovo Selo they
opened fire on Serbian houses in the center of Borovo Selo, killing
several civilians.
The witness spoke about the Vance Plan and how the Serbs abided by the
agreement, but that the Croats violated the agreement when they
stormed UN Protected Areas such as the Miljevac Plateau and the Medak
Pocket. These attacks were completely unprovoked. The Serbs did not
launch a single attack after the UNPAs were set-up, but the Croats
attacked them anyway.
The witness went all through the war. He confirmed that the Croats had
formed camps for Serbs, and that the war ultimately culminated in the
Croat operations Storm and Flash, in which many Serbs were killed, and
hundreds of thousands were expelled from Croatia.
The witness also spoke of a time when a ZDF news crew from Germany
came to his village of Polaca. When the ZDF crew was there they filmed
as Croats from Laslovo came and attacked the Serbs living in Polaca,
but when ZDF aired the tape they said that it was Serbs from Polaca
who were attacking the Croats in Laslovo.
This is only one of many examples where the international media lied.
ZDF reported the exact opposite of the truth. ZDF turned the victim
into the aggressor, and the aggressor into the victim.
This witness will conclude his testimony tomorrow. The troika has
granted Slobodan Milosevic 50 more minutes to conclude his
cross-examination.
===
http://slobodan-milosevic.ihostsites.net/news/smorg101503.htm
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL" SYNOPSIS: OCTOBER 15, 2003
The witness Milan Milanovic finished his testimony today. President
Milosevic used this occasion to expose the strategy of the prosecutor.
President Milosevic showed the witness documents that were submitted
by the prosecutor as evidence in conjunction with his testimony.
Among the documents were invoices from the Zastava Promot Company in
Sombor. The Krajina T.O. had purchased items for their uniforms from
that company, belts, t-shirts, berets, etc… They paid for the items,
and they were shipped.
President Milosevic asked the witness what that was supposed to prove?
He wondered was there anything illegal about a company selling
merchandise to somebody? The witness had no explanation as to why
these documents were exhibited as evidence in conjunction with his
testimony. He couldn’t see anything illegal.
In addition to vast lists of bank accounts were submitted. Bank
account information for bowling clubs, cinemas, butcher shops, and
even the Red Cross was submitted as “evidence” with this witness by
the prosecution. Again the witness didn’t know how to explain this.
Again today we can see that the prosecution is abusing Rule 89(F). The
prosecution has no case and so they are abusing Rule 89(F) in order to
overwhelm the defense with piles of irrelevant documents.
The prosecutor has even submitted obviously forged documents as
evidence. One example came today with a document from a Dusko Babic
that was stamped as received the day before it was ever sent.
This witness has proven nothing against Milosevic. On the contrary,
his testimony only proves what President Milosevic has been saying.
The witness said that Milosevic contacted him and advised him to sign
the Erdut peace agreement. The witness signed the agreement, and
claimed that Milan Martic, Milan Babic and Goran Hadzic were all angry
with him for signing it.
If the whole Krajina leadership was angry with the witness for signing
an agreement that Milosevic supported, then this clearly proves that
they were not under the control of Milosevic. All this proves is that
President Milosevic used his influence to achieve peace, and it proves
that all he had was influence and not any sort of control outside of
Serbia.
After Milan Milanovic withdrew a secret witness codenamed “B-1115”
took the witness stand. B-1115 was a 92-bis witness, and the gist of
his “testimony” was that the Serbs attacked his unarmed Muslim village
for no reason took him prisoner and then abused the prisoners.
B-1115 was allegedly from Doboj. B-1115 was a member of what he called
a “reserve police unit” which consisted of 36 armed Muslims.
Milosevic however viewed this 36 man unit as a paramilitary formation,
and the real police had seen it the same way. Milosevic produced the
documents proving that B-1115 and his so-called “reserve police” were
all arrested by the real police and charged with armed insurrection
under article 124 of the penal code; so much for B-1115’s claim about
being the innocent unarmed civilian.
B-1115 also claimed to have seen Montenegrin Red Berets training the
VRS at a base near Doboj while he was allegedly being held prisoner.
The problem with this is that there has never been any such thing as
Montenegrin Red Berets. They are a figment of B-1115’s imagination.
So B-1115 was a member of a Muslim paramilitary group that was
engaging in armed insurrection, yet he claimed to be an unarmed
civilian living in a village where no armed conflicts were taking
place. B-1115 claimed to be the Serb’s prisoner, but at the times he
was allegedly being held he saw things that never existed. He is very
typical for the sorts of witness’s that the prosecution likes to bring.
After B-1115 finished another secret witness testifying under the
pseudonym of “B-1445” took the stand.
B-1445 was a member of the B-H parliament from Doboj and one of the
founders of the SDA.
According to B-1445 the attack on Doboj took place on May 3, 1992.
B-1445 said that he witnessed the attack and that members of Arkan’s
Tigers and Seselj’s White Eagles took part in the attack. Of course
B-1445 didn’t actually see Tigers and White Eagles taking part in the
attack he only heard about that later on from some other people.
B-1445, who claimed to have witnessed the attack, said that he fled
Doboj on the afternoon of May 3, 1992. This is interesting since the
previous secret witness (B-1115) said that the attack didn’t begin
until 5 PM, so how could B-1445 have witnessed the attack if he wasn’t
even there when it happened?
Because B-1445 was an SDA MP and one of the founders of the party,
President Milosevic asked him whether or not it was true that the SDA
was the first party formed on an ethnic basis. B-1445 confirmed that
the SDA had been founded before the SDS and the HDZ.
B-1445 also confirmed that in 1992 the Bosnian constitution explicitly
stated that decisions had to be made on the basis of consensus of
Bosnia’s 3 constituent peoples: the Serbs, the Croats, and the Muslims.
Because B-1445 had admitted that decisions had to be made on the basis
of consensus of all 3 peoples, he put himself in a very uncomfortable
position. President Milosevic asked him if he was aware that the
Serbian people had been against succession, but that the decision was
none the less made to separate from Yugoslavia against the will of the
Serbian people?
Because he had admitted what the law was, B-1445 was stuck, and so he
decided to lie and say that the Serbs were not against succession. I
don’t know what sort of Serbs that B-1445 has been talking to, but I
have certainly never met the Serb who favored the succession of
Bosnia-Herzegovina from Yugoslavia.
President Milosevic asked B-1445 if Alija Izetbegovic favored the
establishment of an Islamic state. B-1445 said that Izetbegovic didn’t
want any such thing. However Alija Izetbegovic’s “Islamic Declaration”
indicates something quite different.
President Milosevic began to ask B-1445 about the presence of Arab
mujahedeens in Bosnia. It was at this point that the so-called “judge”
May had to intervene and save the witness. May prohibited Milosevic
from pursuing this line of questioning.
President Milosevic observed that the first killing that took place
after the illegal referendum on succession was the killing of a Serb
by four Muslims at a Serbian wedding celebration in Sarajevo.
President Milosevic then asked if this killing caused tensions to
increase.
The witness’s explanation was that murders happened all of the time in
Sarajevo, this was nothing remarkable, and besides the Serb who got
killed provoked his Muslim killers.
President Milosevic was clearly shocked that this witness had the gall
to claim that killings are something that is routine and that the
victim deserved to be murdered because he had allegedly provoked his
killer, and it was on that note that the proceedings ended. President
Milosevic will cross-examine the witness for 70 more minutes tomorrow.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO310B.html
---
Regime Rotation in America
by Michel Chossudovsky
Wesley Clark, Osama bin Laden and the 2004 Presidential Elections
www.globalresearch.ca 22 October 2003
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO310B.html
---
Has General Wesley Clark joined the ranks of the 9/11 "conspiracy
theorists"?
Clark has not only accused George W. of "possible manipulation of
intelligence", he is also calling for an investigation "into possible
'criminal' conduct in the drive to war." (Daily Telegraph,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/04/
wclark04.xml 4 October 2003)
Strong words from the front-runner Democratic candidate in the
presidential race:
"Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than
consciously to make a case for war based on false claims... We need to
know if we were intentionally deceived... This administration is trying
to do something that ought to be politically impossible to do in a
democracy, and that is to govern against the will of the majority...
That requires twisted facts, silence, secrecy and very poor lighting."
(quoted in Daily Telegraph, 4 October 2003)
General Clark's statement hints to a cover-up in the 9/11 joint
Senate-House inquiry, regarding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which he
identifies as "terrorist sponsors". In other words, the Retired Four
Star General tacitly acknowledges the insidious role played by
Washington's indefectible ally, the military government of President
Pervez Musharraf, which is known to have supported Al Qaeda and the
Taliban.
It is important that we understand the political motivations behind
Wesley Clark's position.
While his observations regarding the Bush administration are accurate,
his own record is tainted.
During his stint as NATO Supreme Commander (1997-2000), Wesley Clark
was in permanent liaison with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Under
Wesley Clark's command, NATO directly sponsored a terrorist
paramilitary army, with links to Al Qaeda and the trans-Balkan
narcotics trade.
About turn: a former "terrorist sponsor" (to use his own words) under
NATO auspices is now accusing the Bush administration of "seizing on
the Sept. 11 attacks for justification [to wage war]" (San Francisco
Chronicle, 2 October 2003).
In an utterly twisted logic, an individual who is recognized as a war
criminal is seeking the support of the anti-war movement. In the words
of the Palestine Chronicle:
"Enthusiastic support for front-running Democratic presidential
contenders Wesley Clark and Howard Dean from liberals and some
progressives reveals the dismal state of oppositional politics in
America. Decades of unremitting right wing assaults on every sphere of
American life has so jerked the political landscape to the right, that
instead of clamoring for sweeping or even revolutionary changes as in
days long past, the main battle-cry coming from 'the left' is ``Anybody
But Bush'".(Sunil Sharma and Josh Frank,Two Measures of American
Desperation: Wesley Clark and Howard Dean, 17 October 2003,
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20031017175449217 )
Filmmaker and antiwar critic Michael Moore supports the candidacies of
Wesley Clark and Howard Dean: "We need a doctor [Dean] because there
are 43 million of us without health care and we need a general to kick
Bush's ass."
(http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/10/15/
3f8ce93feca0a 15 October 2003).
Regime Rotation in America
Clark's Bush bashing and antiwar stance, supported by Hollywood and
Wall Street, is not meant to reverse the tide of war. Quite the
opposite. It provides a phony legitimacy to the war agenda in the name
of "peace building" and democracy.
It perpetuates "the big lie".
