Informazione
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
Date: 06/09/2002
ZASTAVA im zweiten Jahr der Vorbereitungen fuer
die Privatisierung
Ruzica Milosavljevic
Belgrad, 05 September 2002
infograf@...
Programm der Konsolidierung der Firma ZASTAVA ist
das Symbol der Aenderungen und Transition
geworden, schon in der Zeit, als alleinige seine
Ankuendigung geraeuschvolle Revolte der
kragujevaker Arbeiter hervorgerufen hat, wegen
der Status - und Organisations "Brueche", die auf
ihre Fabriken warteten. Neben den grossen
Anspannen, Protesten, Streicken und sogar
physischen Angriffen an die Minister Mitglieder
des Rates fuer die strategische Konsolidierung am
27.07.2001 ist letzlich das "Abkommen ueber die
Status-und Organisationsumwandlung und der
strategiaschen Konsolidierung der Gruppe
ZASTAVA", unterzeichnet worden.
Fuer die Begleitung und Realisierung dieses
Abkommens von der Seite der Regierung Serbiens
wurde der Rat fuer die strategische
Konsolidierung ZASTAVA.
Realisierung dieses Abkommens ist in zwei Phasen
vorgesehen : erste Phase versteht die Status -
und Organisationskonsolidierung und zweite Phase
versteht das Prozess der Restrukturierung und
schliesslich die Privatisierung.
In die Status - und Organisationskonsolidierung
ist ZASTAVA mit fast 16000 ueberschuessige
Arbeiter, mit grossen Verlusten und vollkommen
unvorbereitet fuer den Marktkampf.
Im Rahmen dieses Prozesses sind aus dem System
der ZASTAVA - Gruppe 24 Fabriken in denen 8439
Arbeiter taetig ist, selbststaendig gemacht
worden und der Rest ist in die Gestaltung des
neugebildeten Holding - ZASTAVA VOZILA( Zastava -
Fahrzeuge) eingegangen, wo 8303 Arbeiter
geblieben ist.
Das schwerste Segment der Realisierung der ersten
Phase dieses Abkommens ist die Loesung des Satus
von fast 16000 Arbeiter, die ohne Arbeitsplaetze
geblieben sind.
Zum Zwecke der Milderung der erwartenden grossen
Unzufriedenheit der Arbeiter, die ohne
Arbeitsplatz geblieben sind, ist im Rahmen von
ZASTAVA die neue Gesellschaft "Zastava
Beschaeftigung und Ausbildung", abgekurzt ZZO,
gebildet, wo die Ueberqualifizirung und
Ausbildung als auch Erfindung der neuen
Beschaeftigung durchgefuehrt werden.
Die uebernommene Ueberschusse an Arbeiter werden
das Status der Beschaeftigten in ZZO haben
(praktisch werden sie nicht arbeiten), und das im
Dauer von laengstens vier Jahre und sie werden
einen Ersatz in der Hoehe von 45 % vom Verdienst,
das er an seinem Arbeitsplatz bekommen wuerde,
erhalten. Die zweite Moeglichkeit ist die
einmalige Abfindung in der Hohe von 200 DM fuer
jeses Jahr der Dienstzeit zu erhalten. Solche
angebotene Loesungen und besonders die Zahl von
fast 16.000 Arbeiter, die ohne Arbeitsplaetze
geblieben sind, hat die Serie der Protesste der
unzufriedenen Arbeiter hervorgeruft, mit der
grossen Shance, dass das in den unkontrolirten
sozialen Aufstand uebergehet.
Zerstueckelte und getrennte Gewekschaften wollten
nicht, die Unzufriedenheit der Arbeiter und ihre
feste Entschlossenheit, in den Fabriken zu
bleiben, ausnuetzen fuer die beste Verhandlungs -
Position, im Sinne des erzielens der besseren
Loesungen fuer die Arbeiter, im Bezug darauf ,
was angeboten ist.
Schliesslich sah das als grosser,
gewerkschaftlicher Verrat aus, und die Arbeiter
sind ohne echten Kentnisse ueber ihre Rechte,
gezwungen gewesen, zwischen diesen zwei Uebel zu
waehlen.
Genau ein Jahr nach der Anwendung dieses
Abkommens, am 27.07.2002, haben republische
Minister und Mitglieder des Rates fuer die
Konsolidierung als auch die Geschaeftsfuehrung
aus ZASTAVA zufrieden an die Journalisten die
Ergebnisse der ersten Phase der Vorbereitung der
ZASTAVA fuer die Privatisierung, mitgeteilt.
Beide sind zum Schluss gekommen, dass das
Abkommen gemaess dem Plan und dem Programm
durchgefuehrt wird, worauf die Kontinuitaet und
die Steigerung der Produktion hinweisen, dann
dass die Bedingungen erfuellt sind, dass man mit
dem Auswahl des oekonomischen, finanziellen und
juristischen Beraters fuer die Privatisierung in
die zweite Phase der Privatisierung von "ZASTAVA
VOZILA" eingeht, und dass fuer neun selbsstaendig
gemachten Fabriken aus dem ZASTAVA -System, das
Prozess des schnellen Auktions - Verkaufs
geoeffnet wird. In die erste Phase der ZASTAVA -
Konsolidierungwurde 50.000.000 Euro investiert,
und zwar 42.000.000 Euro fuer die Abfindungen von
8000 Arbeiter, die Zastava verlassen haben und
Entschaedigungen fuer 7000 Arbeiter, die sich an
ZZO befinden, und im Namen der Umsatzmittel 6,2
Millionen Euro.
Im Gegenteil zur dieser Zufriedenheit ankuendigen
sich die Gewerkschaften mit der Bahauptung, dass
das unterzeichnete Abkommen nicht eingehalten
wird, dass es die ernsthaftere Produktion, als
auch die Eroeffnung der neuen Arbeitsplaetze kaum
gibt, und dass sich neben dem reinen Ueberleben
der Fabrik, gar nichts auf besseres geaendert
hat.
Der Schluss ist, dass die Entscheidung auf die
Bewegung der neuen Phase der Privatisierung
verfrueht ist, und dass inwieweit man bis Ende
August keine wahrnehmbare Vorschritte machen
wuerde, immer straengere Massnahmen der
Gewerschaft des gewerkschaftlichen Kampfes
angemeldet werden. Ungeachtet so widersprechenden
Stellungnahmen haben die Mitglieder des
staatlichen Rates fuer die Konsolidierung der
ZASTAVA haben den Beschluss gefasst und seit
Monat Juni ist in ZASTAVA der Prozess der zweiten
Phase der Restrukturierung und die Vorbereitung
fuer die endgueltige Privatisierung angefangen.
Durch diesen Prozess wird die kragujevaker
Kompanie von der Seite des Konsortiums der
Berater, "Citadel Finansial Adrisory", "Odien
Restructuring", "Ernst and Jung" und "Joksovic
partneri" gefuehrt werden. Der Chef der
Beratergruppe ist Bernard Hanon, langjaeriger
Vorsitzender des Verwaltungausschusses in
"RENAULT".
Man erwartet die Beendigung der Tender -
Unterlagen fuer die Privatisierung der ZASTAVA
VOZILA bis Ende des Jahres. Die Botschaft des
Ressort-Ministers fuer die Privatisierung ist
dass Tender nicht ausgeschrieben wird, bis sein
Erfolg nicht gebuergt wird.
Arbeiter teilen aber den Optimismus des Ministers
nicht. Im Gegenteil, sie haben Angst vor
endgueltigerem Schluss von ZASTAVA und sie wissen
ueber die Privatisierung nicht viel ausser
dessen, dass das, was bis jetzt passiert hat, sie
grob trifft.
office@...
Date: 06/09/2002
ZASTAVA im zweiten Jahr der Vorbereitungen fuer
die Privatisierung
Ruzica Milosavljevic
Belgrad, 05 September 2002
infograf@...
Programm der Konsolidierung der Firma ZASTAVA ist
das Symbol der Aenderungen und Transition
geworden, schon in der Zeit, als alleinige seine
Ankuendigung geraeuschvolle Revolte der
kragujevaker Arbeiter hervorgerufen hat, wegen
der Status - und Organisations "Brueche", die auf
ihre Fabriken warteten. Neben den grossen
Anspannen, Protesten, Streicken und sogar
physischen Angriffen an die Minister Mitglieder
des Rates fuer die strategische Konsolidierung am
27.07.2001 ist letzlich das "Abkommen ueber die
Status-und Organisationsumwandlung und der
strategiaschen Konsolidierung der Gruppe
ZASTAVA", unterzeichnet worden.
Fuer die Begleitung und Realisierung dieses
Abkommens von der Seite der Regierung Serbiens
wurde der Rat fuer die strategische
Konsolidierung ZASTAVA.
Realisierung dieses Abkommens ist in zwei Phasen
vorgesehen : erste Phase versteht die Status -
und Organisationskonsolidierung und zweite Phase
versteht das Prozess der Restrukturierung und
schliesslich die Privatisierung.
In die Status - und Organisationskonsolidierung
ist ZASTAVA mit fast 16000 ueberschuessige
Arbeiter, mit grossen Verlusten und vollkommen
unvorbereitet fuer den Marktkampf.
Im Rahmen dieses Prozesses sind aus dem System
der ZASTAVA - Gruppe 24 Fabriken in denen 8439
Arbeiter taetig ist, selbststaendig gemacht
worden und der Rest ist in die Gestaltung des
neugebildeten Holding - ZASTAVA VOZILA( Zastava -
Fahrzeuge) eingegangen, wo 8303 Arbeiter
geblieben ist.
Das schwerste Segment der Realisierung der ersten
Phase dieses Abkommens ist die Loesung des Satus
von fast 16000 Arbeiter, die ohne Arbeitsplaetze
geblieben sind.
Zum Zwecke der Milderung der erwartenden grossen
Unzufriedenheit der Arbeiter, die ohne
Arbeitsplatz geblieben sind, ist im Rahmen von
ZASTAVA die neue Gesellschaft "Zastava
Beschaeftigung und Ausbildung", abgekurzt ZZO,
gebildet, wo die Ueberqualifizirung und
Ausbildung als auch Erfindung der neuen
Beschaeftigung durchgefuehrt werden.
Die uebernommene Ueberschusse an Arbeiter werden
das Status der Beschaeftigten in ZZO haben
(praktisch werden sie nicht arbeiten), und das im
Dauer von laengstens vier Jahre und sie werden
einen Ersatz in der Hoehe von 45 % vom Verdienst,
das er an seinem Arbeitsplatz bekommen wuerde,
erhalten. Die zweite Moeglichkeit ist die
einmalige Abfindung in der Hohe von 200 DM fuer
jeses Jahr der Dienstzeit zu erhalten. Solche
angebotene Loesungen und besonders die Zahl von
fast 16.000 Arbeiter, die ohne Arbeitsplaetze
geblieben sind, hat die Serie der Protesste der
unzufriedenen Arbeiter hervorgeruft, mit der
grossen Shance, dass das in den unkontrolirten
sozialen Aufstand uebergehet.
Zerstueckelte und getrennte Gewekschaften wollten
nicht, die Unzufriedenheit der Arbeiter und ihre
feste Entschlossenheit, in den Fabriken zu
bleiben, ausnuetzen fuer die beste Verhandlungs -
Position, im Sinne des erzielens der besseren
Loesungen fuer die Arbeiter, im Bezug darauf ,
was angeboten ist.
Schliesslich sah das als grosser,
gewerkschaftlicher Verrat aus, und die Arbeiter
sind ohne echten Kentnisse ueber ihre Rechte,
gezwungen gewesen, zwischen diesen zwei Uebel zu
waehlen.
Genau ein Jahr nach der Anwendung dieses
Abkommens, am 27.07.2002, haben republische
Minister und Mitglieder des Rates fuer die
Konsolidierung als auch die Geschaeftsfuehrung
aus ZASTAVA zufrieden an die Journalisten die
Ergebnisse der ersten Phase der Vorbereitung der
ZASTAVA fuer die Privatisierung, mitgeteilt.
Beide sind zum Schluss gekommen, dass das
Abkommen gemaess dem Plan und dem Programm
durchgefuehrt wird, worauf die Kontinuitaet und
die Steigerung der Produktion hinweisen, dann
dass die Bedingungen erfuellt sind, dass man mit
dem Auswahl des oekonomischen, finanziellen und
juristischen Beraters fuer die Privatisierung in
die zweite Phase der Privatisierung von "ZASTAVA
VOZILA" eingeht, und dass fuer neun selbsstaendig
gemachten Fabriken aus dem ZASTAVA -System, das
Prozess des schnellen Auktions - Verkaufs
geoeffnet wird. In die erste Phase der ZASTAVA -
Konsolidierungwurde 50.000.000 Euro investiert,
und zwar 42.000.000 Euro fuer die Abfindungen von
8000 Arbeiter, die Zastava verlassen haben und
Entschaedigungen fuer 7000 Arbeiter, die sich an
ZZO befinden, und im Namen der Umsatzmittel 6,2
Millionen Euro.