What this bipartisan mud-slinging achieves is "regime rotation" in
America. The "war on terrorism" which underlies the national security
agenda remains functionally intact.
Ironically, during the Clinton administration, it was the Republicans
who were accusing Bill Clinton of having links to the Islamic Militant
Network in Bosnia and Kosovo. In a carefully 1999 document prepared by
the Senate Republican Party Committee, the GOP blatantly accused
Clinton of supporting terrorism in Kosovo:
"By the time the NATO air strikes began, the Clinton Administration's
partnership with the KLA was unambiguous... Such an effusive embrace by
top Clinton Administration officials of an organization that only a
year ago one of its own top officials labeled as "terrorist" is, to say
the least, a startling development. Even more importantly, the new
Clinton/KLA partnership may obscure troubling allegations about the KLA
that the Clinton Administration has thus far neglected to address."
(Senate Republican Party Committee, The Kosovo Liberation Army: Does
Clinton Policy Support Group with Terror, Drug Ties?
http://www.kosovo.com/rpc.html , Washington, March 31, 1999)
A previous 1997 document emanating from the House Republican Party
Committee entitled "Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn
Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base", accused Clinton of working hand in
glove with Al Qaeda in Bosnia:
"The Clinton administrationís hands-on involvement with the Islamic
network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by
U.S. government officials... [T]he Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a
Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization ... has been a major link
in the arms pipeline to Bosnia... TWRA is believed to be connected with
such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman
(the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing)
and Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi ÈmigrÈ believed to bankroll
numerous militant groups." (Congressional Press Release, Republican
Party Committee (RPC), U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms
Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Washington DC,
16 January 1997, available on the website of the Centre of Research on
Globalisation (CRG) at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html .)
Needless to say, the Republicans and the Democrats are complicit. They
accuse one another of having links to Al Qaeda. Yet successive
Democratic and Republican administrations have been involved from the
outset of the Soviet Afghan war in 1979 (during the Presidency of Jimmy
Carter) in developing Al Qaeda as a US sponsored "intelligence asset".
These Congressional briefs, however, are not meant to be read by the
broader public. They are used to score political points in a
longstanding bipartisan ritual, while providing the illusion of a
functioning Legislature, where political leaders are said to be held
accountable.
If the Democrats were to win the 2004 presidential elections,
continuity in US foreign policy would be maintained. More importantly,
the "war on terrorism" and the lies concerning Al Qaeda and 9/11 would
also be maintained.
Bin Laden and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
The role of the Kosovo Liberaiton Army (KLA) as a terrorist
organization is amply documented by Congressional transcripts.
According to Frank Ciluffo of the Globalized Organised Crime Program,
in a testimony presented to the House of Representatives Judicial
Committee:
"What was largely hidden from public view was the fact that the KLA
raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and
Kosovo lie at the heart of the "Balkan Route" that links the "Golden
Crescent" of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe.
This route is worth an estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80
percent of heroin destined for Europe." (House Judiciary Committee, 13
December 2000)
The relationship between the KLA and Osama bin Laden is confirmed by
Interpol's Criminal Intelligence division:
"The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization,
indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the
international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and
individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden . Another link to bin
Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad
organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was
leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict." (US Congress,
Testimony of Ralf Mutschke of Interpol's Criminal Intelligence
Division, to the House Judicial Committee, 13 December 2000).
The evidence regarding the KLA contained in Congressional transcripts,
news reports and intelligence documents directly implicates General
Wesley Clark.
During his stint as NATO Supreme commander (1997-2000). Clark had close
personal ties with KLA Chief of Staff Commander Brigadier Agim Ceku and
KLA Leader Hashim Thaci (see photo below ).
Agim Ceku, who directly collaborated with NATO during the 1999 Kosovo
campaign is recognized by the Hague ICTY Tribunal "for alleged war
crimes committed against ethnic Serbs in Croatia between 1993 and
1995." ( AFP 13 Oct 1999)
Hashim Thaci had ordered the political assassination of his opponents
in Ibrahim Rugova's nationalist Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK) (See
November 2000 BBC Report at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1037302.stm ). According to The
Boston Globe (2 August 1999):
"Terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden running around with AK-47s and
anti-tank weapons is bad enough. Worse, Thaci's boys aren't just
killers and kleptos, but mafioso who are neck deep in the drug trade.
(During the war, the Washington Times quoted an unnamed U.S. drug
enforcement official commenting on the KLA, 'They were drug dealers in
1998 and now, because of politics, they're freedom fighters.')"
In the wake of the 1999 Kosovo campaign, under NATO regency, these acts
of political assassination--ordered by the self-proclaimed Provisional
Government of Kosovo (PGK)-- were carried out in a totally permissive
environment. The leaders of the KLA rather than being arrested by NATO
for war crimes, were granted KFOR protection. According to one report
of the Foreign Policy Institute (published during the 1999 bombings:
"...the KLA have [no] qualms about murdering Rugova's collaborators,
whom it accused of the "crime" of moderation...(Michael Radu, "Don't
Arm the KLA", CNS Commentary from the Foreign Policy Research
Institute, 7 April, 1999).
In course of the bombing campaign, Fehmi Agani, one of Rugova's closest
collaborators in the Kosovo Democratic League (KDL) was executed on the
orders of the r Hashim Thaci.(Tanjug Press Dispatch, 14 May 1999): "If
Thaci actually considered Rugova a threat, he would not hesitate to
have Rugova removed from the Kosovo political landscape." (Stratfor
Comment, "Rugova Faced with a Choice of Two Losses", Stratfor, 29 July
1999). In turn, the KLA has abducted and killed numerous professionals
and intellectuals.
And who was behind the 29 year old KLA leader Hashim Thaci: Madeleine
Albright and Wesley Clark. (see photos below ).
NATO, the KLA and Al Qaeda
According to a US Department of Defense briefing, so-called "initial
contacts" between the KLA and NATO took place in mid-1998, during the
first part of General Clark's mandate as NATO Commander in Chief:
"...the realization has come to people [in NATO] that we [NATO led by
Wesley Clark] have to have the UCK [acronym for KLA in Albanian]
involved in this process because they have shown at least the potential
to be rejectionists of any deal that could be worked out there with the
existing Kosovo parties. So somehow they have to be brought in and
that's why we've made some initial contacts there with the group,
hopefully the right people in the group, to try and bring them into
this negotiating process." (US Department of Defense, Background
Briefing, July 15, 1998)
["Hopefully the right group" means "we deal with people who obey
orders."]
While these "initial contacts" were acknowledged by NATO officially
only in mid-1998, the KLA had (according to several reports) been
receiving "covert support" and training from the CIA and Germany's
Bundes Nachrichten Dienst (BND) since the mid-nineties. These covert
operations were known and approved by NATO. (Michel Chossudovsky,
Kosovo `Freedom Fighters' Financed by Organised Crime, Covert Action
Quarterly, 2000)
The development and training of KLA forces was part of NATO planning,
directly led by General Wesley Clark. In the words of former Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) secret agent Michael Levine, writing
at the height of the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia:
"Ten years ago we were arming and equipping the worst elements of the
Mujahideen in Afghanistan - drug traffickers, arms smugglers,
anti-American terroristsÖNow we're doing the same thing with the KLA,
which is tied in with every known middle and far eastern drug cartel.
Interpol, Europol, and nearly every European intelligence and
counter-narcotics agency has files open on drug syndicates that lead
right to the KLA, and right to Albanian gangs in this country." (New
American Magazine, May 24, 1999)
The KLA acted as a paramilitary force, present on the ground in Kosovo.
It was integrated by US and British SAS Special Forces and remained in
close liaison with NATO. The KLA was also used by NATO High Command to
acquire intelligence on bombing targets during the 1999 Kosovo campaign.
Confirmed by British military sources, the task of arming and training
of the KLA had been entrusted in 1998 to the US Defence Intelligence
Agency (DIA) and Britain's Secret Intelligence Services MI6, together
with "former and serving members of 22 SAS [Britain's 22nd Special Air
Services Regiment], as well as three British and American private
security companies". (The Scotsman, Glasgow, 29 August 1999)
"The US DIA approached MI6 to arrange a training program for the KLA,
said a senior British military source. `MI6 then sub-contracted the
operation to two British security companies, who in turn approached a
number of former members of the (22 SAS) regiment. Lists were then
drawn up of weapons and equipment needed by the KLA.' While these
covert operations were continuing, serving members of 22 SAS Regiment,
mostly from the unit's D Squadron, were first deployed in Kosovo before
the beginning of the bombing campaign in March [1999]." (Ibid)
While British SAS Special Forces in bases in Northern Albania were
training the KLA, military instructors from Turkey and Afghanistan
financed by the "Islamic jihad" were providing the KLA with guerilla
and diversion tactics:
"Bin Laden had visited Albania himself. He was one of several
fundamentalist groups that had sent units to fight in Kosovo, ... Bin
Laden is believed to have established an operation in Albania in 1994
... Albanian sources say Sali Berisha, who was then president, had
links with some groups that later proved to be extreme
fundamentalists." (Sunday Times, London, 29 November 1998.)
In the Wake of the 1999 Bombing of Yugoslavia
In the wake of the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO under Wesley
Clark's command, supported the extension of the terrorist activities of
the KLA into Southern Serbia and Macedonia.
Meanwhile, the KLA --renamed the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC)-- was
elevated to United Nations status, implying the granting of
"legitimate" sources of funding through United Nations as well as
through bilateral channels, including direct US military aid.
In other words, a terrorist paramilitary force supported by Al Qaeda
and linked to organized crime becomes a legitimate "civilian" National
Guard, directly supported by NATO and the UN.
And barely two months after the official inauguration of the KPC under
UN auspices (September 1999), KPC-KLA commanders - using UN resources
and equipment - were already preparing the assaults into Macedonia, as
a logical follow-up to their terrorist activities in Kosovo. In this
endeavour they had the full support of NATO and the US military, not to
mention the so-called "international community" symbolised by the UN
Mission to Kosovo (UNMIK), headed by France's former Minister of Health
Bernard Kouchner:
According to the Skopje daily Dnevnik, the KPC had established a "sixth
operation zone" in Southern Serbia and Macedonia:
"Sources, who insist on anonymity, claim that the headquarters of the
Kosovo protection brigades [i.e. linked to the UN sponsored KPC] have
[March 2000] already been formed in Tetovo, Gostivar and Skopje. They
are being prepared in Debar and Struga [on the border with Albania] as
well, and their members have defined codes." (Macedonian Information
Centre Newsletter, Skopje, 21 March 2000, published by BBC Summary of
World Broadcast, 24 March 2000)
According to the BBC, "Western special forces were still training the
guerrillas" meaning that they were assisting the KLA in opening up "a
sixth operation zone" in Southern Serbia and Macedonia. (BBC, 29
January 2001, at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1142000/
1142478.stm )
Ironically the United Nations in a confidential February 2000 report to
Secretary General Kofi Annan acknowledged that the KPC, was responsible
for "criminal activities . . . killings, ill-treatment (and) torture,
illegal policing, abuse of authority, intimidation, breaches of
political neutrality and hate-speech.". These occurred at the height
of Bernard Kouchner's "humanitarian" mandate as the UN Interim
Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) (15 July 1999 to 12 January
2001).
And in this regard, Kouchner, whose mandate was to channel humanitarian
aid under UN auspices, worked closely with NATO officials including
Wesley Clark in providing support to Kosovo's terrorist paramilitary
army. (See photo below ). Let us not forget that Bernard Kouchner was
the Founder of "Doctors without Borders".(MÈdecins sans frontiËres)
According to the London Observer, "the grim message to the U.N.
secretary-general is that his own organization [led by UNMIK Head
Bernard Kouchner] is paying the salaries of many of the offenders"
(Observer, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/031400-03.htm , 14
March 2000)
The 2004 Presidential Elections
What choices for the US Electorate?
The evidence presented above confirms that both the Democrats and the
Republicans have links to Al Qaeda and are complicit in the "war on
terrorism".
In a bitter irony, the very same terrorist organization (Al Qaeda)
which were supported by successive administrations, is heralded in both
the Republican and Democratic election platforms as "an enemy of
America". (See Michel Chossudovsky, Expose the Links between Al Qaeda
and the Bush Administration, Centre for Research on Globalization,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html , 15 March 2003).
Ironically, Osama bin Laden has become part of the election ritual,
providing all the necessary buzz-words for a stylized debate on
"Homeland Security", which is a central feature of the election
platform of both political parties. . .
Republicans or Democrats: The war agenda remains intact . The Democrats
do not oppose President Bush's request to Congress to allocate $87
billion to finance Iraq's occupation and "reconstruction." :
"The consent on financing the occupation and the reconstruction of
Iraq are strong indications that there will be no substantial change in
the U.S. policy in the region, at least until the strategic goal of the
war is achieved." (Salameh Nematt, Bin Laden and the U.S. Elections,
Salameh Nematt Al-Hayat, 11 September 2003,
http://english.daralhayat.com/OPED/09-2003/Article-20030911-9082bea7-
c0a8-01ed-002a-cc14f6dc4d75/story.html )
The Republicans led the first Gulf war, the Democrats led the wars in
the Balkans leading to the military occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina
under the Dayton Accords in 1995 and the invasion of Kosovo in 1999.
The Democrats were in office during the devastating wars in Rwanda and
the Congo, leading to more than 3 million deaths. The Democrats and the
Republicans joined hands in enforcing the "No Fly Zone" (1991-2003) and
a twelve year program of economic sanctions and bombing of Iraq.
The Clinton-led wars in the Balkans were a stage of the "road-map".
They were part of a broader US led-war extending from the Balkans into
the Middle East and Central Asia.
Republicans present a consistent team dominated by the Neo-cons
including former Iran Contra officials of the Reagan administration.
The GOP's war agenda is defined in terms of "multiple and simultaneous
theater wars" as contained in the Project for the New American Century
(PNAC). (See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html ). The
PNAC also foresaw the triggering of a so-called "Pearl Harbor Event" to
mobilize public opinion in support of the war agenda. (Ibid).
While there are substantive differences between the Neo-Cons and
leading Democrats, Bush's National Security doctrine is, in many
regards, a continuation of that formulated by Clinton in 1995, which
was based on a "strategy of containment of rogue states".
There are significant differences. The NeoCons are more reckless than
the Democrats, particularly with regard to nuclear policy. The
Democrats under the Clinton adminstration were more skillful in using
the UN system and multilateral framework to their advantage to
effectively pursue their war agenda.
It is worth mentioning, however, that US Central Command (USCENTCOM)
had already, during the Clinton administration, formulated "in theater
war plans" to invade Iraq and Iran. And the stated objective of these
1995 war plans was oil::
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the
President's National Security Strategy (NSS) [President Clinton] and
the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of
the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs
implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of
Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests,
to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual
containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region
without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy
is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement,
as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest
in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf
oil."(USCENTCOM,
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/
stratgic.htm#USPolicy )
In fact, broadly the same concepts of Homeland Defense, preventive
war, etc. are contained in Clinton's 1999 and 2000 National Security
Strategy documents.(See
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/national/ )
In other words, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq under the Bush
administration were part of the bipartisan road-map to Empire, --i.e. a
continuation of a war agenda which had already been decided upon well
in advance of Bush's accession to the White House in January 2001. This
should come as no surprise since many of the people in charge of these
war plans, including CIA director George Tenet,had been appointed
during the Clinton administration.
Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the
State Department, the White House and the US Congress) call the shots
on US foreign policy , with the Texas oil giants, the defense
contractors and Wall Street operating discretely behind the scenes.
Ultimately, the war agenda and "Homeland Security" (including the
ongoing militarisation of civilian police and judicial institutions)
are determined by powerful economic interests. Party politics largely
serves as a smokescreen.
It is, therefore, unlikely that the Democrats would undo either the War
agenda or the Patriot Act.
Totalitarian State in America: De facto Military Dictatorship
The backbone of this system is militarisation, including territorial
conquest and military occupation. Behind the democratic facade and the
bipartisan ritual, a de facto military dictatorship prevails.
Militarisation in turn endorses and enforces the global "free market"
on behalf of dominant economic and financial interests.
In other words, the underlying political and economic power structures
will not be fundamentally modified through "regime rotation" and the
ritual of presidential and Congressional elections.
To effectively build their "legitimacy", both the Democrats and
Republicans need to uphold the falsehoods behind the "war on terrorism".
Sustaining the "freedom and democracy rhetoric" is not only part of
this bipartisan ritual, it is part of the process of building a
totalitarian State in America under the disguise of a functioning
democracy.
Let us be under no illusion: the 2004 presidential elections will not
result in a significant change of direction.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war
machine namely the production of advanced weapons systems (WMDs) must
be dismantled, the evolving police state must be dismantled, etc.
To achieve these broad objectives, it is essential to break the
legitimacy of the military and political actors who rule in our name.
The falsehoods which sustain the legitimacy of the bipartisan ritual
must be unraveled.
Both parties share the same war agenda. There are war criminals in
both political parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11
cover-up.
The evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalization
of the State", which also includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan
corridors of the US Congress.
In the words of Andreas van Buelow, former German Minister of Defense
and author of The CIA and September 11: "If what I say is right, the
whole US government should end up behind bars,"
---
Photo:
1999 War Criminals Join Hands (Kosovo 1999).
From Left to Right:
Hashim Thaci, Head of the KLA, closely linked to Osama bin Laden's Al
Qaeda. Hashim Thaci had ordered political assassinations directed
against the Party of Ibrahim Rugova. Thaci was a protÈgÈ of Madeleine
Albright (see photo below).
Bernard Kouchner, Head of United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) in
Kosovo (July 1999- January 2001), instrumental in elevating the KLA to
UN status.
General Michael Jackson, Commander of KFOR Troops in Kosovo.
General Agim Ceku, Military Commander of the KPC, investigated by the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) "for
alleged war crimes committed against ethnic Serbs in Croatia between
1993 and 1995." ( AFP 13 Oct 1999)
General Wesley Clark, NATO Supreme Commander.
[The only person missing in the photo is Osama bin Laden.]
---
Photos:
Madeleine Albright greets KLA Hashim Thaci
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke (appointed by President Clinton) with a
KLA Commander, Summer 1998
Source of pictures: Senate Republican Party Committee,
http://www.kosovo.com/rpc.html
---
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of War and Globalisation, the Truth
behind Septmber 11 , 2003. For details click here .
Recent writings by Michel Chossudovsky
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, CRG 2003 For fair use only/ pour
usage Èquitable seulement .
---
Regime Rotation in America
by Michel Chossudovsky
Wesley Clark, Osama bin Laden and the 2004 Presidential Elections
www.globalresearch.ca 22 October 2003
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO310B.html
---
Has General Wesley Clark joined the ranks of the 9/11 "conspiracy
theorists"?
Clark has not only accused George W. of "possible manipulation of
intelligence", he is also calling for an investigation "into possible
'criminal' conduct in the drive to war." (Daily Telegraph,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/10/04/
wclark04.xml 4 October 2003)
Strong words from the front-runner Democratic candidate in the
presidential race:
"Nothing could be a more serious violation of public trust than
consciously to make a case for war based on false claims... We need to
know if we were intentionally deceived... This administration is trying
to do something that ought to be politically impossible to do in a
democracy, and that is to govern against the will of the majority...
That requires twisted facts, silence, secrecy and very poor lighting."
(quoted in Daily Telegraph, 4 October 2003)
General Clark's statement hints to a cover-up in the 9/11 joint
Senate-House inquiry, regarding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, which he
identifies as "terrorist sponsors". In other words, the Retired Four
Star General tacitly acknowledges the insidious role played by
Washington's indefectible ally, the military government of President
Pervez Musharraf, which is known to have supported Al Qaeda and the
Taliban.
It is important that we understand the political motivations behind
Wesley Clark's position.
While his observations regarding the Bush administration are accurate,
his own record is tainted.
During his stint as NATO Supreme Commander (1997-2000), Wesley Clark
was in permanent liaison with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Under
Wesley Clark's command, NATO directly sponsored a terrorist
paramilitary army, with links to Al Qaeda and the trans-Balkan
narcotics trade.
About turn: a former "terrorist sponsor" (to use his own words) under
NATO auspices is now accusing the Bush administration of "seizing on
the Sept. 11 attacks for justification [to wage war]" (San Francisco
Chronicle, 2 October 2003).