Im Gegenteil zur dieser Zufriedenheit ankuendigen
sich die Gewerkschaften mit der Bahauptung, dass
das unterzeichnete Abkommen nicht eingehalten
wird, dass es die ernsthaftere Produktion, als
auch die Eroeffnung der neuen Arbeitsplaetze kaum
gibt, und dass sich neben dem reinen Ueberleben
der Fabrik, gar nichts auf besseres geaendert
hat.
Der Schluss ist, dass die Entscheidung auf die
Bewegung der neuen Phase der Privatisierung
verfrueht ist, und dass inwieweit man bis Ende
August keine wahrnehmbare Vorschritte machen
wuerde, immer straengere Massnahmen der
Gewerschaft des gewerkschaftlichen Kampfes
angemeldet werden. Ungeachtet so widersprechenden
Stellungnahmen haben die Mitglieder des
staatlichen Rates fuer die Konsolidierung der
ZASTAVA haben den Beschluss gefasst und seit
Monat Juni ist in ZASTAVA der Prozess der zweiten
Phase der Restrukturierung und die Vorbereitung
fuer die endgueltige Privatisierung angefangen.
Durch diesen Prozess wird die kragujevaker
Kompanie von der Seite des Konsortiums der
Berater, "Citadel Finansial Adrisory", "Odien
Restructuring", "Ernst and Jung" und "Joksovic
partneri" gefuehrt werden. Der Chef der
Beratergruppe ist Bernard Hanon, langjaeriger
Vorsitzender des Verwaltungausschusses in
"RENAULT".
Man erwartet die Beendigung der Tender -
Unterlagen fuer die Privatisierung der ZASTAVA
VOZILA bis Ende des Jahres. Die Botschaft des
Ressort-Ministers fuer die Privatisierung ist
dass Tender nicht ausgeschrieben wird, bis sein
Erfolg nicht gebuergt wird.
Arbeiter teilen aber den Optimismus des Ministers
nicht. Im Gegenteil, sie haben Angst vor
endgueltigerem Schluss von ZASTAVA und sie wissen
ueber die Privatisierung nicht viel ausser
dessen, dass das, was bis jetzt passiert hat, sie
grob trifft.
... The United States of America adopted so-called American
Servicemembers Protection Act - ASPA. President George Bush
signed it into law on August 2, 2002. In such a way the United
States definitely defined its stand on the International Criminal
Court, which was created at the diplomatic conference under the
auspices of the United Nations in Rome in July 1998. Its Statute
came into force on July 1, 2002 after receiving 6o ratifications.
Yugoslavia also ratified it ("Official Gazette of the FRY", No.5/2001).
(...)
Legally speaking, KFOR and UNMIK which are in Kosovo and Metohija,
are on the Yugoslav territory. Yugoslavia is a state party
to the ICC from the very first day of its existence, July 1, 2002.
Legally speaking, therefore, the members of KFOR and UNMIK
would be under the jurisdiction of the ICC if they commit some
of crimes in the competence of the ICC whether they are
Americans or not.
However, it seems that the position of KFOR is different from
the position of UNMIK. Namely, in the Military-technical
Agreement, which Yugoslavia had to sign, there is the following
more than the colonial provision: "The international security
force ("KFOR") nor any of its personnel or staff shall be liable
for any damages to public or private property that they may
cause in the course of duties related to the implementation
of this Agreement. The parties will agree a Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) as soon as possible". If the SOFA was not
concluded as was intended - and as far as I know this is the case -
the members of KFOR would be under the jurisdiction of the ICC
(for UNMIK it is undeniable). Probably, the U.S. will request
the conclusion of an agreement exempting the Americans from the
ICC's jurisdiction whether members of KFOR or UNMIK.
SFOR is in Bosnia-Herzegovina on the basis of the Dayton
Accords. Annex 1A contains also so-called SOFA (Status of Forces
Agreement) containing classic standards of the status of foreign
troops on the territory of a foreign country. That status in
effect means that the troops remain under the jurisdiction of
a sending state, which means exemption from criminal
jurisdiction of the receiving state. If the article 98 of the
Statute of the ICC means that bilateral treaties prevail over
the Statute - it seems that that is the meaning of that article,
although it is not clear - then members of SFOR in
Bosnia-Herzegovina are not under the jurisdiction of the ICC
but are under the provisions of the SOFA.
(Excerpted from:
"UNITED STATES ADOPTED LAW AGAINST INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT"
by Dr. Milan Tepavac, Belgrade, 04 August 2002 - Published on
http://www.artel.co.yu
A serbocroation version is attached at the end.)
===*===
Kostunica: U.S. DEMANDS UNDERMINE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER
BELGRADE, Aug 13 (Beta) - Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica said on
Aug. 12 that acceptance of the U.S. agreeement exempting U.S. citizens
from extradition to the new International Criminal Court would
seriously undermine the international legal order.
Kostunica said that signing such an agreement would undermine legal
systems of the countries which ratified the Rome treaty on establishing
the court.
He added that the issue would decide the future of the new international
legal institution.
Kostunica said that the establishment of a permanent court would prevent
selectivity so often ascribed to the Hague tribunal and that the new
court has to be able to put everyone on trial.
Kostunica speaks out against US immunity request
BELGRADE, Aug13(Reuters) Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica
yesterday spoke out against a US request for a bilateral agreement
to prevent American citizens from being handed over to the new
International Criminal Court (ICC).
"Those who would enjoy immunity from prosecution would not only sleep
soundly, but would also be encouraged to keep committing crimes," was
quoted as saying yesterday evening. The US, which has some 5,000
peacekeepers in Kosovo, opposes the new court and has approached
countries to negotiate bilateral agreements to avoid prosecution of
American personnel. Kostunica, a lawyer by trade, claimed such an
agreement would undermine international law.
Sense news agency reported yesterday that Yugoslavia?s aspirations to
join NATO?s Partnership for Peace could hinge on its response to the
US request.
"The real question is whether this court will try everyone and really be
a court or try only some and, in that case, will not be a court," the
Yugoslav president argued.
Svilanovic: Yugoslavia supports work of International Criminal Court
BELGRADE, Aug 15 (Tanjug) - Yugoslavia has received from the United
States a proposal to sign a bilateral agreement which would prevent the
extradition of US citizens to the new International Criminal Court, but
no definite decision has been made about this at this time, Yugoslav
Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic has said.
Speaking for prime-time news on national television RTS late Wednesday,
Svilanovic said the country's position was clear. "We support the work
of the International Criminal Court. I personally signed a document
stating that our parliament has ratified the agreement making us a
founder-country of that court," he said.
"We will discuss the US proposal, naturally, primarily with
member-states of the International Criminal Court, also in particular
with member-states of the European Union. That decision has not been
made at this time," Svilanovic said.
"We will carefully follow the dialogue under way at this time between
the European Union, actually the member-signatories and founders of the
International Criminal Court, and we are among them, and the United
States, and we shall see whether it is possible to arrive at a
compromise or not.
In any case, we will not hurry with this decision, bearing in mind our
obligations to the International Criminal Court and our expectations
about future cooperation both with the European Union and the United
States," Svilanovic said.
SVILANOVIC: Belgrade waiting on EU-US dialogue
BELGRADE/LJUBLJANA, Avg 15 (B92) Yugoslavia will wait for talks between
the EU and US before deciding whether to accept an American proposal for
indemnity for US citizens from prosecution by the International Criminal
Court, Yugoslavia's foreign minister told B92 yesterday.
"It is well-known that Yugoslavia welcomes the founding and work of the
International Criminal Court, and as far as the US proposal is concerned
we will consult with other members of the court, particularly with EU
members," said Goran Svilanovic.
The US is seeking a series of bilateral agreements guaranteeing American
civilians and military personnel serving abroad will not find themselves
before the new international court.
Svilanovic said Belgrade was "in no hurry" to make its decision. "This
is a serious and delicate question which concerns our country's
international obligations."
The foreign minister claimed the issue need not threaten relations
between Belgrade and Washington: "The delicacy of this issue relates
not only to bilateral relations between the US and Yugoslavia, but to a
broader global plan of defining relations between the leading political
actors," he said.
Belgrade will use the announced visit of US Ambassador-at-Large for War
Crimes Issues Pierre Richard Prosper to discuss the issue further, added
Svilanovic.
Slovenia has already rejected the proposal and Croatia is reported to be
considering also turning it down. Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica
spoke out against the deal last week, claiming it flew in the face of
international law.
US plays down Kostunica opposition to immunity deal
WASHINGTON, Avg 15 (Sense) Washington sees the Yugoslav president's
rejection of its request for a bilateral agreement on US indemnity from
prosecution before the International Criminal Court as his personal
stance, and not Belgrade's official response, Sense news agency reports
today.
Sense quoted a White House official as saying talks with America's
"allies and partners are in their initial stages" and that it was too
early to draw any concrete conclusions.
Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica this week dismissed the deal as a
potential violation of international law. "Those who would enjoy
immunity from prosecution would not only sleep soundly, but would also
be encouraged to keep committing crimes," he was quoted as saying.
The US is said to be particularly keen on securing Yugoslavia's
agreement since almost half America's peacekeeping force is serving in
the Yugoslav province of Kosovo.
The US official said there was no link between the request for immunity
and Yugoslavia's bid to join the Partnership for Peace.
PRIME MINISTER: YUGOSLAVIA MUST NOT RUSH WITH SIGNING AGREEMENT WITH U.S
belgrade, aug 18 (Beta) -yugoslav prime minister Dragisa Pesic has said
that Yugoslavia must not rush with deciding on whether to sign a
bilateral agreement with the u.s. "for a simple reason -- a negative
answer could worsen our relations with America."
Pesic confirmed that Yugoslavia received an official proposal from the
u.s. for signing an inter-state agreement granting u.s. citizens
immunity
before the international criminal court.
He said he expected official Brussels to very quickly define "a final
stand on America's proposal on signing bilateral agreements, on the
basis
of which the most influential country of the world could avoid the
jurisdiction of the newly founded International Criminal Court."
"The federation of Serbia and Montenegro is striving towards EU
membership and, accordingly, we must be on the political course of the
organization we would like to join," Pesic said.
===*===
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
Datum:08. avgust 2002.
SJEDINJENE DR?AVE USVOJILE ZAKON PROTIV ME?UNARODNOG
KRIVICNOG SUDA
Dr Milan Tepavac
miltep@...
Beograd, 05. avgust 2002. god.
Sjedinjene Americke Dr?ave usvojile su tzv. Zakon o
zastiti americkih pripadnika oru?anih snaga (American
Servicemembers Protection Act - ASPA). Predsednik Bus
potpisao ga je 2. avgusta 2002. Time su SAD
definitivno odredile svoj stav prema stalnom
Medjunarodnom krivicnom sudu ciji je Statut usvojen na
diplomatskoj konferenciji pod okriljem Ujedninjenih
nacija u julu mesecu 1998. godine, a koji je stupio na
snagu 1. jula 2002. godine nakon sto ga je
ratifikovalo 6o dr?ava, medu njima i Jugoslavija
("Slu?beni list SRJ" br. 5/2001). Dakle, s jedne
strane potpuno negiraju medunarodno krivicno sudovanje
u principu, a s druge strane vrse stalan pritisak na
Jugoslaviju i Republiku Srpsku radi "pune saradnje" sa
nelegalnim i nelegitimnim tzv. Haskim tribunalom!
I. AMERIKA U PRINCIPU NE PRIZNAJE ME?UNARODNO KRIVICNO
SUDOVANJE PA NI STALNI ME?UNARODNI KRIVICNI SUD
Sjedinjene Americke Dr?ave su odmah nakon diplomatske
konferencije u Rimu 1998. stavile do znanja da nece da
ratifikuju Statut Medunarodnog krivicnog suda (MKS)
usvojen na toj konferenciji, te, na taj nacin, nece
priznavati ovaj sud. Ni finansiranje tog suda niti
bilo kakav vid saradnje sa njim ne dolazi u obzir.
Americki vlastodrsci su ovu odluku saopstili
generalnom sekretaru Ujedinjenih nacija upravo nedavno
kada su ujedno pojacali svoj pritisak na Jugoslaviju
da mora da udovolji svim zahtevima njihovog ilegalnog
"suda", takozvanog Medunarodnog tribunala za prethodnu
Jugoslaviju, na prvom mestu isporucivanje svih koje
"tribunal" zahteva i predaju svih dokumenata koje
dr?ava Jugoslavija ima a relevantni su za "tribunal"!
Isti njihov ambasador koji vrslja po Jugoslaviji,
preti i ucenjuje tim haskim "sudom" , Pierre-Richard
Prosper, po svetu objasnjava zasto su SAD kategoricno
protiv MKS!!