In an utterly twisted logic, an individual who is recognized as a war
criminal is seeking the support of the anti-war movement. In the words
of the Palestine Chronicle:
"Enthusiastic support for front-running Democratic presidential
contenders Wesley Clark and Howard Dean from liberals and some
progressives reveals the dismal state of oppositional politics in
America. Decades of unremitting right wing assaults on every sphere of
American life has so jerked the political landscape to the right, that
instead of clamoring for sweeping or even revolutionary changes as in
days long past, the main battle-cry coming from 'the left' is ``Anybody
But Bush'".(Sunil Sharma and Josh Frank,Two Measures of American
Desperation: Wesley Clark and Howard Dean, 17 October 2003,
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20031017175449217 )
Filmmaker and antiwar critic Michael Moore supports the candidacies of
Wesley Clark and Howard Dean: "We need a doctor [Dean] because there
are 43 million of us without health care and we need a general to kick
Bush's ass."
(http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/10/15/
3f8ce93feca0a 15 October 2003).
Regime Rotation in America
Clark's Bush bashing and antiwar stance, supported by Hollywood and
Wall Street, is not meant to reverse the tide of war. Quite the
opposite. It provides a phony legitimacy to the war agenda in the name
of "peace building" and democracy.
It perpetuates "the big lie".
What this bipartisan mud-slinging achieves is "regime rotation" in
America. The "war on terrorism" which underlies the national security
agenda remains functionally intact.
Ironically, during the Clinton administration, it was the Republicans
who were accusing Bill Clinton of having links to the Islamic Militant
Network in Bosnia and Kosovo. In a carefully 1999 document prepared by
the Senate Republican Party Committee, the GOP blatantly accused
Clinton of supporting terrorism in Kosovo:
"By the time the NATO air strikes began, the Clinton Administration's
partnership with the KLA was unambiguous... Such an effusive embrace by
top Clinton Administration officials of an organization that only a
year ago one of its own top officials labeled as "terrorist" is, to say
the least, a startling development. Even more importantly, the new
Clinton/KLA partnership may obscure troubling allegations about the KLA
that the Clinton Administration has thus far neglected to address."
(Senate Republican Party Committee, The Kosovo Liberation Army: Does
Clinton Policy Support Group with Terror, Drug Ties?
http://www.kosovo.com/rpc.html , Washington, March 31, 1999)
A previous 1997 document emanating from the House Republican Party
Committee entitled "Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms Transfers Help Turn
Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base", accused Clinton of working hand in
glove with Al Qaeda in Bosnia:
"The Clinton administrationís hands-on involvement with the Islamic
network's arms pipeline included inspections of missiles from Iran by
U.S. government officials... [T]he Third World Relief Agency (TWRA), a
Sudan-based, phoney humanitarian organization ... has been a major link
in the arms pipeline to Bosnia... TWRA is believed to be connected with
such fixtures of the Islamic terror network as Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman
(the convicted mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing)
and Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi ÈmigrÈ believed to bankroll
numerous militant groups." (Congressional Press Release, Republican
Party Committee (RPC), U.S. Congress, Clinton-Approved Iranian Arms
Transfers Help Turn Bosnia into Militant Islamic Base, Washington DC,
16 January 1997, available on the website of the Centre of Research on
Globalisation (CRG) at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DCH109A.html .)
Needless to say, the Republicans and the Democrats are complicit. They
accuse one another of having links to Al Qaeda. Yet successive
Democratic and Republican administrations have been involved from the
outset of the Soviet Afghan war in 1979 (during the Presidency of Jimmy
Carter) in developing Al Qaeda as a US sponsored "intelligence asset".
These Congressional briefs, however, are not meant to be read by the
broader public. They are used to score political points in a
longstanding bipartisan ritual, while providing the illusion of a
functioning Legislature, where political leaders are said to be held
accountable.
If the Democrats were to win the 2004 presidential elections,
continuity in US foreign policy would be maintained. More importantly,
the "war on terrorism" and the lies concerning Al Qaeda and 9/11 would
also be maintained.
Bin Laden and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
The role of the Kosovo Liberaiton Army (KLA) as a terrorist
organization is amply documented by Congressional transcripts.
According to Frank Ciluffo of the Globalized Organised Crime Program,
in a testimony presented to the House of Representatives Judicial
Committee:
"What was largely hidden from public view was the fact that the KLA
raise part of their funds from the sale of narcotics. Albania and
Kosovo lie at the heart of the "Balkan Route" that links the "Golden
Crescent" of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the drug markets of Europe.
This route is worth an estimated $400 billion a year and handles 80
percent of heroin destined for Europe." (House Judiciary Committee, 13
December 2000)
The relationship between the KLA and Osama bin Laden is confirmed by
Interpol's Criminal Intelligence division:
"The U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization,
indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the
international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and
individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden . Another link to bin
Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Jihad
organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was
leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict." (US Congress,
Testimony of Ralf Mutschke of Interpol's Criminal Intelligence
Division, to the House Judicial Committee, 13 December 2000).
The evidence regarding the KLA contained in Congressional transcripts,
news reports and intelligence documents directly implicates General
Wesley Clark.
During his stint as NATO Supreme commander (1997-2000). Clark had close
personal ties with KLA Chief of Staff Commander Brigadier Agim Ceku and
KLA Leader Hashim Thaci (see photo below ).
Agim Ceku, who directly collaborated with NATO during the 1999 Kosovo
campaign is recognized by the Hague ICTY Tribunal "for alleged war
crimes committed against ethnic Serbs in Croatia between 1993 and
1995." ( AFP 13 Oct 1999)
Hashim Thaci had ordered the political assassination of his opponents
in Ibrahim Rugova's nationalist Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK) (See
November 2000 BBC Report at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1037302.stm ). According to The
Boston Globe (2 August 1999):
"Terrorists with ties to Osama bin Laden running around with AK-47s and
anti-tank weapons is bad enough. Worse, Thaci's boys aren't just
killers and kleptos, but mafioso who are neck deep in the drug trade.
(During the war, the Washington Times quoted an unnamed U.S. drug
enforcement official commenting on the KLA, 'They were drug dealers in
1998 and now, because of politics, they're freedom fighters.')"
In the wake of the 1999 Kosovo campaign, under NATO regency, these acts
of political assassination--ordered by the self-proclaimed Provisional
Government of Kosovo (PGK)-- were carried out in a totally permissive
environment. The leaders of the KLA rather than being arrested by NATO
for war crimes, were granted KFOR protection. According to one report
of the Foreign Policy Institute (published during the 1999 bombings:
"...the KLA have [no] qualms about murdering Rugova's collaborators,
whom it accused of the "crime" of moderation...(Michael Radu, "Don't
Arm the KLA", CNS Commentary from the Foreign Policy Research
Institute, 7 April, 1999).
In course of the bombing campaign, Fehmi Agani, one of Rugova's closest
collaborators in the Kosovo Democratic League (KDL) was executed on the
orders of the r Hashim Thaci.(Tanjug Press Dispatch, 14 May 1999): "If
Thaci actually considered Rugova a threat, he would not hesitate to
have Rugova removed from the Kosovo political landscape." (Stratfor
Comment, "Rugova Faced with a Choice of Two Losses", Stratfor, 29 July
1999). In turn, the KLA has abducted and killed numerous professionals
and intellectuals.
And who was behind the 29 year old KLA leader Hashim Thaci: Madeleine
Albright and Wesley Clark. (see photos below ).
NATO, the KLA and Al Qaeda
According to a US Department of Defense briefing, so-called "initial
contacts" between the KLA and NATO took place in mid-1998, during the
first part of General Clark's mandate as NATO Commander in Chief:
"...the realization has come to people [in NATO] that we [NATO led by
Wesley Clark] have to have the UCK [acronym for KLA in Albanian]
involved in this process because they have shown at least the potential
to be rejectionists of any deal that could be worked out there with the
existing Kosovo parties. So somehow they have to be brought in and
that's why we've made some initial contacts there with the group,
hopefully the right people in the group, to try and bring them into
this negotiating process." (US Department of Defense, Background
Briefing, July 15, 1998)
["Hopefully the right group" means "we deal with people who obey
orders."]
While these "initial contacts" were acknowledged by NATO officially
only in mid-1998, the KLA had (according to several reports) been
receiving "covert support" and training from the CIA and Germany's
Bundes Nachrichten Dienst (BND) since the mid-nineties. These covert
operations were known and approved by NATO. (Michel Chossudovsky,
Kosovo `Freedom Fighters' Financed by Organised Crime, Covert Action
Quarterly, 2000)
The development and training of KLA forces was part of NATO planning,
directly led by General Wesley Clark. In the words of former Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) secret agent Michael Levine, writing
at the height of the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia:
"Ten years ago we were arming and equipping the worst elements of the
Mujahideen in Afghanistan - drug traffickers, arms smugglers,
anti-American terroristsÖNow we're doing the same thing with the KLA,
which is tied in with every known middle and far eastern drug cartel.
Interpol, Europol, and nearly every European intelligence and
counter-narcotics agency has files open on drug syndicates that lead
right to the KLA, and right to Albanian gangs in this country." (New
American Magazine, May 24, 1999)
The KLA acted as a paramilitary force, present on the ground in Kosovo.
It was integrated by US and British SAS Special Forces and remained in
close liaison with NATO. The KLA was also used by NATO High Command to
acquire intelligence on bombing targets during the 1999 Kosovo campaign.
Confirmed by British military sources, the task of arming and training
of the KLA had been entrusted in 1998 to the US Defence Intelligence
Agency (DIA) and Britain's Secret Intelligence Services MI6, together
with "former and serving members of 22 SAS [Britain's 22nd Special Air
Services Regiment], as well as three British and American private
security companies". (The Scotsman, Glasgow, 29 August 1999)
"The US DIA approached MI6 to arrange a training program for the KLA,
said a senior British military source. `MI6 then sub-contracted the
operation to two British security companies, who in turn approached a
number of former members of the (22 SAS) regiment. Lists were then
drawn up of weapons and equipment needed by the KLA.' While these
covert operations were continuing, serving members of 22 SAS Regiment,
mostly from the unit's D Squadron, were first deployed in Kosovo before
the beginning of the bombing campaign in March [1999]." (Ibid)
While British SAS Special Forces in bases in Northern Albania were
training the KLA, military instructors from Turkey and Afghanistan
financed by the "Islamic jihad" were providing the KLA with guerilla
and diversion tactics:
"Bin Laden had visited Albania himself. He was one of several
fundamentalist groups that had sent units to fight in Kosovo, ... Bin
Laden is believed to have established an operation in Albania in 1994
... Albanian sources say Sali Berisha, who was then president, had
links with some groups that later proved to be extreme
fundamentalists." (Sunday Times, London, 29 November 1998.)
In the Wake of the 1999 Bombing of Yugoslavia
In the wake of the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO under Wesley
Clark's command, supported the extension of the terrorist activities of
the KLA into Southern Serbia and Macedonia.