Osnovne karakteristike ovog suda
Statut MKS usvojen je na diplomatskoj konferenciji UN
u Rimu 1998. godine. Posto je ovih dana polo?en
sezdeseti ratifikacioni instrument, Statut je stupio
na snagu 1. jula ove godine. Jugoslavija je Statut
ratifikovala 22.juna 2001, a objavljen je u "Slu?benom
listu SRJ", br. 5 od 27. juna 2001. Sediste suda bice
u Hagu.
Prema clanu 5 Statuta, ovaj sud ima nadle?nost u
pogledu sledecih krivicnih dela: genocida, zlocina
protiv covecnosti, ratnih zlocina i agresije kako su
ova medunarodna krivicna dela definisana u Statutu.
Ustvari, sud nema nadle?nosti u pogledu agresije, jer
je to pitanje odgodeno za sedam godina naokon stupanja
na snagu Statuta, posto se na diplomatskoj
konferenciji nije mogla postici saglasnost niti oko
definicije agresije, niti oko nadle?nosti suda u
pogledu ovog najte?eg medunarpodnog krivicnog dela iz
koga ustvari proisticu sva ostala navedena dela.
Ponovilo se, ustvari ono, sto su autori takozvanog
Medunarodnog krivicnog suda za prethodnu Jugoslaviju
(ICTY) zlonamerno - anticipirajuci agresiju na
Jugoslaviju - smislili: iskljuciti nadle?nost suda u
pogledu agresije! tako da velike sile, pre svih SAD,
mogu da rade sta hoce. Svidalo se to nekome ili ne,
Karla del Ponte je formalno u pravu kada veli da ICTY
nije nadle?an za agresiju NATO pakta na
Jugosaviju.Tako su hteli kreatori ICTY i tako su
zapisali u njegovom statutu!
Kada se govori o MKS treba imati na umu da je on,
prema clanu 11 Statuta, nadle?an samo u pogledu onih
navedenih medunarodnih krivicnih dela koja su ucinjena
nakon stupanja na snagu Statuta, to jest nakon 1. jula
2002. Ono sto se dogodilo pre toga nije u nadle?nosti
ovog suda. Pojela maca. Nema veze Hirosima, nema veze
Hagasaki, nema veze Drezden, nema veze Vijetnam, nema
veze Kambod?a, nema veze Indonezija, nema veze Istocni
Timor, nema veze Grenada, nema veze Panama, nema veze
agresija na Jugoslaviju, nema veze secesionisticki
ratovi u Jugoslaviji (unutrasnja agresija), nema veze
Avganistan, nema veze D?enin. Ima veze samo Srbi i
Ruanda! - Dakle, nije usvojen princip da je uslov za
krivicnu odgovornost pred ovim sudom opsti princip
krivicnog prava da je u vreme izvrsenja krivicnog dela
odredeno ponasanje bilo inkriminisano kao krivicno
delo, nego stupanje na snagu Statuta. Prema tome, oni
koji su do 1.jula 2002. pocinili bilo koje od
navedenih krivicnih dela ne treba da strahuju od ovog
suda!
Ponovimo da je sud nadle?an u pogledu genocida,
zlocina protiv covecnosti i ratnih zlocina onako kako
su ova krivicna dela formulisana u Statutu (clanovi 6,
7 i 8). Ali, clan 21 ovlascuje sud da primenjuje i
druge izvore medunarodnog prava kada sud nade da
formulacije iz Statuta nisu adekvatne. Ovo je, cini mi
se, dosta interesantna odredba koja omogucuje da sud,
ustvari, mo?e da primenjuje opste medunarodno kricno
pravo pri donosenju svojih odluka.
Razila?enje saveznika
Po pitanju ovog suda doslo je do otvorenog neslaganja,
pa i sukoba, izmedu Sjedinjenih Dr?ava s jedne, i
Kanade i dr?ava clanica Evropske unije s druge strane.
Kanada ne samo da je ratifikovala Statut nego je bila
jedan od inicijatora citavog nastojanja da se osnuje
jedan stalni medunarodni krivicni sud. Sve clanice EU
su takode medu prvima ratifikovale Statut, ukljucujuci
cak i Veliku Britaniju i Nemacku. Amerikanci su se
citavo vreme dr?ali rezervisano prema samoj ideji
osnivanja ovakvog suda. Oni su ucestvovali i na
osnivackoj konferenciji u Rimu, ali ne da bi doprineli
ostvarivanju ideje koja je stara par vekova medu
medunarodnim pravnicima, nego da bi minirali tu ideju.
Ali, to im je samo delimicno poslo za rukom (na primer
fakticno iskljucivanje agresije iz nadle?nosti suda).
Pod velikim pritiskom saveznika predsednik Klinton je
cak i potpisao Statut, ali je i tom prilikom dao na
znanje da ga nece slati na ratifikaciju u Senat ne
samo zato sto mu je bilo dobro poznato da Senat nece
ni da cuje za ratifikaciju, nego i zato sto ni njegova
administracija nije bila za ratifikaciju.
Predsednik Bus i njgova administracija ne samo da su
obavestile generalnog sekretara UN da ne nameravaju da
priznaju MKS, nego su ucinili i potez bez presedana u
medunarodnom pravu i medunarodnim odnosima: obavestili
su UN da "povlace potpis" Klintona sa Statuta! Ovo je
izazvalo pravi revolt saveznika, a narocito hiljada i
hiljada raznih medunarodnih organizacija "za zastitu
ljudskih prava" koje su bile glavni proponenti
osnivanja MKS, praveci pritisak na svoje dr?ave.
Amerikanci svoj odbojan stav objasnjavaju tako sto
vele da sud mo?e da ugrozi nacionalne interese SAD,
mo?e biti politicki motivisan, da mogu biti ugro?eni
americki funkcioneri i gradani, a narocito njihovi
vojnici. Zato su SAD ne samo protiv MKS, vec u
Kongresu je predlog zakona kojim se predvida mogucnost
da predsednik mo?e narediti i upotrebu sile protiv
svake one dr?ave koja bi za racun tog suda uhapsila
Amerikanca kao i mogucnost drugih mera protiv takve
dr?ave, kao sto je uskracivanje ekonomske i vojne
pomoci svakoj zamlji koja ratfikuje pristupanje ovom
sudu! Od svake dr?ave, na cijoj se teritoriji nalaze
trupe SAD po bilo kom osnovu tra?ice se da se obave?u
da nece saradivati sa MKS kada se radi o Amerikancima.
Rusija, Kina...
Rusija i Kina nisu tako kategoricno protiv MKS, ali
nisu ni za njega. Igraju nekakvu cudnu igru tako sto
ne nastupaju otvoreno protiv suda, ali ne predla?u
njegovu ratifikaciju. Putin se plasi da bi zbog
Cecenije mogao da do?ivi sudbinu Slobodana Milosevica,
a bogami i Kinezi imaju razloga za strahovanje zbog
pitanja ljudskih prava tamo kod njih...Dakle, sa
ovakvim odnosom SAD, Rusije i Kine prema ovom sudu
ostaje otvoreno pitanje kako ce uopste ta institucija
da proradi i kako ce u praksi funkcionisati. Ostaje,
dakle, da vreme poka?e da li su kreatori ove
institucije idealisti ili su ipak u kakvoj-takvoj
saglasnosti sa politickom realnoscu savremenog sveta.
II. USVAJANJE ZAKONA PROTIV ME?UNARODNOG KRIVICNOG
SUDA
Dakle, kao sledeci korak prema potpunom negiranju
prava medunarodne zajednice da organizuje svima
prihvatljivo organizovanje medunarodog krivicnog
sudovanja za najte?a medunarodna krivicna dela na
nacin kako je to predvideno za osnovani Medunarodni
krivicni sud SAD su pribegle zaista drakonskoj meri
koja je iznenadila cak i njihove najprivr?enije
prijatelje - kao sto su dr?ave clanice EU - usvajanjem
Zakona o zastiti pripadnika americkih oru?anih snaga.
U najkracem, ovim se zakonom:
- za branjuje SAD bilo kakva sradnja sa MKS,
- ogranicava ucesce SAD u mirovnim operacijama UN,
- zabranjuje vojna pomoc vecini zemalja koje su
ratifikovale Statut MKS,
- ovlascuje predsednik SAD da upotrebi "sva pogodna i
potrebna sredstva" da oslobodi svakog pripadnika
personala SAD i saveznika koji bi se nasli u vlasti
MKS ili u njegovo ime.
Zakonom se zabranjuje slanje americkih trupa u zemlje
koje saraduju sa Medunarodnim krivicnim sudom. Zabrana
se ne odnosi na zemlje NATO, Japan, Ju?nu Koreju i
druge glavne americke saveznike, kao ni na Tajvan (sto
je odmah izazvalo reakciju Pekinga).
Protivnici ovog zakona vec su ga nazvali "Zakon o
invaziji Haga". I to naravno sa razlogom. Jer, sta
drugo mo?e da znaci ovlascenje predsedniku da mo?e da
upotrebi "sva pogodna i potrebna sredstva" da oslobodi
Amerikance ili njihove saveznike koji bi se nasli u
rukama MKS organa ili organa koji rade za njihov racun
nego da je ovlasten da upotrebi i oru?anu silu.
Evropska unija je nasla za shodno da posebno uka?e na
ovu odredbu zakona, upozoravajuci na sve negativne
posledice koje ce ona imati po odnose EU-SAD.
Da bi se ubla?io u svetu negativan odjek ove mere SAD,
autori zakona su pribegli jednom upravo neshvatljivom
i nemoralnom triku time sto su u sam tekst zakona
uneli sledecu odredbu politicke prirode u najru?nijem
smislu ove reci: "Nothing in this title shall prohibit
the United States from rendering assistance to
international efforts to bring to justice Saddam
Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, other
members of Al Queda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and
other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war
crimes or crimes against humanity", izjednacavajuci
tako Slobodana Milosevica sa Sadamom Huseinom, Osamom
bin Ladenom, pripadnicima Al Kaide i liderima
Islamskog D?ihada! U ovih poslednjih dvanaestak godina
navikli smo na mnoge zlocine, la?i i obmane od
americkih zakonodavaca, ali ovakvu i ovoliku podlost
nismo sigurno ocekivali.
Pritisci na Savet bezbednosti UN
Dvanaestog jula 2002. Amerikancima je poslo za rukom
da primoraju Savet bezbednosti UN da prihvati
rezoluciju po osnovu koje se za 12 meseci odla?e
nadle?nopst MKS, cime se znatno, na samom startu
njegovog postojanja, umanjuje njegov autoritet. Do
usvajanja ove rezolucije je doslo nakod visenedeljnih
pritisaka na clanove Saveta bezbednosti da se ovakva
rezolucija prihvati, medu njima dr?ave EU, Kanada i
Meksiko. Amerikanci su pretili da ce, ako se ovakva
rezolucija ne usvoji, SAD odmah povuci sve svoje snage
iz svih mirovnih misija u svetu. I ne samo to. U samoj
rezoluciji se navodi da ce ona, po potrebi, biti
produ?avana godisnje, sto znaci trajno umanjivanje
bilo kakvog prakticnog znacaja MKS. Rezolucija se
odnosi na sve mirovne misije za koje je Savet
bezbednosti dao svoj pristanak, ukljucujuci NATO
misiju u Avganistanu, a posebno na personal u ovim
misijama koji je iz zemalja koje nisu clanice MKS
(koje nisu ratifikovale njegov Statut).
Pritisci na dr?ave koje su ratifikovale Statut MKS
Sjedinjene Americke Dr?ave nisu se zaustavile na
pritiscima na Savet bezbednosti, nego su nastavile da
to cine pojedinacno prema onim dr?avama koje su
postale clanice MKS. U tu svrhu koriste clan 98
Statuta MKS predvida mogucnost zakljucivanja
bilateralnih ugovora o neizrucivanju. Za zakljucivanje
ovakvih ugovora, koji dalje umanjuju znacaj MKS, pod
posebnim pritiskom SAD su dr?ave clanice Evropska
unije. Evropska unija je formirala posebno telo koje
ima zadatak da predlo?i jednu zajednicku platformu
politike Unije na ovakve zahteve SAD.
Posebno je na udaru Holandija u kojoj se nalazi
sediste MKS. Holandija za sada pru?a otpor
nastojanjima SAD da s njom zakljuce bilaterlani ugovor
po osnovu clana 98 Statuta. "Nasa pozicija je u tom
pogledu ista kao pozicija EU i ona je potpuno jasna",
izjavljuje ministar inostranih poslova Holandije.
"Pristajanje na nekakav izuzetak znacilo bi
umanjivanje znacaja suda". Rumunija je, pak,
preduhitrila sve, i prva je zakljucila takav soprazum
sa SAD.
Upravo sada kada zavrsavam pisanje ovog teksta
(6.avgust 2002. ujutro) imam informaciju na Internetu
da su SAD i Izrael zakljuciliisti sporazum. Prema
izdatom saopstenju, "According to the pact, both
countries agreed not to extradite, transfer or
surrender the citizens of one another's country to the
ICC or to a third country, which might transfer them
to The Hague, where the court is located."