Meanwhile, the KLA --renamed the Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC)-- was
elevated to United Nations status, implying the granting of
"legitimate" sources of funding through United Nations as well as
through bilateral channels, including direct US military aid.
In other words, a terrorist paramilitary force supported by Al Qaeda
and linked to organized crime becomes a legitimate "civilian" National
Guard, directly supported by NATO and the UN.
And barely two months after the official inauguration of the KPC under
UN auspices (September 1999), KPC-KLA commanders - using UN resources
and equipment - were already preparing the assaults into Macedonia, as
a logical follow-up to their terrorist activities in Kosovo. In this
endeavour they had the full support of NATO and the US military, not to
mention the so-called "international community" symbolised by the UN
Mission to Kosovo (UNMIK), headed by France's former Minister of Health
Bernard Kouchner:
According to the Skopje daily Dnevnik, the KPC had established a "sixth
operation zone" in Southern Serbia and Macedonia:
"Sources, who insist on anonymity, claim that the headquarters of the
Kosovo protection brigades [i.e. linked to the UN sponsored KPC] have
[March 2000] already been formed in Tetovo, Gostivar and Skopje. They
are being prepared in Debar and Struga [on the border with Albania] as
well, and their members have defined codes." (Macedonian Information
Centre Newsletter, Skopje, 21 March 2000, published by BBC Summary of
World Broadcast, 24 March 2000)
According to the BBC, "Western special forces were still training the
guerrillas" meaning that they were assisting the KLA in opening up "a
sixth operation zone" in Southern Serbia and Macedonia. (BBC, 29
January 2001, at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/europe/newsid_1142000/
1142478.stm )
Ironically the United Nations in a confidential February 2000 report to
Secretary General Kofi Annan acknowledged that the KPC, was responsible
for "criminal activities . . . killings, ill-treatment (and) torture,
illegal policing, abuse of authority, intimidation, breaches of
political neutrality and hate-speech.". These occurred at the height
of Bernard Kouchner's "humanitarian" mandate as the UN Interim
Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) (15 July 1999 to 12 January
2001).
And in this regard, Kouchner, whose mandate was to channel humanitarian
aid under UN auspices, worked closely with NATO officials including
Wesley Clark in providing support to Kosovo's terrorist paramilitary
army. (See photo below ). Let us not forget that Bernard Kouchner was
the Founder of "Doctors without Borders".(MÈdecins sans frontiËres)
According to the London Observer, "the grim message to the U.N.
secretary-general is that his own organization [led by UNMIK Head
Bernard Kouchner] is paying the salaries of many of the offenders"
(Observer, http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/031400-03.htm , 14
March 2000)
The 2004 Presidential Elections
What choices for the US Electorate?
The evidence presented above confirms that both the Democrats and the
Republicans have links to Al Qaeda and are complicit in the "war on
terrorism".
In a bitter irony, the very same terrorist organization (Al Qaeda)
which were supported by successive administrations, is heralded in both
the Republican and Democratic election platforms as "an enemy of
America". (See Michel Chossudovsky, Expose the Links between Al Qaeda
and the Bush Administration, Centre for Research on Globalization,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO303D.html , 15 March 2003).
Ironically, Osama bin Laden has become part of the election ritual,
providing all the necessary buzz-words for a stylized debate on
"Homeland Security", which is a central feature of the election
platform of both political parties. . .
Republicans or Democrats: The war agenda remains intact . The Democrats
do not oppose President Bush's request to Congress to allocate $87
billion to finance Iraq's occupation and "reconstruction." :
"The consent on financing the occupation and the reconstruction of
Iraq are strong indications that there will be no substantial change in
the U.S. policy in the region, at least until the strategic goal of the
war is achieved." (Salameh Nematt, Bin Laden and the U.S. Elections,
Salameh Nematt Al-Hayat, 11 September 2003,
http://english.daralhayat.com/OPED/09-2003/Article-20030911-9082bea7-
c0a8-01ed-002a-cc14f6dc4d75/story.html )
The Republicans led the first Gulf war, the Democrats led the wars in
the Balkans leading to the military occupation of Bosnia-Herzegovina
under the Dayton Accords in 1995 and the invasion of Kosovo in 1999.
The Democrats were in office during the devastating wars in Rwanda and
the Congo, leading to more than 3 million deaths. The Democrats and the
Republicans joined hands in enforcing the "No Fly Zone" (1991-2003) and
a twelve year program of economic sanctions and bombing of Iraq.
The Clinton-led wars in the Balkans were a stage of the "road-map".
They were part of a broader US led-war extending from the Balkans into
the Middle East and Central Asia.
Republicans present a consistent team dominated by the Neo-cons
including former Iran Contra officials of the Reagan administration.
The GOP's war agenda is defined in terms of "multiple and simultaneous
theater wars" as contained in the Project for the New American Century
(PNAC). (See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html ). The
PNAC also foresaw the triggering of a so-called "Pearl Harbor Event" to
mobilize public opinion in support of the war agenda. (Ibid).
While there are substantive differences between the Neo-Cons and
leading Democrats, Bush's National Security doctrine is, in many
regards, a continuation of that formulated by Clinton in 1995, which
was based on a "strategy of containment of rogue states".
There are significant differences. The NeoCons are more reckless than
the Democrats, particularly with regard to nuclear policy. The
Democrats under the Clinton adminstration were more skillful in using
the UN system and multilateral framework to their advantage to
effectively pursue their war agenda.
It is worth mentioning, however, that US Central Command (USCENTCOM)
had already, during the Clinton administration, formulated "in theater
war plans" to invade Iraq and Iran. And the stated objective of these
1995 war plans was oil::
"The broad national security interests and objectives expressed in the
President's National Security Strategy (NSS) [President Clinton] and
the Chairman's National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of
the United States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs
implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of
Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests,
to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual
containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region
without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy
is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement,
as espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest
in the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf
oil."(USCENTCOM,
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/
stratgic.htm#USPolicy )
In fact, broadly the same concepts of Homeland Defense, preventive
war, etc. are contained in Clinton's 1999 and 2000 National Security
Strategy documents.(See
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/national/ )
In other words, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq under the Bush
administration were part of the bipartisan road-map to Empire, --i.e. a
continuation of a war agenda which had already been decided upon well
in advance of Bush's accession to the White House in January 2001. This
should come as no surprise since many of the people in charge of these
war plans, including CIA director George Tenet,had been appointed
during the Clinton administration.
Increasingly, the military-intelligence establishment (rather than the
State Department, the White House and the US Congress) call the shots
on US foreign policy , with the Texas oil giants, the defense
contractors and Wall Street operating discretely behind the scenes.
Ultimately, the war agenda and "Homeland Security" (including the
ongoing militarisation of civilian police and judicial institutions)
are determined by powerful economic interests. Party politics largely
serves as a smokescreen.
It is, therefore, unlikely that the Democrats would undo either the War
agenda or the Patriot Act.
Totalitarian State in America: De facto Military Dictatorship
The backbone of this system is militarisation, including territorial
conquest and military occupation. Behind the democratic facade and the
bipartisan ritual, a de facto military dictatorship prevails.
Militarisation in turn endorses and enforces the global "free market"
on behalf of dominant economic and financial interests.
In other words, the underlying political and economic power structures
will not be fundamentally modified through "regime rotation" and the
ritual of presidential and Congressional elections.
To effectively build their "legitimacy", both the Democrats and
Republicans need to uphold the falsehoods behind the "war on terrorism".
Sustaining the "freedom and democracy rhetoric" is not only part of
this bipartisan ritual, it is part of the process of building a
totalitarian State in America under the disguise of a functioning
democracy.
Let us be under no illusion: the 2004 presidential elections will not
result in a significant change of direction.
To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the war
machine namely the production of advanced weapons systems (WMDs) must
be dismantled, the evolving police state must be dismantled, etc.
To achieve these broad objectives, it is essential to break the
legitimacy of the military and political actors who rule in our name.
The falsehoods which sustain the legitimacy of the bipartisan ritual
must be unraveled.
Both parties share the same war agenda. There are war criminals in
both political parties. Both parties are complicit in the 9/11
cover-up.
The evidence points to what is best described as "the criminalization
of the State", which also includes the Judiciary and the bipartisan
corridors of the US Congress.
In the words of Andreas van Buelow, former German Minister of Defense
and author of The CIA and September 11: "If what I say is right, the
whole US government should end up behind bars,"
---
Photo:
1999 War Criminals Join Hands (Kosovo 1999).
From Left to Right:
Hashim Thaci, Head of the KLA, closely linked to Osama bin Laden's Al
Qaeda. Hashim Thaci had ordered political assassinations directed
against the Party of Ibrahim Rugova. Thaci was a protÈgÈ of Madeleine
Albright (see photo below).
Bernard Kouchner, Head of United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) in
Kosovo (July 1999- January 2001), instrumental in elevating the KLA to
UN status.
General Michael Jackson, Commander of KFOR Troops in Kosovo.
General Agim Ceku, Military Commander of the KPC, investigated by the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) "for
alleged war crimes committed against ethnic Serbs in Croatia between
1993 and 1995." ( AFP 13 Oct 1999)
General Wesley Clark, NATO Supreme Commander.
[The only person missing in the photo is Osama bin Laden.]
---
Photos:
Madeleine Albright greets KLA Hashim Thaci
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke (appointed by President Clinton) with a
KLA Commander, Summer 1998
Source of pictures: Senate Republican Party Committee,
http://www.kosovo.com/rpc.html
---
Michel Chossudovsky is the author of War and Globalisation, the Truth
behind Septmber 11 , 2003. For details click here .
Recent writings by Michel Chossudovsky
© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, CRG 2003 For fair use only/ pour
usage Èquitable seulement .
INTERVENTO DELLO STORICO ANGELO DEL BOCA, ORATORE UFFICIALE
ALLA COMMEMORAZIONE DEL 50° ANNIVERSARIO DELL'ECCIDIO DI FONDOTOCE
Cari Amici!
sono passati quasi sessant'anni da quel terribile 20 giugno 1944 ed
ancora oggi si stenta a credere che un popolo civile come quello
tedesco che ha dato i natali a kant, a Goethe, a Schiller, a Thomas
Mann, possa essersi macchiato di questo e di altre migliaia di crimini,
in Italia e in Europa. Sembra impossibile che un paese che ha ascoltato
la predicazione di un geniale riformatore religioso come Martin Lutero,
che si scagliava contro il mercato delle indulgenze per proclamare il
primato della fede, abbia perso completamente la fede in Dio e negli
uomini, per ritornare ai riti pagani di Odino e del Walhalla, e per
sprofondare nella peggiore barbarie, nella quale sarebbe stato
possibile concepire persino l'Olocausto. Eppure ciò è accaduto. Qui. in
questa vasta sana affossata. ai confini tra il Verbano e l’Ossola, la
generazione educata da Hitler ha voluto darci un esempio di come si può
creare l'inferno in terra, con tutti i suoi gironi, ì suoi tormenti, i
suoi spasimi.