Polozaj KFOR i UNMIK u Jugoslaviji i SFOR u BiH
Pravno gledano, KFOR i UNMIK koji deluju na Kosovu i
Metohiji deluje na teritoriji Jugoslavije. Jugoslavija
je, rekli smo, ratifikovala Statut MKS i on je u
odnosu na nju stupio na snagu. 1. jula 2002.
Pripadnici KFOR i UNMIK, pravno gledano, podlo?ni su
nadle?nosti MKS ako bi pocinili neko od krivicnih dela
iz nadle?nosti MKS. To se odnosi na svakog pripadnika
KFOR-a i UNMIK-a, na Amerikance i sve ostale.
Medjutim, po svemu sudeci, polo?aj pripadnika KFOR
razlikuje se od polo?aja UNMIK-a. Naime, u
Vojno-tehnickom sporazumu, koji je Jugoslavija morala
da potpise, koji regulise polo?aj KFOR, ali ne i
UNMIK, ima jedna neverovatna kolonijalna odredba koja
glasi: "The international security force ("KFOR") nor
any of its personnel or staff shall be liable for any
damages to public or private property that they may
cause in the course of duties related to the
implementation of this Agreement. The parties will
agree a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) as soon as
possible". Buduci da sporazum o statusu KFOR-a (SOFA),
koliko je meni poznato, nije zakljucen izmedju
Jugoslavije i KFOR-a kao sto je to bilo planirano,
pripadnici KFOR-a bi mogli biti odgovorni pred MKS (za
UNMIK to je nesporno). Verovatno ce SAD ovo pitanje
pokrenuti, pa ce od Jugoslavije tra?iti potpisivanje
sporazuma o neizrucenju Amerikanaca, bili oni
pripadnici KFOR-a ili UNMIK-a.
Pripadnici SFOR-a u Bosni i Hercegovini su tamo na
osnovu Dejtonskog sporazuma. Aneks 1A tog sporazuma
sadrzi SOFA-u kojim je na klasican nacin regulisan
status pripadnika stranih oru?anih snaga na teritoriji
dr?ave koja ih je primila. Taj status se svodi na to
da vojnici ostaju u vlasti dr?ave koja ih je poslala,
to jest izuzeti su od krivicne jurisdikcije
teritorijalne drzave. Ako clan 98 Statuta MKS ustvari
znaci da bilateralni sporazumi imaju prevagu u odnosu
na Statut - izgleda da je to njegov smisao mada nije
jasno - onda pripadnici SFOR-a u BiH ne spadaju pod
jurisdikciju MKS vec pod odredbe SOFA koji cini
sastavni deo Dejtonskog sporazuma.
Servicemembers Protection Act - ASPA. President George Bush
signed it into law on August 2, 2002. In such a way the United
States definitely defined its stand on the International Criminal
Court, which was created at the diplomatic conference under the
auspices of the United Nations in Rome in July 1998. Its Statute
came into force on July 1, 2002 after receiving 6o ratifications.
Yugoslavia also ratified it ("Official Gazette of the FRY", No.5/2001).
(...)
Legally speaking, KFOR and UNMIK which are in Kosovo and Metohija,
are on the Yugoslav territory. Yugoslavia is a state party
to the ICC from the very first day of its existence, July 1, 2002.
Legally speaking, therefore, the members of KFOR and UNMIK
would be under the jurisdiction of the ICC if they commit some
of crimes in the competence of the ICC whether they are
Americans or not.
However, it seems that the position of KFOR is different from
the position of UNMIK. Namely, in the Military-technical
Agreement, which Yugoslavia had to sign, there is the following
more than the colonial provision: "The international security
force ("KFOR") nor any of its personnel or staff shall be liable
for any damages to public or private property that they may
cause in the course of duties related to the implementation
of this Agreement. The parties will agree a Status of Forces
Agreement (SOFA) as soon as possible". If the SOFA was not
concluded as was intended - and as far as I know this is the case -
the members of KFOR would be under the jurisdiction of the ICC
(for UNMIK it is undeniable). Probably, the U.S. will request
the conclusion of an agreement exempting the Americans from the
ICC's jurisdiction whether members of KFOR or UNMIK.
SFOR is in Bosnia-Herzegovina on the basis of the Dayton
Accords. Annex 1A contains also so-called SOFA (Status of Forces
Agreement) containing classic standards of the status of foreign
troops on the territory of a foreign country. That status in
effect means that the troops remain under the jurisdiction of
a sending state, which means exemption from criminal
jurisdiction of the receiving state. If the article 98 of the
Statute of the ICC means that bilateral treaties prevail over
the Statute - it seems that that is the meaning of that article,
although it is not clear - then members of SFOR in
Bosnia-Herzegovina are not under the jurisdiction of the ICC
but are under the provisions of the SOFA.
(Excerpted from:
"UNITED STATES ADOPTED LAW AGAINST INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT"
by Dr. Milan Tepavac, Belgrade, 04 August 2002 - Published on
http://www.artel.co.yu
A serbocroation version is attached at the end.)
===*===
Kostunica: U.S. DEMANDS UNDERMINE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER
BELGRADE, Aug 13 (Beta) - Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica said on
Aug. 12 that acceptance of the U.S. agreeement exempting U.S. citizens
from extradition to the new International Criminal Court would
seriously undermine the international legal order.
Kostunica said that signing such an agreement would undermine legal
systems of the countries which ratified the Rome treaty on establishing
the court.
He added that the issue would decide the future of the new international
legal institution.
Kostunica said that the establishment of a permanent court would prevent
selectivity so often ascribed to the Hague tribunal and that the new
court has to be able to put everyone on trial.
Kostunica speaks out against US immunity request
BELGRADE, Aug13(Reuters) Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica
yesterday spoke out against a US request for a bilateral agreement
to prevent American citizens from being handed over to the new
International Criminal Court (ICC).
"Those who would enjoy immunity from prosecution would not only sleep
soundly, but would also be encouraged to keep committing crimes," was
quoted as saying yesterday evening. The US, which has some 5,000
peacekeepers in Kosovo, opposes the new court and has approached
countries to negotiate bilateral agreements to avoid prosecution of
American personnel. Kostunica, a lawyer by trade, claimed such an
agreement would undermine international law.
Sense news agency reported yesterday that Yugoslavia?s aspirations to
join NATO?s Partnership for Peace could hinge on its response to the
US request.
"The real question is whether this court will try everyone and really be
a court or try only some and, in that case, will not be a court," the
Yugoslav president argued.
Svilanovic: Yugoslavia supports work of International Criminal Court
BELGRADE, Aug 15 (Tanjug) - Yugoslavia has received from the United
States a proposal to sign a bilateral agreement which would prevent the
extradition of US citizens to the new International Criminal Court, but
no definite decision has been made about this at this time, Yugoslav
Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic has said.
Speaking for prime-time news on national television RTS late Wednesday,
Svilanovic said the country's position was clear. "We support the work
of the International Criminal Court. I personally signed a document
stating that our parliament has ratified the agreement making us a
founder-country of that court," he said.
"We will discuss the US proposal, naturally, primarily with
member-states of the International Criminal Court, also in particular
with member-states of the European Union. That decision has not been
made at this time," Svilanovic said.
"We will carefully follow the dialogue under way at this time between
the European Union, actually the member-signatories and founders of the
International Criminal Court, and we are among them, and the United
States, and we shall see whether it is possible to arrive at a
compromise or not.
In any case, we will not hurry with this decision, bearing in mind our
obligations to the International Criminal Court and our expectations
about future cooperation both with the European Union and the United
States," Svilanovic said.
SVILANOVIC: Belgrade waiting on EU-US dialogue
BELGRADE/LJUBLJANA, Avg 15 (B92) Yugoslavia will wait for talks between
the EU and US before deciding whether to accept an American proposal for
indemnity for US citizens from prosecution by the International Criminal
Court, Yugoslavia's foreign minister told B92 yesterday.
"It is well-known that Yugoslavia welcomes the founding and work of the
International Criminal Court, and as far as the US proposal is concerned
we will consult with other members of the court, particularly with EU
members," said Goran Svilanovic.
The US is seeking a series of bilateral agreements guaranteeing American
civilians and military personnel serving abroad will not find themselves
before the new international court.
Svilanovic said Belgrade was "in no hurry" to make its decision. "This
is a serious and delicate question which concerns our country's
international obligations."
The foreign minister claimed the issue need not threaten relations
between Belgrade and Washington: "The delicacy of this issue relates
not only to bilateral relations between the US and Yugoslavia, but to a
broader global plan of defining relations between the leading political
actors," he said.
Belgrade will use the announced visit of US Ambassador-at-Large for War
Crimes Issues Pierre Richard Prosper to discuss the issue further, added
Svilanovic.
Slovenia has already rejected the proposal and Croatia is reported to be
considering also turning it down. Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica
spoke out against the deal last week, claiming it flew in the face of
international law.
US plays down Kostunica opposition to immunity deal
WASHINGTON, Avg 15 (Sense) Washington sees the Yugoslav president's
rejection of its request for a bilateral agreement on US indemnity from
prosecution before the International Criminal Court as his personal
stance, and not Belgrade's official response, Sense news agency reports
today.
Sense quoted a White House official as saying talks with America's
"allies and partners are in their initial stages" and that it was too
early to draw any concrete conclusions.
Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica this week dismissed the deal as a
potential violation of international law. "Those who would enjoy
immunity from prosecution would not only sleep soundly, but would also
be encouraged to keep committing crimes," he was quoted as saying.
The US is said to be particularly keen on securing Yugoslavia's
agreement since almost half America's peacekeeping force is serving in
the Yugoslav province of Kosovo.
The US official said there was no link between the request for immunity
and Yugoslavia's bid to join the Partnership for Peace.
PRIME MINISTER: YUGOSLAVIA MUST NOT RUSH WITH SIGNING AGREEMENT WITH U.S
belgrade, aug 18 (Beta) -yugoslav prime minister Dragisa Pesic has said
that Yugoslavia must not rush with deciding on whether to sign a
bilateral agreement with the u.s. "for a simple reason -- a negative
answer could worsen our relations with America."
Pesic confirmed that Yugoslavia received an official proposal from the
u.s. for signing an inter-state agreement granting u.s. citizens
immunity
before the international criminal court.
He said he expected official Brussels to very quickly define "a final
stand on America's proposal on signing bilateral agreements, on the
basis
of which the most influential country of the world could avoid the
jurisdiction of the newly founded International Criminal Court."
"The federation of Serbia and Montenegro is striving towards EU
membership and, accordingly, we must be on the political course of the
organization we would like to join," Pesic said.
===*===
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
Datum:08. avgust 2002.
SJEDINJENE DR?AVE USVOJILE ZAKON PROTIV ME?UNARODNOG
KRIVICNOG SUDA
Dr Milan Tepavac
miltep@...
Beograd, 05. avgust 2002. god.
Sjedinjene Americke Dr?ave usvojile su tzv. Zakon o
zastiti americkih pripadnika oru?anih snaga (American
Servicemembers Protection Act - ASPA). Predsednik Bus
potpisao ga je 2. avgusta 2002. Time su SAD
definitivno odredile svoj stav prema stalnom
Medjunarodnom krivicnom sudu ciji je Statut usvojen na
diplomatskoj konferenciji pod okriljem Ujedninjenih
nacija u julu mesecu 1998. godine, a koji je stupio na
snagu 1. jula 2002. godine nakon sto ga je
ratifikovalo 6o dr?ava, medu njima i Jugoslavija
("Slu?beni list SRJ" br. 5/2001). Dakle, s jedne
strane potpuno negiraju medunarodno krivicno sudovanje
u principu, a s druge strane vrse stalan pritisak na
Jugoslaviju i Republiku Srpsku radi "pune saradnje" sa
nelegalnim i nelegitimnim tzv. Haskim tribunalom!
I. AMERIKA U PRINCIPU NE PRIZNAJE ME?UNARODNO KRIVICNO
SUDOVANJE PA NI STALNI ME?UNARODNI KRIVICNI SUD
Sjedinjene Americke Dr?ave su odmah nakon diplomatske
konferencije u Rimu 1998. stavile do znanja da nece da
ratifikuju Statut Medunarodnog krivicnog suda (MKS)
usvojen na toj konferenciji, te, na taj nacin, nece
priznavati ovaj sud. Ni finansiranje tog suda niti
bilo kakav vid saradnje sa njim ne dolazi u obzir.
Americki vlastodrsci su ovu odluku saopstili
generalnom sekretaru Ujedinjenih nacija upravo nedavno
kada su ujedno pojacali svoj pritisak na Jugoslaviju
da mora da udovolji svim zahtevima njihovog ilegalnog
"suda", takozvanog Medunarodnog tribunala za prethodnu
Jugoslaviju, na prvom mestu isporucivanje svih koje
"tribunal" zahteva i predaju svih dokumenata koje
dr?ava Jugoslavija ima a relevantni su za "tribunal"!
Isti njihov ambasador koji vrslja po Jugoslaviji,
preti i ucenjuje tim haskim "sudom" , Pierre-Richard
Prosper, po svetu objasnjava zasto su SAD kategoricno
protiv MKS!!
Osnovne karakteristike ovog suda
Statut MKS usvojen je na diplomatskoj konferenciji UN
u Rimu 1998. godine. Posto je ovih dana polo?en
sezdeseti ratifikacioni instrument, Statut je stupio
na snagu 1. jula ove godine. Jugoslavija je Statut
ratifikovala 22.juna 2001, a objavljen je u "Slu?benom
listu SRJ", br. 5 od 27. juna 2001. Sediste suda bice
u Hagu.
Prema clanu 5 Statuta, ovaj sud ima nadle?nost u
pogledu sledecih krivicnih dela: genocida, zlocina
protiv covecnosti, ratnih zlocina i agresije kako su
ova medunarodna krivicna dela definisana u Statutu.
Ustvari, sud nema nadle?nosti u pogledu agresije, jer
je to pitanje odgodeno za sedam godina naokon stupanja
na snagu Statuta, posto se na diplomatskoj
konferenciji nije mogla postici saglasnost niti oko
definicije agresije, niti oko nadle?nosti suda u
pogledu ovog najte?eg medunarpodnog krivicnog dela iz
koga ustvari proisticu sva ostala navedena dela.
Ponovilo se, ustvari ono, sto su autori takozvanog
Medunarodnog krivicnog suda za prethodnu Jugoslaviju
(ICTY) zlonamerno - anticipirajuci agresiju na
Jugoslaviju - smislili: iskljuciti nadle?nost suda u
pogledu agresije! tako da velike sile, pre svih SAD,
mogu da rade sta hoce. Svidalo se to nekome ili ne,
Karla del Ponte je formalno u pravu kada veli da ICTY
nije nadle?an za agresiju NATO pakta na
Jugosaviju.Tako su hteli kreatori ICTY i tako su
zapisali u njegovom statutu!
Kada se govori o MKS treba imati na umu da je on,
prema clanu 11 Statuta, nadle?an samo u pogledu onih
navedenih medunarodnih krivicnih dela koja su ucinjena
nakon stupanja na snagu Statuta, to jest nakon 1. jula
2002. Ono sto se dogodilo pre toga nije u nadle?nosti
ovog suda. Pojela maca. Nema veze Hirosima, nema veze
Hagasaki, nema veze Drezden, nema veze Vijetnam, nema
veze Kambod?a, nema veze Indonezija, nema veze Istocni
Timor, nema veze Grenada, nema veze Panama, nema veze
agresija na Jugoslaviju, nema veze secesionisticki
ratovi u Jugoslaviji (unutrasnja agresija), nema veze
Avganistan, nema veze D?enin. Ima veze samo Srbi i
Ruanda! - Dakle, nije usvojen princip da je uslov za
krivicnu odgovornost pred ovim sudom opsti princip
krivicnog prava da je u vreme izvrsenja krivicnog dela
odredeno ponasanje bilo inkriminisano kao krivicno
delo, nego stupanje na snagu Statuta. Prema tome, oni
koji su do 1.jula 2002. pocinili bilo koje od
navedenih krivicnih dela ne treba da strahuju od ovog
suda!
Ponovimo da je sud nadle?an u pogledu genocida,
zlocina protiv covecnosti i ratnih zlocina onako kako
su ova krivicna dela formulisana u Statutu (clanovi 6,
7 i 8). Ali, clan 21 ovlascuje sud da primenjuje i
druge izvore medunarodnog prava kada sud nade da
formulacije iz Statuta nisu adekvatne. Ovo je, cini mi
se, dosta interesantna odredba koja omogucuje da sud,
ustvari, mo?e da primenjuje opste medunarodno kricno
pravo pri donosenju svojih odluka.
Razila?enje saveznika
Po pitanju ovog suda doslo je do otvorenog neslaganja,
pa i sukoba, izmedu Sjedinjenih Dr?ava s jedne, i
Kanade i dr?ava clanica Evropske unije s druge strane.
Kanada ne samo da je ratifikovala Statut nego je bila
jedan od inicijatora citavog nastojanja da se osnuje
jedan stalni medunarodni krivicni sud. Sve clanice EU
su takode medu prvima ratifikovale Statut, ukljucujuci
cak i Veliku Britaniju i Nemacku. Amerikanci su se
citavo vreme dr?ali rezervisano prema samoj ideji
osnivanja ovakvog suda. Oni su ucestvovali i na
osnivackoj konferenciji u Rimu, ali ne da bi doprineli
ostvarivanju ideje koja je stara par vekova medu
medunarodnim pravnicima, nego da bi minirali tu ideju.
Ali, to im je samo delimicno poslo za rukom (na primer
fakticno iskljucivanje agresije iz nadle?nosti suda).
Pod velikim pritiskom saveznika predsednik Klinton je
cak i potpisao Statut, ali je i tom prilikom dao na
znanje da ga nece slati na ratifikaciju u Senat ne
samo zato sto mu je bilo dobro poznato da Senat nece
ni da cuje za ratifikaciju, nego i zato sto ni njegova
administracija nije bila za ratifikaciju.
Predsednik Bus i njgova administracija ne samo da su
obavestile generalnog sekretara UN da ne nameravaju da
priznaju MKS, nego su ucinili i potez bez presedana u
medunarodnom pravu i medunarodnim odnosima: obavestili
su UN da "povlace potpis" Klintona sa Statuta! Ovo je
izazvalo pravi revolt saveznika, a narocito hiljada i
hiljada raznih medunarodnih organizacija "za zastitu
ljudskih prava" koje su bile glavni proponenti
osnivanja MKS, praveci pritisak na svoje dr?ave.
Amerikanci svoj odbojan stav objasnjavaju tako sto
vele da sud mo?e da ugrozi nacionalne interese SAD,
mo?e biti politicki motivisan, da mogu biti ugro?eni
americki funkcioneri i gradani, a narocito njihovi
vojnici. Zato su SAD ne samo protiv MKS, vec u
Kongresu je predlog zakona kojim se predvida mogucnost
da predsednik mo?e narediti i upotrebu sile protiv
svake one dr?ave koja bi za racun tog suda uhapsila
Amerikanca kao i mogucnost drugih mera protiv takve
dr?ave, kao sto je uskracivanje ekonomske i vojne
pomoci svakoj zamlji koja ratfikuje pristupanje ovom
sudu! Od svake dr?ave, na cijoj se teritoriji nalaze
trupe SAD po bilo kom osnovu tra?ice se da se obave?u
da nece saradivati sa MKS kada se radi o Amerikancima.
Rusija, Kina...
Rusija i Kina nisu tako kategoricno protiv MKS, ali
nisu ni za njega. Igraju nekakvu cudnu igru tako sto
ne nastupaju otvoreno protiv suda, ali ne predla?u
njegovu ratifikaciju. Putin se plasi da bi zbog
Cecenije mogao da do?ivi sudbinu Slobodana Milosevica,
a bogami i Kinezi imaju razloga za strahovanje zbog
pitanja ljudskih prava tamo kod njih...Dakle, sa
ovakvim odnosom SAD, Rusije i Kine prema ovom sudu
ostaje otvoreno pitanje kako ce uopste ta institucija
da proradi i kako ce u praksi funkcionisati. Ostaje,
dakle, da vreme poka?e da li su kreatori ove
institucije idealisti ili su ipak u kakvoj-takvoj
saglasnosti sa politickom realnoscu savremenog sveta.
II. USVAJANJE ZAKONA PROTIV ME?UNARODNOG KRIVICNOG
SUDA
Dakle, kao sledeci korak prema potpunom negiranju
prava medunarodne zajednice da organizuje svima
prihvatljivo organizovanje medunarodog krivicnog
sudovanja za najte?a medunarodna krivicna dela na
nacin kako je to predvideno za osnovani Medunarodni
krivicni sud SAD su pribegle zaista drakonskoj meri
koja je iznenadila cak i njihove najprivr?enije
prijatelje - kao sto su dr?ave clanice EU - usvajanjem
Zakona o zastiti pripadnika americkih oru?anih snaga.
U najkracem, ovim se zakonom:
- za branjuje SAD bilo kakva sradnja sa MKS,
- ogranicava ucesce SAD u mirovnim operacijama UN,
- zabranjuje vojna pomoc vecini zemalja koje su
ratifikovale Statut MKS,
- ovlascuje predsednik SAD da upotrebi "sva pogodna i
potrebna sredstva" da oslobodi svakog pripadnika
personala SAD i saveznika koji bi se nasli u vlasti
MKS ili u njegovo ime.
Zakonom se zabranjuje slanje americkih trupa u zemlje
koje saraduju sa Medunarodnim krivicnim sudom. Zabrana
se ne odnosi na zemlje NATO, Japan, Ju?nu Koreju i
druge glavne americke saveznike, kao ni na Tajvan (sto
je odmah izazvalo reakciju Pekinga).
Protivnici ovog zakona vec su ga nazvali "Zakon o
invaziji Haga". I to naravno sa razlogom. Jer, sta
drugo mo?e da znaci ovlascenje predsedniku da mo?e da
upotrebi "sva pogodna i potrebna sredstva" da oslobodi
Amerikance ili njihove saveznike koji bi se nasli u
rukama MKS organa ili organa koji rade za njihov racun
nego da je ovlasten da upotrebi i oru?anu silu.
Evropska unija je nasla za shodno da posebno uka?e na
ovu odredbu zakona, upozoravajuci na sve negativne
posledice koje ce ona imati po odnose EU-SAD.
Da bi se ubla?io u svetu negativan odjek ove mere SAD,
autori zakona su pribegli jednom upravo neshvatljivom
i nemoralnom triku time sto su u sam tekst zakona
uneli sledecu odredbu politicke prirode u najru?nijem
smislu ove reci: "Nothing in this title shall prohibit
the United States from rendering assistance to
international efforts to bring to justice Saddam
Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, other
members of Al Queda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and
other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war
crimes or crimes against humanity", izjednacavajuci
tako Slobodana Milosevica sa Sadamom Huseinom, Osamom
bin Ladenom, pripadnicima Al Kaide i liderima
Islamskog D?ihada! U ovih poslednjih dvanaestak godina
navikli smo na mnoge zlocine, la?i i obmane od
americkih zakonodavaca, ali ovakvu i ovoliku podlost
nismo sigurno ocekivali.
Pritisci na Savet bezbednosti UN
Dvanaestog jula 2002. Amerikancima je poslo za rukom
da primoraju Savet bezbednosti UN da prihvati
rezoluciju po osnovu koje se za 12 meseci odla?e
nadle?nopst MKS, cime se znatno, na samom startu
njegovog postojanja, umanjuje njegov autoritet. Do
usvajanja ove rezolucije je doslo nakod visenedeljnih
pritisaka na clanove Saveta bezbednosti da se ovakva
rezolucija prihvati, medu njima dr?ave EU, Kanada i
Meksiko. Amerikanci su pretili da ce, ako se ovakva
rezolucija ne usvoji, SAD odmah povuci sve svoje snage
iz svih mirovnih misija u svetu. I ne samo to. U samoj
rezoluciji se navodi da ce ona, po potrebi, biti
produ?avana godisnje, sto znaci trajno umanjivanje
bilo kakvog prakticnog znacaja MKS. Rezolucija se
odnosi na sve mirovne misije za koje je Savet
bezbednosti dao svoj pristanak, ukljucujuci NATO
misiju u Avganistanu, a posebno na personal u ovim
misijama koji je iz zemalja koje nisu clanice MKS
(koje nisu ratifikovale njegov Statut).
Pritisci na dr?ave koje su ratifikovale Statut MKS
Sjedinjene Americke Dr?ave nisu se zaustavile na
pritiscima na Savet bezbednosti, nego su nastavile da
to cine pojedinacno prema onim dr?avama koje su
postale clanice MKS. U tu svrhu koriste clan 98
Statuta MKS predvida mogucnost zakljucivanja
bilateralnih ugovora o neizrucivanju. Za zakljucivanje
ovakvih ugovora, koji dalje umanjuju znacaj MKS, pod
posebnim pritiskom SAD su dr?ave clanice Evropska
unije. Evropska unija je formirala posebno telo koje
ima zadatak da predlo?i jednu zajednicku platformu
politike Unije na ovakve zahteve SAD.
Posebno je na udaru Holandija u kojoj se nalazi
sediste MKS. Holandija za sada pru?a otpor
nastojanjima SAD da s njom zakljuce bilaterlani ugovor
po osnovu clana 98 Statuta. "Nasa pozicija je u tom
pogledu ista kao pozicija EU i ona je potpuno jasna",
izjavljuje ministar inostranih poslova Holandije.