Se noi ripercorriamo la via crucis dei 43 partigiani, che ha inizio
dalle cantine dell'Asilo infantile di Malesco, ci accorgiamo che i
nazisti intendono inscenare uno spettacolo, il più odioso e macabro
possibile, per ricordare alle popolazioni della regione, che hanno
osato sfidare il soldato tedesco, che esso è intoccabile ed impunibile,
in quanto appartiene ad una
razza superiore, destinata a governare l'Europa e forse, col tempo,
anche l'intero pianeta. Che egli appartenga al popolo eletto,
all'Herrenvolk, lo scandisce la precisa disposizione del
feldmaresciallo Albert Kesserling: per ogni tedesco ucciso debbono
pagare con la vita dieci italiani.
Sono le ore 15 del 20 giugno quando un reparto di SS preleva dalla
cantina di Villa Caramona, ad Intra, i quarantatrè partigiani delle
formazioni "Mario Flaim", "Cesare Battisti" e "Giovine Italia"
rastrellati in VaI Grande. E subito ha inizio lo spettacolo, secondo
una regia malvagia. In testa alla colonna vengono posti il tenente Ezio
Rizzato, dal volto "orribilmente tumefatto per le percosse ricevute"
riferirà un testimone;
Cleonice Tomassetti, che si è attirata l'odio degli aguzzini per aver
invitato compagni a morire con dignità; e due altri partigiani che
reggono un cartello, che recita: "Sono questi i liberatori d'Italia
oppure sono banditi?". Seguono gli altri condannati; a morte, sotto 'la
stretta sorveglianza dei nazisti. È una giornata particolarmente afosa
e il cammino da Intra a Fondotoce è lungo, sembra infinito. Quasi tutti
i partigiani recano i segni delle violenze e delle torture subite a
Malesco e a Intra. Alcuni hanno il viso coperto di sangue,
irriconoscibile. Altri camminano a stento per le percosse ricevute agli
arti inferiori. La colonna lascia Intra, attraversa Pallanza, poi Suna
ed infine l'abitato della frazione di Fondotoce. Se i nazisti contavano
su di uno spettacolo ammonitore, tale da ricordare per secoli il furore
tedesco, debbono ricredersi. Le strade sono
deserte. I cascinali sbarrati. Le finestre chiuse. La nostra gente
osserva si il corteo dei morituri, ma di nascosto, Soffre e prega. La
marcia della morte dura tre lunghissime ore. Alle 18 la colonna giunge
sul greto del canale che allaccia il lago di Mergozzo al lago Maggiore.
E il luogo scelto dai nazisti per la strage. Qui i quarantatrè
partigiani vengono avviati al plotone di esecuzione tre per volta.
Tutti si comportano in modo
ammirevole, a cominciare dall'umile Cleonice Tomassetti, che cade
gridando "Viva l'Italia libera". il tragico cerimoniale dura un'ora.
Poi i colpi di grazia. Dai quali si salva Carlo Suzzi, seppure ferito
in più parti.
Di questo episodio, uno dei più gravi dell'occupazione tedesca,
dobbiamo conservare per sempre la memoria. Senza dimenticare un solo
particolare, una sola brutalità, un solo gesto dì riscatto.
Ci aiutano a ricordare i versi, bellissimi, di Dante Strona:
Fondotoce / una parola lunga, come respiro / per un sonno di pace / su
cuscini d'alghe / sul muro dei fucilati / il capelvenere dei vent’anni
/ al tramonto, l'onda si colora / I come quel giorno.
Degli aguzzini del 20 giugno 1944, ed erano tanti, si sono perse
ovviamente le tracce. Molto probabilmente la storia del loro crimine è
contenuta in uno dei 695 fascicoli gelosamente custoditi per decenni
nell"'armadio della vergogna". Come è noto, pochissimi processi furono
celebrati nel dopoguerra
contro i criminali nazisti. I generali von Mackensen e Maltzer,
incriminati per la strage delle Fosse Ardeatine, furono condannati alla
pena capitale, presto commutata nell'ergastolo. Ma nel 1952, tanto von
Mackensen che
Kesserling, venivano rimessi in libertà. E noi, oggi, sappiamo anche il
perché. Come hanno riferito gli storici Filippo Focardi e Lutz
Klinkhammer, la diplomazia e il Governo italiani decisero di limitare
le rivendicazioni nei confronti dei criminali di guerra tedeschi per
paura che un'azione energica contro i tedeschi si ritorcesse a danno
dell'Italia, impegnata a proteggere i propri cittadini reclamati per
crimini di guerra da Stati esteri (in prima fila, dalla Jugoslavia)".
Mai baratto fu più odioso ed immondo. Ma non era che il principio. Chi
è avanti negli anni, come chi vi parla, ricorderà benissimo che nei
primi anni del dopoguerra furono istruiti moltissimi processi contro i
partigiani, mentre una sciagurata amnistia mandava assolti migliaia di
criminali. fascisti e nazisti. Non mancarono
neppure i tentativi per abbattere la Repubblica nata dalla Resistenza.
Il più clamoroso fu quello del governo Tambroni, d'intesa con i
neofascisti del Movimento Sociale Italiano, per fare dell'Italia una
copia della Grecia dei colonnelli.
Falliti i golpe contro la Repubblica (non va dimenticato quello di
Junio Valerio Borghese, già comandante della X° Flottiglia MAS e
alleato di Hitler nei seicento giorni di Salò), sì tentava di nuocere
all’epopea della Resistenza con mezzi più subdoli e malvagi. Ad
esempio, riducendone il valore sotto il profilo militare, sminuendo il
suo apporto alla vittoria finale, anche se il primo a riconoscerlo e ad
apprezzarlo era lo stesso generale americano Mark Clark, comandante in
capo delle forze alleate in Italia.
Per chi le ha dimenticate, le sue parole di elogio, pronunciate il 30
aprile subito dopo la sua entrata nella Milano liberata dalle forze
partigiane, vogliamo oggi ricordarle:
"Patrioti ora che la guerra è finita, sento il dovere di rivolgere a
voi che con la vostra azione avete tanto contribuito al conseguimento
della vittoria, il mio profondo compiacimento. Siete stati degni delle
nobili tradizioni lasciate in retaggio dai martiri e dagli eroi del
Risorgimento. Avete dato alla causa della civiltà democratica tutto
quanto era in vostro potere. Ciò non sarà dimenticato".
Non sono parole di circostanza. E neppure dettate dall'emozione. Uomo
di guerra, abituato a muovere sui vari fronti centinaia di migliaia di
uomini ed a valutare le perdite nella fornace di una guerra moderna, il
generale Clark sa perfettamente che cosa significano 44.720 partigiani
uccisi e
21.168 invalidi. Sa che è stata una guerra di popolo, una guerra di
liberazione dallo straniero, che ha mobilitato 364.773 fra partigiani
combattenti e patrioti. Ossia il più vasto e spontaneo movimento
popolare che la storia d'Italia ricordi.
Il generale Clark è anche in grado di valutare lo straordinario apporto
della Resistenza nelle operazioni di antisabotaggio e nella difesa
dell'apparato produttivo. Le centrali idroelettriche dell'Ossola
vengono poste in salvo grazie ai partigiani. E sono ancora i partigiani
a salvare il porto di Genova, che genieri del generale Gunther Meinhold
avevano minato. Questi fatti, queste cifre, vengono troppo spesso
dimenticati. O addirittura
contestati, contro ogni evidenza.
Un altro modo di denigrare il movimento partigiano è quello di
enfatizzarne le supposte fratture e rivalità. L'eccidio di Porzus, ad
esempio, viene spesso usato a questo scopo, dimenticando che
l'increscioso episodio di Porzus è un caso isolato e scontato in una
guerra per bande che ha coinvolto alcune centinaia di migliaia di
combattenti di tutte le estrazioni sociali. Per fare un paragone si
pensi alla guerra di liberazione dell'Algeria, che ha mobilitato meno
dì un terzo delle forze partigiane italiane e che ha causato, per
dissidi interni al Fronte di Liberazione Nazionale e relative purghe,
ben 13 mila morti.
Ma il compito del revisionismo storico, che da mezzo secolo infuria nel
nostro paese, con la pretesa dì ristabilire la verità su quel periodo
storico, è proprio quello di offuscare e dì distruggere l'immagine
radiosa della Resistenza con limitazioni e calunnie. "Ma quando una
causa è stata difesa con così possente lotta di popolo - scriveva Cino
Moscatellì nel
1958 - questa causa non muore. Lo spirito garibaldino non muore. Esso
animerà sempre i figli migliori della terra nostra finché ci siano
tenebre da fugare, servitù da abbattere, ingiustizie da vincere".
Da qualche tempo si assiste anche ad una nuova manovra, altrettanto
subdola e da respingere con fermezza. Si tratta della pretesa di
equiparare i partigiani ai militi di Salò, e ciò in base alla
considerazione che entrambi gli schieramenti hanno combattuto per la
stessa patria e molti, nei due campi, si sono sacrificati per essa. Il
risultato di questa equiparazione - si sostiene a destra, ma non
soltanto a destra - è la
riconciliazione fra i partigiani e i "ragazzi di Salò" una
riconciliazione che dovrebbe porre fine a sessant'anni di polemiche, di
scontri, di incomprensioni. Anche se sono passati sessant'anni dai
giorni della Resistenza e i nostri animi sono sicuramente più inclini
al perdono e alla comprensione, una tale proposta non può che essere
respinta. Perché si tratta di una proposta insostenibile, antistorica e
soprattutto ingiusta.
Non si può porre sullo stesso piano i partigiani, che si sono battuti
per cacciare dall'Italia il tedesco invasore e per riportare nel paese
le istituzioni democratiche abbattute dalla dittatura fascista, e i
"ragazzi di Salò" e i loro padri, che hanno combattuto per ridare fiato
al fascismo e per mantenere l'Europa sotto il tallone nazista. Non si
può mettere sullo stesso piano vittime e carnefici, combattenti per la
libertà ed alleati dei
creatori dei lager di sterminio
Con quale coraggio si propone oggi una riconciliazione quando ogni
giorno si verificano in Italia episodi di intolleranza, di teppismo, di
antisemitismo. Soltanto negli ultimi mesi sono state profanate le tombe
e le lapidi commemorative di partigiani a Torino, Modena, Genova,
Coreglia Ligure, Mira
Taglio, Cernobbio e al sacrario della Benedicta. Per non parlare delle
scritte di matrice neofascista e delle svastiche apparse a Roma,
Milano, Treviso, Pistoia, Cesena, Lucca, Ameglia, Montebelluno di
Treviso e in altre decine di località. E lungo sarebbe l'elenco delle
aggressioni neofasciste, culminate a Milano, il 17 marzo, con
l'uccisione del giovane antifascista Davide "Dax" Cesare e il ferimento
di Antonino Alesi. Ma non basta. Don Gianni Baget Bozzo noto
consigliere del premier Berlusconi, e alcuni parlamentari di Forza
Italia e di Alleanza Nazionale hanno in animo di presentare una
proposta di legge per abolire la festa del 25 aprile, con l'assurda
giustificazione che la lotta di liberazione non sarebbe stata un
movimento popolare ed avrebbe anzi diviso la coscienza nazionale. La
proposta non è ancora arrivata in parlamento, ma ciò che è accaduto il
25 aprile scorso e nella vigilia sembra una prova generale per la sua
abolizione. Per cominciare, a Treviso, il vecchio partigiano Agostino
Pavan è stato bersagliato dai leghisti con monetine mentre teneva il
discorso ufficiale. A Roma, il portavoce di Forza Italia, Sandro Bondi,
ha sostenuto che la responsabilità delle stragi naziste, quella di
Marzabotto in testa, ricade sui partigiani "che hanno radicalizzato lo
scontro con i nazisti in ritirata". Per finire, all'invito del
presidente Ciampi di recarsi in Quirinale a festeggiare il 25 aprile,
il Premier Berlusconi ha disertato la
cerimonia con la scusa banale che aveva problemi ad una mano. Non c'è
alcun dubbio. E ormai chiaro che si tende a tagliare il legame tra
antifascismo, Resistenza e Costituzione. Anche se la proposta di
abolire la ricorrenza del 25 aprile non dovesse passare, per la decisa
opposizione delle forze
democratiche del paese, è comunque evidente l'intento di seppellire,
anno dopo anno, questa gloriosa data sotto un velo di neutralità, sino
a renderla insignificante. Ma noi siamo convinti che esistono ancora
nel nostro paese forze sufficienti per impedire quest'ultimo oltraggio.
E vorremmo che oggi, qui, in questo luogo che ha visto il sacrificio di
42 eroici partigiani,
prendessimo tutti insieme l'impegno di difendere la memoria della lotta
di liberazione, quella lotta che, come ha precisato l'ex capo dello
Stato Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, non può, nè deve essere riscritta, perché
in essa affondano le radici della nostra democrazia.
Vorremmo concludere questo intervento citando un brano del manifesto
che il capitano Filippo Maria Beltrami fece affiggere in Omegna
nell'ultima notte dell'anno 1943. Dice il testo:
"E allora il popolo ha il diritto di gridare, deve gridare: BASTA!
Basta con queste infamie, basta con questi massacri. E questo grido che
già gonfia i petti sia raffica di vento che tutto spazzi, tutto
distrugga davanti a sé. Terribile diventi la nostra ira, l'ira di tutta
la nostra gente martoriata ed oppressa. Viva l'Italia!"
Quando il "capitano" stila questo manifesto, mancano soltanto 34 giorni
alla sua morte gloriosa a Megolo. E si può capire la sua ira, le sue
parole di fuoco, l'invito a gridare: BASTA! Oggi la situazione nel
nostro paese è sicuramente meno drammatica. Non c'è alcuna guerra in
corso. Non c'è alcun nemico straniero che occupa le nostre contrade.
Non ci sono avvisaglie di una guerra civile. E tuttavia ci sono troppe
anomalie nel nostro paese, troppi attentati alla Costituzione, troppo
disprezzo per le regole fondamentali della democrazia, perché si possa
vivere nella serenità e nella fiducia nell'avvenire. C'è in molti di
noi che hanno partecipato alla guerra di Liberazione, una profonda
inquietudine, una sconfinata amarezza, un senso
di impotenza che ci opprime. Ed anche - lo confessiamo - un poco di
quell'ira che il capitano Beltrami avvertiva. Una sana, giustificata,
troppo a lungo repressa ira. Ed anche la voglia prepotente di gridare:
BASTA!
Angelo Del Boca
(Fonte: COMITATO DI UNITÀ ANTIFASCISTA E ANTIMPERIALISTA - OLEGGIO
Fotocop. in proprio Via S. Maria, 11- 28047 OLEGGIO (NO)
e diffuso sulla lista: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. )
ALLA COMMEMORAZIONE DEL 50° ANNIVERSARIO DELL'ECCIDIO DI FONDOTOCE
Cari Amici!
sono passati quasi sessant'anni da quel terribile 20 giugno 1944 ed
ancora oggi si stenta a credere che un popolo civile come quello
tedesco che ha dato i natali a kant, a Goethe, a Schiller, a Thomas
Mann, possa essersi macchiato di questo e di altre migliaia di crimini,
in Italia e in Europa. Sembra impossibile che un paese che ha ascoltato
la predicazione di un geniale riformatore religioso come Martin Lutero,
che si scagliava contro il mercato delle indulgenze per proclamare il
primato della fede, abbia perso completamente la fede in Dio e negli
uomini, per ritornare ai riti pagani di Odino e del Walhalla, e per
sprofondare nella peggiore barbarie, nella quale sarebbe stato
possibile concepire persino l'Olocausto. Eppure ciò è accaduto. Qui. in
questa vasta sana affossata. ai confini tra il Verbano e l’Ossola, la
generazione educata da Hitler ha voluto darci un esempio di come si può
creare l'inferno in terra, con tutti i suoi gironi, ì suoi tormenti, i
suoi spasimi.
Se noi ripercorriamo la via crucis dei 43 partigiani, che ha inizio
dalle cantine dell'Asilo infantile di Malesco, ci accorgiamo che i
nazisti intendono inscenare uno spettacolo, il più odioso e macabro
possibile, per ricordare alle popolazioni della regione, che hanno
osato sfidare il soldato tedesco, che esso è intoccabile ed impunibile,
in quanto appartiene ad una
razza superiore, destinata a governare l'Europa e forse, col tempo,
anche l'intero pianeta. Che egli appartenga al popolo eletto,
all'Herrenvolk, lo scandisce la precisa disposizione del
feldmaresciallo Albert Kesserling: per ogni tedesco ucciso debbono
pagare con la vita dieci italiani.
Sono le ore 15 del 20 giugno quando un reparto di SS preleva dalla
cantina di Villa Caramona, ad Intra, i quarantatrè partigiani delle
formazioni "Mario Flaim", "Cesare Battisti" e "Giovine Italia"
rastrellati in VaI Grande. E subito ha inizio lo spettacolo, secondo
una regia malvagia. In testa alla colonna vengono posti il tenente Ezio
Rizzato, dal volto "orribilmente tumefatto per le percosse ricevute"
riferirà un testimone;
Cleonice Tomassetti, che si è attirata l'odio degli aguzzini per aver
invitato compagni a morire con dignità; e due altri partigiani che
reggono un cartello, che recita: "Sono questi i liberatori d'Italia
oppure sono banditi?". Seguono gli altri condannati; a morte, sotto 'la
stretta sorveglianza dei nazisti. È una giornata particolarmente afosa
e il cammino da Intra a Fondotoce è lungo, sembra infinito. Quasi tutti
i partigiani recano i segni delle violenze e delle torture subite a
Malesco e a Intra. Alcuni hanno il viso coperto di sangue,
irriconoscibile. Altri camminano a stento per le percosse ricevute agli
arti inferiori. La colonna lascia Intra, attraversa Pallanza, poi Suna
ed infine l'abitato della frazione di Fondotoce. Se i nazisti contavano
su di uno spettacolo ammonitore, tale da ricordare per secoli il furore
tedesco, debbono ricredersi. Le strade sono
deserte. I cascinali sbarrati. Le finestre chiuse. La nostra gente
osserva si il corteo dei morituri, ma di nascosto, Soffre e prega. La
marcia della morte dura tre lunghissime ore. Alle 18 la colonna giunge
sul greto del canale che allaccia il lago di Mergozzo al lago Maggiore.
E il luogo scelto dai nazisti per la strage. Qui i quarantatrè
partigiani vengono avviati al plotone di esecuzione tre per volta.
Tutti si comportano in modo
ammirevole, a cominciare dall'umile Cleonice Tomassetti, che cade
gridando "Viva l'Italia libera". il tragico cerimoniale dura un'ora.
Poi i colpi di grazia. Dai quali si salva Carlo Suzzi, seppure ferito
in più parti.
Di questo episodio, uno dei più gravi dell'occupazione tedesca,
dobbiamo conservare per sempre la memoria. Senza dimenticare un solo
particolare, una sola brutalità, un solo gesto dì riscatto.
Ci aiutano a ricordare i versi, bellissimi, di Dante Strona:
Fondotoce / una parola lunga, come respiro / per un sonno di pace / su
cuscini d'alghe / sul muro dei fucilati / il capelvenere dei vent’anni
/ al tramonto, l'onda si colora / I come quel giorno.
Degli aguzzini del 20 giugno 1944, ed erano tanti, si sono perse
ovviamente le tracce. Molto probabilmente la storia del loro crimine è
contenuta in uno dei 695 fascicoli gelosamente custoditi per decenni
nell"'armadio della vergogna". Come è noto, pochissimi processi furono
celebrati nel dopoguerra
contro i criminali nazisti. I generali von Mackensen e Maltzer,
incriminati per la strage delle Fosse Ardeatine, furono condannati alla
pena capitale, presto commutata nell'ergastolo. Ma nel 1952, tanto von
Mackensen che
Kesserling, venivano rimessi in libertà. E noi, oggi, sappiamo anche il
perché. Come hanno riferito gli storici Filippo Focardi e Lutz
Klinkhammer, la diplomazia e il Governo italiani decisero di limitare
le rivendicazioni nei confronti dei criminali di guerra tedeschi per
paura che un'azione energica contro i tedeschi si ritorcesse a danno
dell'Italia, impegnata a proteggere i propri cittadini reclamati per
crimini di guerra da Stati esteri (in prima fila, dalla Jugoslavia)".