"Pristajanje na nekakav izuzetak znacilo bi
umanjivanje znacaja suda". Rumunija je, pak,
preduhitrila sve, i prva je zakljucila takav soprazum
sa SAD.
Upravo sada kada zavrsavam pisanje ovog teksta
(6.avgust 2002. ujutro) imam informaciju na Internetu
da su SAD i Izrael zakljuciliisti sporazum. Prema
izdatom saopstenju, "According to the pact, both
countries agreed not to extradite, transfer or
surrender the citizens of one another's country to the
ICC or to a third country, which might transfer them
to The Hague, where the court is located."
Polozaj KFOR i UNMIK u Jugoslaviji i SFOR u BiH
Pravno gledano, KFOR i UNMIK koji deluju na Kosovu i
Metohiji deluje na teritoriji Jugoslavije. Jugoslavija
je, rekli smo, ratifikovala Statut MKS i on je u
odnosu na nju stupio na snagu. 1. jula 2002.
Pripadnici KFOR i UNMIK, pravno gledano, podlo?ni su
nadle?nosti MKS ako bi pocinili neko od krivicnih dela
iz nadle?nosti MKS. To se odnosi na svakog pripadnika
KFOR-a i UNMIK-a, na Amerikance i sve ostale.
Medjutim, po svemu sudeci, polo?aj pripadnika KFOR
razlikuje se od polo?aja UNMIK-a. Naime, u
Vojno-tehnickom sporazumu, koji je Jugoslavija morala
da potpise, koji regulise polo?aj KFOR, ali ne i
UNMIK, ima jedna neverovatna kolonijalna odredba koja
glasi: "The international security force ("KFOR") nor
any of its personnel or staff shall be liable for any
damages to public or private property that they may
cause in the course of duties related to the
implementation of this Agreement. The parties will
agree a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) as soon as
possible". Buduci da sporazum o statusu KFOR-a (SOFA),
koliko je meni poznato, nije zakljucen izmedju
Jugoslavije i KFOR-a kao sto je to bilo planirano,
pripadnici KFOR-a bi mogli biti odgovorni pred MKS (za
UNMIK to je nesporno). Verovatno ce SAD ovo pitanje
pokrenuti, pa ce od Jugoslavije tra?iti potpisivanje
sporazuma o neizrucenju Amerikanaca, bili oni
pripadnici KFOR-a ili UNMIK-a.
Pripadnici SFOR-a u Bosni i Hercegovini su tamo na
osnovu Dejtonskog sporazuma. Aneks 1A tog sporazuma
sadrzi SOFA-u kojim je na klasican nacin regulisan
status pripadnika stranih oru?anih snaga na teritoriji
dr?ave koja ih je primila. Taj status se svodi na to
da vojnici ostaju u vlasti dr?ave koja ih je poslala,
to jest izuzeti su od krivicne jurisdikcije
teritorijalne drzave. Ako clan 98 Statuta MKS ustvari
znaci da bilateralni sporazumi imaju prevagu u odnosu
na Statut - izgleda da je to njegov smisao mada nije
jasno - onda pripadnici SFOR-a u BiH ne spadaju pod
jurisdikciju MKS vec pod odredbe SOFA koji cini
sastavni deo Dejtonskog sporazuma.
http://www.antiwar.com/malic/m090502.html
ANTIWAR, Thursday, September 5, 2002
Balkan Express
by Nebojsa Malic
Antiwar.com
Illusions of Truth and Justice
The Hague Inquisition's Factory of Lies
After a month-long hiatus, Slobodan Milosevic's show trial before the
Hague
Inquisition reopened last week. As expected, no one looked back on the
prosecution's fiasco just before the recess, when their star witness
turned
around and exonerated Milosevic. Rade Markovic, former head of Serbian
State
Security, also accused the new Belgrade authorities of abuse and
suborning
perjury.
But there was no talk of forced testimonies when the "trial" resumed.
Markovic was disappeared down the memory hole, and no one in officialdom
seems concerned about his fate. Yet that would be a legitimate concern,
given the propensity of Inquisition's prisoners to end up dead or worse.
Having failed to bully Markovic into fingering his former president, the
Inquisition finds itself running both out of time and out of lies. With
only
a week or so remaining for the Kosovo stage of the process, they have
opted
to recycle old, debunked accusations in a last-ditch effort to sling
enough
mud so some of it would stick.
The Impossible Prison Massacre
Much of last week's proceedings revolved around the allegation, brought
forward by two KLA members, that Serbian police massacred the inmates of
Dubrava prison near Istok, just after NATO bombed the penitentiary. The
media had a field day with this. Not only did they describe Musa
Krasniqi,
the first KLA witness, as a "physics teacher" and buried the references
to
his KLA membership elsewhere in their dispatches, they also presented
his
allegations as factual. Similar treatment was given the other witness,
Gani
Beqaj, though his peacetime profession was never mentioned. Perhaps it
lacked that "instant credibility" of teaching physics?
According to Krasniqi and Beqaj, the prisoners were rounded up in the
courtyard, then machine-gunned. Those who escaped (how?) were hunted
down
with hand grenades for two days. Yet both of them, and many other
prisoners,
stayed alive and unharmed. They were later transferred to other prisons
and
"told to say all prisoners were killed by NATO."
One can be forgiven for thinking this story somewhat less than
plausible,
and it's obvious as to why. Even the dumbest criminal out there would
never
tell his intended victims they were about to be killed as part of a
frame-up, then leave many of them alive and unharmed. And Milosevic is
accused of being a criminal mastermind who "covered up his crimes" so
well
that the Inquisition can't find any evidence of it!
Wisdom of the BBC
The triumphant Inquisitors next referred to a Human Rights Watch report
about the incident. The report was, naturally, based on interviews with
"NATO and former Dubrava inmates," and not those evil, deceptive Serbs,
so
it must be true, right?
The highlight of the show was Jackie Rowland of the BBC, who volunteered
to
testify even as many of her colleagues were protesting the decision to
subpoena (Western) journalists against their will. In a passionate
recounting of her testimony for the Guardian, Rowland reveals her
arrogance
and ignorance. She mistook sarcasm for praise, proudly spouted
inaccurate
"history," and provided the entire sordid affair with a delightfully
quotable but utterly meaningless "expert opinion":
"If I look at you now, Mr Milosevic, I can see that you have both your
arms.
I can see the features on your face. I can see that your body is intact.
If
however, you were hit by a bomb - heaven forbid - I think I would be
able to
tell by looking at your body whether that was the manner of your death."
But neither Milosevic, nor anyone in the Serbian government, ever
claimed
that each and every prisoner at Dubrava was killed by a direct hit of a
NATO
bomb. Fewer people are killed by direct bomb hits than by lightning.
When a
building is bombed, people are killed by debris, shockwave, shrapnel,
even
airburst. Rowland was making a dumb statement and being snooty about it.
Absent Men and Albanian Songs
The process continued this week with a witness who claimed only Albanian
houses in his town were burned. Behar Haxhiavdija told a sordid tale of
arson in his home town, but no one seemed to correct his geography:
"Gjakova," the town mentioned in agency reports, is the Albanian name
for
occupied Djakovica. Language aside, one glaring inconsistency found its
way
to an AP report of Haxhiavdija's tale:
"Most of the victims were dragged from the basement and shot, but his
5-year-old son was put in a cupboard and burned alive, said a witness
who
was hiding in a house nearby." [emphasis added]
Was this Haxhiavdija speaking, or another witness? The indefinite
article
suggests him quoting someone else, i.e. hearsay evidence. If he was
present,
how did he survive? Such questions are not expected to come up, given
the
shocking image of a 5-year-old burning in a cupboard.
Another testimony featured a bereaved Lirij Imeraj, who claimed Serb
soldiers "singing in Serb-Croat language and Albanian," came to her
house in
March 1999, and shot her husband and six children. Imeraj and her three
children survived and ran off to Montenegro (part of Yugoslavia).
Why would soldiers on a murder spree spare a woman and three children,
but
kill her husband and the other six? More to it, why would they be
singing in
Albanian? Milosevic asked the same question, but Imeraj said it was
"impossible, not at all possible" that the killers were KLA. She claims
the
murderers were Serbs, and that she knew them - yet she named no names,
at
least none that appeared in the AP story covering the testimony.
The Incredibly Elusive Fridge Trucks
Finally, this Tuesday, the prosecutors resurrected the accusation used
to
abduct Milosevic and send him to The Hague: refrigerator trucks filled
with
Albanians' bodies.
One Caslav Golubovic, whose position in the Serbian police hierarchy
agency
reports never properly clarified, said a truck with 30 bodies was pulled
out
of the Danube river in April 1999 (during the bombing). Golubovic
claimed
the truck was blown up and the bodies removed under orders from Vlajko
Stojiljkovic, Serbia's Interior Minister. He also said the orders came
to
him through General Vlastimir Djordjevic.
There are several problems with Golubovic's story. It conveniently
blames
people who can't be questioned: Djordjevic has disappeared, and
Stojiljkovic
publicly committed suicide in April. Then there is an exhaustive study
by an
American scholar, showing that the "refrigerator truck" story was never
more
than a malicious, unsubstantiated rumor: there has been no evidence to
it
whatsoever.
But the Inquisition certainly doesn't care. Lack of evidence is by
itself
evidence of Milosevic's criminal mastermind, right? As long as they can
find
some patsy to say the lines, they don't need no stinkin' evidence!
Perhaps one shouldn't be so harsh on Golubovic. It's hard to tell what
he
actually said, given the agencies' habit of printing out-of-context
snippets
in a sea of drivel. But that doesn't change the fact that the
refrigerator
truck story is bogus.
Burden of Proof
In a recent interview with a pro-NATO journalist and a leader of the
International Committee to Defend Milosevic (ICDSM), a BBC journalist
claimed the war crimes have been "proven." But where is the evidence?
All
the world has heard so far have been the testimonies of dozens of
coached
Albanian villagers, KLA leaders and sympathizers, NATO officials,
pro-NATO
diplomats and journalists, and the Inquisition's own "experts". The
"evidence" they produced would have been thrown out of any American
court
any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Systematic Crimes
Now no one even remotely sane would dispute that the Yugoslav Succession
Wars (1991-95) and the conflict in Kosovo were rife with atrocities. The
real question is, were those atrocities systematic?
It is obvious from the Inquisition's indictments that the "international
community" (the Empire and its allies) believes that Serb atrocities
were
systematic, while others were random. Only Serb government leaders, in
Bosnia as well as Serbia, stand accused of war crimes. Only Serbs are
charged with genocide - by definition, a systematic crime. Only Serbs
are
accused of a "joint criminal enterprise."
Methods employed, or allegedly employed, by Milosevic's government or
the
Bosnian Serbs are routinely deemed genocidal and criminal, but when
employed
by NATO, there is "no need for investigation." Same with the U.S.,
Croatians, Bosnian Muslims or the KLA.
This makes sense only if seen through the logic of total war, where the
"righteous" can employ any means necessary to defeat the "evil."
Naturally,
the definition of "righteous" and "evil" depends on who has more bombs
and
better press coverage.
Monsters' Ball
Of course, the state itself is a criminal institution, using coercion to
deprive its residents of their liberty, property and life (when it
fights
wars, as most states do). So essentially, every head of state is a
criminal.
>From that standpoint, Slobodan Milosevic is clearly guilty of being
head of
state, and doing what any head of state would do in his place. And those
persecuting him are no less guilty, of the same infractions and then
some.
Yet they claim absolute innocence and the right to judge others, as some
sort of über-government.
Milosevic's regime at least prosecuted several hundred soldiers and
militia
who were accused of looting, murder, arson and other atrocities. The
world
is yet to see any Imperial troops answer for their deeds: not because
there
weren't any - for there were, and plenty - but because the Empire
considers
itself above the law. The Hague may be a monster's ball, but the monster
is
not Milosevic.
A Factory of Lies
Power needs no justification to act as it wishes, just as its "courts"
need
no evidence to proclaim guilt. It does need, however, to manufacture
consent
for its continued survival by creating perceptions of righteousness and
legitimacy.
An amazing number of people still misguidedly believe that the Hague
Inquisition is a legitimate court, staffed by impartial prosecutors and
judges, which seeks to punish perpetrators of war crimes for the sake of
peace, justice and individualized guilt.
But as real, not manufactured, evidence shows each day the charade
continues, the so-called "court" in the Netherlands is nothing more than
Empire's vicious factory of lies.
ANTIWAR, Thursday, September 5, 2002
Balkan Express
by Nebojsa Malic
Antiwar.com
Illusions of Truth and Justice
The Hague Inquisition's Factory of Lies
After a month-long hiatus, Slobodan Milosevic's show trial before the
Hague
Inquisition reopened last week. As expected, no one looked back on the
prosecution's fiasco just before the recess, when their star witness
turned
around and exonerated Milosevic. Rade Markovic, former head of Serbian
State
Security, also accused the new Belgrade authorities of abuse and
suborning
perjury.
But there was no talk of forced testimonies when the "trial" resumed.
Markovic was disappeared down the memory hole, and no one in officialdom
seems concerned about his fate. Yet that would be a legitimate concern,
given the propensity of Inquisition's prisoners to end up dead or worse.
Having failed to bully Markovic into fingering his former president, the
Inquisition finds itself running both out of time and out of lies. With
only
a week or so remaining for the Kosovo stage of the process, they have
opted
to recycle old, debunked accusations in a last-ditch effort to sling
enough
mud so some of it would stick.
The Impossible Prison Massacre
Much of last week's proceedings revolved around the allegation, brought
forward by two KLA members, that Serbian police massacred the inmates of
Dubrava prison near Istok, just after NATO bombed the penitentiary. The
media had a field day with this. Not only did they describe Musa
Krasniqi,
the first KLA witness, as a "physics teacher" and buried the references
to
his KLA membership elsewhere in their dispatches, they also presented
his
allegations as factual. Similar treatment was given the other witness,
Gani
Beqaj, though his peacetime profession was never mentioned. Perhaps it
lacked that "instant credibility" of teaching physics?
According to Krasniqi and Beqaj, the prisoners were rounded up in the
courtyard, then machine-gunned. Those who escaped (how?) were hunted
down
with hand grenades for two days. Yet both of them, and many other
prisoners,
stayed alive and unharmed. They were later transferred to other prisons
and
"told to say all prisoners were killed by NATO."
One can be forgiven for thinking this story somewhat less than
plausible,
and it's obvious as to why. Even the dumbest criminal out there would
never
tell his intended victims they were about to be killed as part of a
frame-up, then leave many of them alive and unharmed. And Milosevic is
accused of being a criminal mastermind who "covered up his crimes" so
well
that the Inquisition can't find any evidence of it!
Wisdom of the BBC
The triumphant Inquisitors next referred to a Human Rights Watch report
about the incident. The report was, naturally, based on interviews with
"NATO and former Dubrava inmates," and not those evil, deceptive Serbs,
so
it must be true, right?
The highlight of the show was Jackie Rowland of the BBC, who volunteered
to
testify even as many of her colleagues were protesting the decision to
subpoena (Western) journalists against their will. In a passionate
recounting of her testimony for the Guardian, Rowland reveals her
arrogance
and ignorance. She mistook sarcasm for praise, proudly spouted
inaccurate
"history," and provided the entire sordid affair with a delightfully
quotable but utterly meaningless "expert opinion":
"If I look at you now, Mr Milosevic, I can see that you have both your
arms.
I can see the features on your face. I can see that your body is intact.
If
however, you were hit by a bomb - heaven forbid - I think I would be
able to
tell by looking at your body whether that was the manner of your death."
But neither Milosevic, nor anyone in the Serbian government, ever
claimed
that each and every prisoner at Dubrava was killed by a direct hit of a
NATO
bomb. Fewer people are killed by direct bomb hits than by lightning.
When a
building is bombed, people are killed by debris, shockwave, shrapnel,
even
airburst. Rowland was making a dumb statement and being snooty about it.
Absent Men and Albanian Songs
The process continued this week with a witness who claimed only Albanian
houses in his town were burned. Behar Haxhiavdija told a sordid tale of
arson in his home town, but no one seemed to correct his geography:
"Gjakova," the town mentioned in agency reports, is the Albanian name
for
occupied Djakovica. Language aside, one glaring inconsistency found its
way
to an AP report of Haxhiavdija's tale:
"Most of the victims were dragged from the basement and shot, but his
5-year-old son was put in a cupboard and burned alive, said a witness
who
was hiding in a house nearby." [emphasis added]
Was this Haxhiavdija speaking, or another witness? The indefinite
article
suggests him quoting someone else, i.e. hearsay evidence. If he was
present,
how did he survive? Such questions are not expected to come up, given
the
shocking image of a 5-year-old burning in a cupboard.
Another testimony featured a bereaved Lirij Imeraj, who claimed Serb
soldiers "singing in Serb-Croat language and Albanian," came to her
house in
March 1999, and shot her husband and six children. Imeraj and her three
children survived and ran off to Montenegro (part of Yugoslavia).
Why would soldiers on a murder spree spare a woman and three children,
but
kill her husband and the other six? More to it, why would they be
singing in
Albanian? Milosevic asked the same question, but Imeraj said it was
"impossible, not at all possible" that the killers were KLA. She claims
the
murderers were Serbs, and that she knew them - yet she named no names,
at
least none that appeared in the AP story covering the testimony.
The Incredibly Elusive Fridge Trucks
Finally, this Tuesday, the prosecutors resurrected the accusation used
to
abduct Milosevic and send him to The Hague: refrigerator trucks filled
with
Albanians' bodies.
One Caslav Golubovic, whose position in the Serbian police hierarchy
agency
reports never properly clarified, said a truck with 30 bodies was pulled
out
of the Danube river in April 1999 (during the bombing). Golubovic
claimed
the truck was blown up and the bodies removed under orders from Vlajko
Stojiljkovic, Serbia's Interior Minister. He also said the orders came
to
him through General Vlastimir Djordjevic.
There are several problems with Golubovic's story. It conveniently
blames
people who can't be questioned: Djordjevic has disappeared, and
Stojiljkovic
publicly committed suicide in April. Then there is an exhaustive study
by an
American scholar, showing that the "refrigerator truck" story was never
more
than a malicious, unsubstantiated rumor: there has been no evidence to
it
whatsoever.
But the Inquisition certainly doesn't care. Lack of evidence is by
itself
evidence of Milosevic's criminal mastermind, right? As long as they can
find
some patsy to say the lines, they don't need no stinkin' evidence!
Perhaps one shouldn't be so harsh on Golubovic. It's hard to tell what
he
actually said, given the agencies' habit of printing out-of-context
snippets
in a sea of drivel. But that doesn't change the fact that the
refrigerator
truck story is bogus.
Burden of Proof
In a recent interview with a pro-NATO journalist and a leader of the
International Committee to Defend Milosevic (ICDSM), a BBC journalist
claimed the war crimes have been "proven." But where is the evidence?
All
the world has heard so far have been the testimonies of dozens of
coached
Albanian villagers, KLA leaders and sympathizers, NATO officials,
pro-NATO
diplomats and journalists, and the Inquisition's own "experts". The
"evidence" they produced would have been thrown out of any American
court
any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Systematic Crimes
Now no one even remotely sane would dispute that the Yugoslav Succession
Wars (1991-95) and the conflict in Kosovo were rife with atrocities. The
real question is, were those atrocities systematic?
It is obvious from the Inquisition's indictments that the "international
community" (the Empire and its allies) believes that Serb atrocities
were
systematic, while others were random. Only Serb government leaders, in
Bosnia as well as Serbia, stand accused of war crimes. Only Serbs are
charged with genocide - by definition, a systematic crime. Only Serbs
are
accused of a "joint criminal enterprise."
Methods employed, or allegedly employed, by Milosevic's government or
the
Bosnian Serbs are routinely deemed genocidal and criminal, but when
employed
by NATO, there is "no need for investigation." Same with the U.S.,
Croatians, Bosnian Muslims or the KLA.
This makes sense only if seen through the logic of total war, where the
"righteous" can employ any means necessary to defeat the "evil."
Naturally,
the definition of "righteous" and "evil" depends on who has more bombs
and
better press coverage.
Monsters' Ball
Of course, the state itself is a criminal institution, using coercion to
deprive its residents of their liberty, property and life (when it
fights
wars, as most states do). So essentially, every head of state is a
criminal.
>From that standpoint, Slobodan Milosevic is clearly guilty of being
head of
state, and doing what any head of state would do in his place. And those
persecuting him are no less guilty, of the same infractions and then
some.
Yet they claim absolute innocence and the right to judge others, as some
sort of über-government.
Milosevic's regime at least prosecuted several hundred soldiers and
militia
who were accused of looting, murder, arson and other atrocities. The
world
is yet to see any Imperial troops answer for their deeds: not because
there
weren't any - for there were, and plenty - but because the Empire
considers
itself above the law. The Hague may be a monster's ball, but the monster
is
not Milosevic.
A Factory of Lies
Power needs no justification to act as it wishes, just as its "courts"
need
no evidence to proclaim guilt. It does need, however, to manufacture
consent
for its continued survival by creating perceptions of righteousness and
legitimacy.
An amazing number of people still misguidedly believe that the Hague
Inquisition is a legitimate court, staffed by impartial prosecutors and
judges, which seeks to punish perpetrators of war crimes for the sake of
peace, justice and individualized guilt.
But as real, not manufactured, evidence shows each day the charade
continues, the so-called "court" in the Netherlands is nothing more than
Empire's vicious factory of lies.
URL for this article is http://emperors-clothes.com/audio/bbc823.htm
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
Receive articles from Emperor's Clothes Website
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
=======================================
Jared Israel Interviewed On BBC About Milosevic 'Trial'
Page set up by John Flaherty
[Posted 29 August 2002]
=======================================
The BBC's Bill Hayton interviewed Jared Israel on August 23rd. Excerpts
from
the interview were used in a BBC feature story which can be read at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/2220997.stm
The feature story is balanced for the most part. But it leaves out much
of
the interview. To hear the whole original interview on RealPlayer audio,
go
to http://emperor.vwh.net/Audio/bbc823.rm
Below Is Full Tanscript of BBC Interview
BBC - 23 August 2002
BILL HAYTON: Can I credit you as from the International Committee?
JARED ISRAEL: I'm the vice-chairman of the international committee. One
of
the vice-chairmen.
BILL HAYTON: Right
JARED ISRAEL: And I edit the website - www.icdsm.org
BILL HAYTON: Who do you think's winning in the courtroom?
JARED ISRAEL: Well, I think everybody thinks Milosevic is winning. The
question is whether it's a rigged battle. That is, if the fix is in, in
a
prizefight, it doesn't really, then, mean that because one person is
winning
that he will necessarily win, right? Because the judges have already
decided.
And the judge in this case is manifestly on the prosecution side. That
was
very clear on the 26th, on the last day's testimony when Mr. Markovic
was
asked by Mr. Milosevic, "Is it true that you were tortured?" And he
said,
"Yes." And judge May said this doesn't have any relevance to the
evidence,
which this witness has given here, none at all. Whether he was tortured.
Now that's a trial-stopping issue. In other words, it's our position
that,
since their main prosecution witness - because he's not in the KLA and
he's
not Paddy Ashdown, that is an operative of the British special forces
and the
special representative of the British government 10 times going to
Yugoslavia, and he's not one of the leaders of the Kosovo verification
mission, and he's not in the CIA and he's not therefore William Walker,
but
he was actually the leader of the Serbian security police - was brought
in to
testify and said he was tortured to give false evidence...that's what he
said....
BILL HAYTON: ....right
JARED ISRAEL: Now, how can you continue the trial then? And they
continued.
So the trial is now a dead thing walking. That is our position.
BILL HAYTON: I mean...you accept that war crimes were committed in
Kosovo...
JARED ISRAEL: Yeah, by NATO and the KLA on a grand scale
BILL HAYTON: But you're confident there were no war crimes committed at
all
by any Yugoslav security forces in Kosovo?
JARED ISRAEL: I'm not, nobody in the world could ever make a statement
like
that about any security force in any war.
And as a matter of fact one of the points that Milosevic and Rade
Markovic,
who was the leader of that force and who is the prosecution witness,
made is
that several hundred people in the army and I assume in the security
forces
were prosecuted by the Yugoslav government for committing atrocities.
Now. Does the fact that they prosecuted members of the security forces
and
the army for committing atrocities mean that there were no atrocities?
No, it
means there were. But, since that happens in every war, the crucial
question
is whether an army prosecutes those people who do such things. And I
would
hold that against the record of Britain in the Falklands [Islands]; I
would
hold it against the record of Britain and the US in Afghanistan. Who's
being
prosecuted for atrocities in Afghanistan? What pilots in the US, Britain
or
Germany were prosecuted for bombing civilians during the attack on
Yugoslavia? Why haven't Blair and Clinton been prosecuted for launching
an
aggressive war? But Yugoslav soldiers and members of the security
forces,
according to Rade Markovic, were prosecuted.
So, yes, of course, atrocities occur, but that is the opposite of an
official
policy of having them, isn't it? When you prosecute the people who do
it, you
discourage it.
BILL HAYTON: The prosecution is now trying to prove that the orders to
commit
those atrocities, such as they were, came from the top
JARED ISRAEL: But that would be remarkable, wouldn't it? To order people
to
commit atrocities and then prosecute several hundred people who did? As
far
as I know, one person was prosecuted in the Vietnam War for committing
atrocities. Two and a half million people were killed, atrociously.
BILL HAYTON: Ok, but...