Mai baratto fu più odioso ed immondo. Ma non era che il principio. Chi
è avanti negli anni, come chi vi parla, ricorderà benissimo che nei
primi anni del dopoguerra furono istruiti moltissimi processi contro i
partigiani, mentre una sciagurata amnistia mandava assolti migliaia di
criminali. fascisti e nazisti. Non mancarono
neppure i tentativi per abbattere la Repubblica nata dalla Resistenza.
Il più clamoroso fu quello del governo Tambroni, d'intesa con i
neofascisti del Movimento Sociale Italiano, per fare dell'Italia una
copia della Grecia dei colonnelli.
Falliti i golpe contro la Repubblica (non va dimenticato quello di
Junio Valerio Borghese, già comandante della X° Flottiglia MAS e
alleato di Hitler nei seicento giorni di Salò), sì tentava di nuocere
all’epopea della Resistenza con mezzi più subdoli e malvagi. Ad
esempio, riducendone il valore sotto il profilo militare, sminuendo il
suo apporto alla vittoria finale, anche se il primo a riconoscerlo e ad
apprezzarlo era lo stesso generale americano Mark Clark, comandante in
capo delle forze alleate in Italia.
Per chi le ha dimenticate, le sue parole di elogio, pronunciate il 30
aprile subito dopo la sua entrata nella Milano liberata dalle forze
partigiane, vogliamo oggi ricordarle:
"Patrioti ora che la guerra è finita, sento il dovere di rivolgere a
voi che con la vostra azione avete tanto contribuito al conseguimento
della vittoria, il mio profondo compiacimento. Siete stati degni delle
nobili tradizioni lasciate in retaggio dai martiri e dagli eroi del
Risorgimento. Avete dato alla causa della civiltà democratica tutto
quanto era in vostro potere. Ciò non sarà dimenticato".
Non sono parole di circostanza. E neppure dettate dall'emozione. Uomo
di guerra, abituato a muovere sui vari fronti centinaia di migliaia di
uomini ed a valutare le perdite nella fornace di una guerra moderna, il
generale Clark sa perfettamente che cosa significano 44.720 partigiani
uccisi e
21.168 invalidi. Sa che è stata una guerra di popolo, una guerra di
liberazione dallo straniero, che ha mobilitato 364.773 fra partigiani
combattenti e patrioti. Ossia il più vasto e spontaneo movimento
popolare che la storia d'Italia ricordi.
Il generale Clark è anche in grado di valutare lo straordinario apporto
della Resistenza nelle operazioni di antisabotaggio e nella difesa
dell'apparato produttivo. Le centrali idroelettriche dell'Ossola
vengono poste in salvo grazie ai partigiani. E sono ancora i partigiani
a salvare il porto di Genova, che genieri del generale Gunther Meinhold
avevano minato. Questi fatti, queste cifre, vengono troppo spesso
dimenticati. O addirittura
contestati, contro ogni evidenza.
Un altro modo di denigrare il movimento partigiano è quello di
enfatizzarne le supposte fratture e rivalità. L'eccidio di Porzus, ad
esempio, viene spesso usato a questo scopo, dimenticando che
l'increscioso episodio di Porzus è un caso isolato e scontato in una
guerra per bande che ha coinvolto alcune centinaia di migliaia di
combattenti di tutte le estrazioni sociali. Per fare un paragone si
pensi alla guerra di liberazione dell'Algeria, che ha mobilitato meno
dì un terzo delle forze partigiane italiane e che ha causato, per
dissidi interni al Fronte di Liberazione Nazionale e relative purghe,
ben 13 mila morti.
Ma il compito del revisionismo storico, che da mezzo secolo infuria nel
nostro paese, con la pretesa dì ristabilire la verità su quel periodo
storico, è proprio quello di offuscare e dì distruggere l'immagine
radiosa della Resistenza con limitazioni e calunnie. "Ma quando una
causa è stata difesa con così possente lotta di popolo - scriveva Cino
Moscatellì nel
1958 - questa causa non muore. Lo spirito garibaldino non muore. Esso
animerà sempre i figli migliori della terra nostra finché ci siano
tenebre da fugare, servitù da abbattere, ingiustizie da vincere".
Da qualche tempo si assiste anche ad una nuova manovra, altrettanto
subdola e da respingere con fermezza. Si tratta della pretesa di
equiparare i partigiani ai militi di Salò, e ciò in base alla
considerazione che entrambi gli schieramenti hanno combattuto per la
stessa patria e molti, nei due campi, si sono sacrificati per essa. Il
risultato di questa equiparazione - si sostiene a destra, ma non
soltanto a destra - è la
riconciliazione fra i partigiani e i "ragazzi di Salò" una
riconciliazione che dovrebbe porre fine a sessant'anni di polemiche, di
scontri, di incomprensioni. Anche se sono passati sessant'anni dai
giorni della Resistenza e i nostri animi sono sicuramente più inclini
al perdono e alla comprensione, una tale proposta non può che essere
respinta. Perché si tratta di una proposta insostenibile, antistorica e
soprattutto ingiusta.
Non si può porre sullo stesso piano i partigiani, che si sono battuti
per cacciare dall'Italia il tedesco invasore e per riportare nel paese
le istituzioni democratiche abbattute dalla dittatura fascista, e i
"ragazzi di Salò" e i loro padri, che hanno combattuto per ridare fiato
al fascismo e per mantenere l'Europa sotto il tallone nazista. Non si
può mettere sullo stesso piano vittime e carnefici, combattenti per la
libertà ed alleati dei
creatori dei lager di sterminio
Con quale coraggio si propone oggi una riconciliazione quando ogni
giorno si verificano in Italia episodi di intolleranza, di teppismo, di
antisemitismo. Soltanto negli ultimi mesi sono state profanate le tombe
e le lapidi commemorative di partigiani a Torino, Modena, Genova,
Coreglia Ligure, Mira
Taglio, Cernobbio e al sacrario della Benedicta. Per non parlare delle
scritte di matrice neofascista e delle svastiche apparse a Roma,
Milano, Treviso, Pistoia, Cesena, Lucca, Ameglia, Montebelluno di
Treviso e in altre decine di località. E lungo sarebbe l'elenco delle
aggressioni neofasciste, culminate a Milano, il 17 marzo, con
l'uccisione del giovane antifascista Davide "Dax" Cesare e il ferimento
di Antonino Alesi. Ma non basta. Don Gianni Baget Bozzo noto
consigliere del premier Berlusconi, e alcuni parlamentari di Forza
Italia e di Alleanza Nazionale hanno in animo di presentare una
proposta di legge per abolire la festa del 25 aprile, con l'assurda
giustificazione che la lotta di liberazione non sarebbe stata un
movimento popolare ed avrebbe anzi diviso la coscienza nazionale. La
proposta non è ancora arrivata in parlamento, ma ciò che è accaduto il
25 aprile scorso e nella vigilia sembra una prova generale per la sua
abolizione. Per cominciare, a Treviso, il vecchio partigiano Agostino
Pavan è stato bersagliato dai leghisti con monetine mentre teneva il
discorso ufficiale. A Roma, il portavoce di Forza Italia, Sandro Bondi,
ha sostenuto che la responsabilità delle stragi naziste, quella di
Marzabotto in testa, ricade sui partigiani "che hanno radicalizzato lo
scontro con i nazisti in ritirata". Per finire, all'invito del
presidente Ciampi di recarsi in Quirinale a festeggiare il 25 aprile,
il Premier Berlusconi ha disertato la
cerimonia con la scusa banale che aveva problemi ad una mano. Non c'è
alcun dubbio. E ormai chiaro che si tende a tagliare il legame tra
antifascismo, Resistenza e Costituzione. Anche se la proposta di
abolire la ricorrenza del 25 aprile non dovesse passare, per la decisa
opposizione delle forze
democratiche del paese, è comunque evidente l'intento di seppellire,
anno dopo anno, questa gloriosa data sotto un velo di neutralità, sino
a renderla insignificante. Ma noi siamo convinti che esistono ancora
nel nostro paese forze sufficienti per impedire quest'ultimo oltraggio.
E vorremmo che oggi, qui, in questo luogo che ha visto il sacrificio di
42 eroici partigiani,
prendessimo tutti insieme l'impegno di difendere la memoria della lotta
di liberazione, quella lotta che, come ha precisato l'ex capo dello
Stato Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, non può, nè deve essere riscritta, perché
in essa affondano le radici della nostra democrazia.
Vorremmo concludere questo intervento citando un brano del manifesto
che il capitano Filippo Maria Beltrami fece affiggere in Omegna
nell'ultima notte dell'anno 1943. Dice il testo:
"E allora il popolo ha il diritto di gridare, deve gridare: BASTA!
Basta con queste infamie, basta con questi massacri. E questo grido che
già gonfia i petti sia raffica di vento che tutto spazzi, tutto
distrugga davanti a sé. Terribile diventi la nostra ira, l'ira di tutta
la nostra gente martoriata ed oppressa. Viva l'Italia!"
Quando il "capitano" stila questo manifesto, mancano soltanto 34 giorni
alla sua morte gloriosa a Megolo. E si può capire la sua ira, le sue
parole di fuoco, l'invito a gridare: BASTA! Oggi la situazione nel
nostro paese è sicuramente meno drammatica. Non c'è alcuna guerra in
corso. Non c'è alcun nemico straniero che occupa le nostre contrade.
Non ci sono avvisaglie di una guerra civile. E tuttavia ci sono troppe
anomalie nel nostro paese, troppi attentati alla Costituzione, troppo
disprezzo per le regole fondamentali della democrazia, perché si possa
vivere nella serenità e nella fiducia nell'avvenire. C'è in molti di
noi che hanno partecipato alla guerra di Liberazione, una profonda
inquietudine, una sconfinata amarezza, un senso
di impotenza che ci opprime. Ed anche - lo confessiamo - un poco di
quell'ira che il capitano Beltrami avvertiva. Una sana, giustificata,
troppo a lungo repressa ira. Ed anche la voglia prepotente di gridare:
BASTA!
Angelo Del Boca
(Fonte: COMITATO DI UNITÀ ANTIFASCISTA E ANTIMPERIALISTA - OLEGGIO
Fotocop. in proprio Via S. Maria, 11- 28047 OLEGGIO (NO)
e diffuso sulla lista: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. )