JARED ISRAEL: Now in the case of Kosovo, when the US attacked the
country,
the only people who have been prosecuted for committing atrocities, were
prosecuted by Yugoslavia. Where has the US prosecuted anyone?
BILL HAYTON: Ok. So, do you think the prosecution has or has so far -
looking
at the trial - proved a link between Milosevic and the action of the
troops
on the ground ...
JARED ISRAEL: First of all, the actions of the troops on the ground,
from
everything that has come out in the testimony, have been remarkable and
a
model of how you combat terrorism without flattening the country as the
US
has been doing in Afghanistan - and mark you *not* it's own country -
whereas
this Kosovo *is* part of Serbia - that's point one. So, secondly, of
course
he's connected with the [action of the troops on the ground] - he was
the
head of the country - that doesn't mean that he oversaw every action.
But
[in] setting general policy, the president of the country is the
commander
and chief; in Yugoslavia, [he] is the commander and chief of the armed
forces.
Milosevic has not denied in fact he's affirmed that he had a large role
in
setting policy, he and the people who are also in the government with
him.
And one of the policies he set was to prosecute people who committed
atrocities.
Now, we have a book on the website I edit which is emperor's clothes at
www.tenc.net; we have a book written by two Yugoslav army generals,
including
Yugoslav army orders which are very strict in calling for the immediate
arrest of any soldier who violates the strict - the "treasuring" - and
they
use the word, "sacred" - of prisoners and the treasuring of civilians.
That's
the opposite of an official policy of persecuting and atrocities. So, in
answer to your question, yes there is a connection between Milosevic and
the
policies of his government, which includes the army.
---NOTE: The book, "The Other Side of the Story," can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/book/book1.htm
As for the specific command structure, no, he was not involved in
day-to- day
specific decisions about specific people; that's absurd.
So, I'm saying, number 1, what they're saying happened, didn't happen.
There
was not an official policy of atrocities. There was an official policy
of
opposing them. He was responsible, in part, for that policy. Therefore
he's a
hero. That's what they've shown so far. Their witness, their prosecution
witness, whom they tortured to get him to say Milosevic was guilty, came
in
and said this. And said he was tortured.
And Judge May said that's irrelevant.
You know what Gandhi said about Western Civilization? He said it would
be a
good idea.
BILL HAYTON: Ok. Thank you very much.
JARED ISRAEL: Thank you.
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm Receive
articles
from Emperor's Clothes Website
Send a link to this article to a friend! Go directly, or cut and paste
the
following URL into your browser:
mailto:ENTER FRIEND'S EMAIL ADDRESS HERE?subject=Here's a great article
from
emperors-clothes.com!&body=I just read the following article which I
thought
you would find most interesting. Here's the address:
http://emperors-clothes.com/audio/bbc823.htm
=======================================
EMPEROR'S CLOTHES IS IN URGENT NEED AND YOU CAN HELP!
=======================================
In order for Emperor's Clothes to continue publishing we urgently need
your
help. We rely entirely on contributions. We are behind on all our usual
bills, such as rent, paying our computer guru and phone bills. We are
also
about to produce a movie exposing the amazing media lies about the
imaginary
destruction of the old city of Dubrovnik. The video presents hard
evidence of
an orchestrated plan to turn world public opinion against the Serbian
people
by accusing the Yugoslav Navy of destroying historic Dubrovnik.
Remarkably,
one newspaper accused the Serbs of completely destroying the city...on
several different occasions.
And yet, despite this miracle of multiple total destruction, when Prof.
Petar
Maher shot video footage of the Old City in March 1992, it was still
standing, virtually unharmed.
If you would like Emperor's Clothes to remain standing, and to produce
this
important movie (on the lowest budget ever!) please help with a
contribution
of whatever you can afford.
Every contribution will help! $20, $50, $100, or more - or less. True,
more
is nice, but lots of less is good too. We know money is hard to come by,
and
when you contribute any of your hard-earned cash to Emperor's Clothes
you are
taking a stand against the brutal forces that are wrecking havoc on our
world.
Here's how to contribute:
You can make a credit card donation by going to our secure server at
http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donate
You can make a donation using PayPal at
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=emperors1000@...&no_shipping=1
Or Mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA
02461-0321. (USA)
Or make a donation by phone 1 617 916-1705.
Note: If you mail a donation or make one by secure server, please let us
know
by email at emperors1000@... to make sure we receive it. Thanks!
Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes!
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
This Website is mirrored at http://emperor.vwh.net/ and at
http://globalresistance.com
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm
Receive articles from Emperor's Clothes Website
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
=======================================
Jared Israel Interviewed On BBC About Milosevic 'Trial'
Page set up by John Flaherty
[Posted 29 August 2002]
=======================================
The BBC's Bill Hayton interviewed Jared Israel on August 23rd. Excerpts
from
the interview were used in a BBC feature story which can be read at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/europe/2220997.stm
The feature story is balanced for the most part. But it leaves out much
of
the interview. To hear the whole original interview on RealPlayer audio,
go
to http://emperor.vwh.net/Audio/bbc823.rm
Below Is Full Tanscript of BBC Interview
BBC - 23 August 2002
BILL HAYTON: Can I credit you as from the International Committee?
JARED ISRAEL: I'm the vice-chairman of the international committee. One
of
the vice-chairmen.
BILL HAYTON: Right
JARED ISRAEL: And I edit the website - www.icdsm.org
BILL HAYTON: Who do you think's winning in the courtroom?
JARED ISRAEL: Well, I think everybody thinks Milosevic is winning. The
question is whether it's a rigged battle. That is, if the fix is in, in
a
prizefight, it doesn't really, then, mean that because one person is
winning
that he will necessarily win, right? Because the judges have already
decided.
And the judge in this case is manifestly on the prosecution side. That
was
very clear on the 26th, on the last day's testimony when Mr. Markovic
was
asked by Mr. Milosevic, "Is it true that you were tortured?" And he
said,
"Yes." And judge May said this doesn't have any relevance to the
evidence,
which this witness has given here, none at all. Whether he was tortured.
Now that's a trial-stopping issue. In other words, it's our position
that,
since their main prosecution witness - because he's not in the KLA and
he's
not Paddy Ashdown, that is an operative of the British special forces
and the
special representative of the British government 10 times going to
Yugoslavia, and he's not one of the leaders of the Kosovo verification
mission, and he's not in the CIA and he's not therefore William Walker,
but
he was actually the leader of the Serbian security police - was brought
in to
testify and said he was tortured to give false evidence...that's what he
said....
BILL HAYTON: ....right
JARED ISRAEL: Now, how can you continue the trial then? And they
continued.
So the trial is now a dead thing walking. That is our position.
BILL HAYTON: I mean...you accept that war crimes were committed in
Kosovo...
JARED ISRAEL: Yeah, by NATO and the KLA on a grand scale
BILL HAYTON: But you're confident there were no war crimes committed at
all
by any Yugoslav security forces in Kosovo?
JARED ISRAEL: I'm not, nobody in the world could ever make a statement
like
that about any security force in any war.
And as a matter of fact one of the points that Milosevic and Rade
Markovic,
who was the leader of that force and who is the prosecution witness,
made is
that several hundred people in the army and I assume in the security
forces
were prosecuted by the Yugoslav government for committing atrocities.
Now. Does the fact that they prosecuted members of the security forces
and
the army for committing atrocities mean that there were no atrocities?
No, it
means there were. But, since that happens in every war, the crucial
question
is whether an army prosecutes those people who do such things. And I
would
hold that against the record of Britain in the Falklands [Islands]; I
would
hold it against the record of Britain and the US in Afghanistan. Who's
being
prosecuted for atrocities in Afghanistan? What pilots in the US, Britain
or
Germany were prosecuted for bombing civilians during the attack on
Yugoslavia? Why haven't Blair and Clinton been prosecuted for launching
an
aggressive war? But Yugoslav soldiers and members of the security
forces,
according to Rade Markovic, were prosecuted.
So, yes, of course, atrocities occur, but that is the opposite of an
official
policy of having them, isn't it? When you prosecute the people who do
it, you
discourage it.
BILL HAYTON: The prosecution is now trying to prove that the orders to
commit
those atrocities, such as they were, came from the top
JARED ISRAEL: But that would be remarkable, wouldn't it? To order people
to
commit atrocities and then prosecute several hundred people who did? As
far
as I know, one person was prosecuted in the Vietnam War for committing
atrocities. Two and a half million people were killed, atrociously.
BILL HAYTON: Ok, but...
JARED ISRAEL: Now in the case of Kosovo, when the US attacked the
country,
the only people who have been prosecuted for committing atrocities, were
prosecuted by Yugoslavia. Where has the US prosecuted anyone?
BILL HAYTON: Ok. So, do you think the prosecution has or has so far -
looking
at the trial - proved a link between Milosevic and the action of the
troops
on the ground ...
JARED ISRAEL: First of all, the actions of the troops on the ground,
from
everything that has come out in the testimony, have been remarkable and
a
model of how you combat terrorism without flattening the country as the
US
has been doing in Afghanistan - and mark you *not* it's own country -
whereas
this Kosovo *is* part of Serbia - that's point one. So, secondly, of
course
he's connected with the [action of the troops on the ground] - he was
the
head of the country - that doesn't mean that he oversaw every action.
But
[in] setting general policy, the president of the country is the
commander
and chief; in Yugoslavia, [he] is the commander and chief of the armed
forces.
Milosevic has not denied in fact he's affirmed that he had a large role
in
setting policy, he and the people who are also in the government with
him.
And one of the policies he set was to prosecute people who committed
atrocities.
Now, we have a book on the website I edit which is emperor's clothes at
www.tenc.net; we have a book written by two Yugoslav army generals,
including
Yugoslav army orders which are very strict in calling for the immediate
arrest of any soldier who violates the strict - the "treasuring" - and
they
use the word, "sacred" - of prisoners and the treasuring of civilians.
That's
the opposite of an official policy of persecuting and atrocities. So, in
answer to your question, yes there is a connection between Milosevic and
the
policies of his government, which includes the army.
---NOTE: The book, "The Other Side of the Story," can be read at
http://emperors-clothes.com/book/book1.htm
As for the specific command structure, no, he was not involved in
day-to- day
specific decisions about specific people; that's absurd.
So, I'm saying, number 1, what they're saying happened, didn't happen.
There
was not an official policy of atrocities. There was an official policy
of
opposing them. He was responsible, in part, for that policy. Therefore
he's a
hero. That's what they've shown so far. Their witness, their prosecution
witness, whom they tortured to get him to say Milosevic was guilty, came
in
and said this. And said he was tortured.
And Judge May said that's irrelevant.
You know what Gandhi said about Western Civilization? He said it would
be a
good idea.
BILL HAYTON: Ok. Thank you very much.
JARED ISRAEL: Thank you.
Join our email list at http://emperors-clothes.com/f.htm Receive
articles
from Emperor's Clothes Website
Send a link to this article to a friend! Go directly, or cut and paste
the
following URL into your browser:
mailto:ENTER FRIEND'S EMAIL ADDRESS HERE?subject=Here's a great article
from
emperors-clothes.com!&body=I just read the following article which I
thought
you would find most interesting. Here's the address:
http://emperors-clothes.com/audio/bbc823.htm
=======================================
EMPEROR'S CLOTHES IS IN URGENT NEED AND YOU CAN HELP!
=======================================
In order for Emperor's Clothes to continue publishing we urgently need
your
help. We rely entirely on contributions. We are behind on all our usual
bills, such as rent, paying our computer guru and phone bills. We are
also
about to produce a movie exposing the amazing media lies about the
imaginary
destruction of the old city of Dubrovnik. The video presents hard
evidence of
an orchestrated plan to turn world public opinion against the Serbian
people
by accusing the Yugoslav Navy of destroying historic Dubrovnik.
Remarkably,
one newspaper accused the Serbs of completely destroying the city...on
several different occasions.
And yet, despite this miracle of multiple total destruction, when Prof.
Petar
Maher shot video footage of the Old City in March 1992, it was still
standing, virtually unharmed.
If you would like Emperor's Clothes to remain standing, and to produce
this
important movie (on the lowest budget ever!) please help with a
contribution
of whatever you can afford.
Every contribution will help! $20, $50, $100, or more - or less. True,
more
is nice, but lots of less is good too. We know money is hard to come by,
and
when you contribute any of your hard-earned cash to Emperor's Clothes
you are
taking a stand against the brutal forces that are wrecking havoc on our
world.
Here's how to contribute:
You can make a credit card donation by going to our secure server at
http://emperors-clothes.com/howyour.html#donate
You can make a donation using PayPal at
https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=emperors1000@...&no_shipping=1
Or Mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton, MA
02461-0321. (USA)
Or make a donation by phone 1 617 916-1705.
Note: If you mail a donation or make one by secure server, please let us
know
by email at emperors1000@... to make sure we receive it. Thanks!
Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes!
www.tenc.net * [Emperor's Clothes]
This Website is mirrored at http://emperor.vwh.net/ and at
http://globalresistance.com
