Informazione
The URL for this article is
http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/lovie.htm
The Love Song of Arbour and Albright
by Jared Israel
Due to the stand taken by Slobodan Milosevic, everyone is asking: is the
Hague 'Tribunal' a legitimate court? If it is not, if it is in fact a
sham,
then it must be an instrument of NATO/Imperial rule; there is no third
alternative. And if it is an instrument of Imperial rule, used to
demonize
and punish those who, coming from materially poor countries,
nevertheless
dare to resist U.S. control, then citizens of the NATO countries must
act
against it. Otherwise, shall we not share a shameful responsibility? (1)
Below are excerpts from a joint press conference held April 30, 1999, by
Louise Arbour, then Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY (The Hague 'Tribunal')
and
U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright.
A) At the time, the United States and other NATO countries had spent
five
weeks perpetrating the main international crime: waging an aggressive
war
against a state which had invaded no other.
Moreover the United States and its allies:
* Bombed civilian facilities (a war crime)
* Dropped anti-personnel weapons (a war crime)
* Bombed a train and at least one refugee column (both war crimes)
* Bombed Serbian TV (a war crime)
* And deliberately created an environmental catastrophe by bombing
chemical
facilities in Pancevo (a war crime).
In the press conference, Arbour made no reference to these publicly
known war
crimes. Instead she accepted as her only field of concern NATO's
accusations
against Yugoslavia. These accusations, which have been over and over
exposed
as without foundation, and even lies, were used to justify the crime of
bombing Yugoslavia.
B) In this highly visible forum, Albright instructed Arbour to indict
President Milosevic.
[Start quote from Albright] "Well, obviously, the question of what is
going
to happen to Mr. Milosevic is a subject that is very much on our minds,
and
Justice Arbour knows what we have said both publicly and privately; that
she
and the Tribunal need to follow out the trail of evidence to its
conclusion.
We, as I said, are supportive of her efforts." [End quote from Albright]
Instead of rejecting what would be a gross and humiliating interference
if
the 'Tribunal' were a real court, Arbour coyly (and shamelessly) linked
the
execution of said indictment with increased funding and help in
gathering
(or, one should say, fabricating) evidence:
[Start quote from Arbour] "We are here, and elsewhere, to ensure that we
get
the assistance to move the cases forward in that direction. Whether it
points
to any particular individual, I think the law is very clear: there is no
immunity before our Tribunal for heads of state. There's no immunity,
essentially, for any individual, both in a personal or a command
responsibility position. All our discussions take place in that
framework."[End quote from Arbour]
C) The crucial question to ask about any would-be judicial system is
this: is
it independent? That is why Justice is pictured wearing a blindfold. At
the
end of the excerpts is a special section featuring Arbour's references
to
NATO countries as her 'partners.'
Hmmm. It occurs to me that if you just add one little 'e' to 'sham' it
gives
you 'shame.'
--JI
***
Press Conference Excerpts
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and
Justice Louise Arbour, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia
Joint Press Conference
Washington, D.C., April 30, 1999
As released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and
Justice Louise Arbour, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia
Joint Press Conference
Washington, D.C., April 30, 1999
As released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State
http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/1999/990430a.html
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Justice Arbour and I today discussed how the United
States can provide more information to the Tribunal, and how to speed up
delivery of potential evidence to The Hague. I assured her that we are
asking
Congress for additional resources for the Tribunal to meet new demands
for
investigations in Kosovo. And we discussed other needs of her
investigations,
which I am not going to get into, but which I assure you that the United
States will do everything we possibly can to meet.
We are also thinking ahead to the Tribunal's needs after the fighting
stops.
We have consulted with Justice Arbour and begun planning for how we
could
facilitate access by Tribunal investigators to crime scenes in Kosovo.
The Tribunal now needs real-time support for its Kosovo investigations,
and
the United States is determined to give it. The world needs to know
exactly
what is happening there, and we are committed to helping discover it.
Milosevic's victims, and those everywhere who love justice, need to know
that
there will be no impunity for those who commit these heinous offenses.
And
we're committed to helping the Tribunal ensure that those responsible
are
held accountable.
Justice Arbour.
JUSTICE ARBOUR: Thank you. I don't have a statement. I think I'd rather
turn
to your questions, except to say that I've had very fruitful
discussions. We
had announced a few weeks ago that we now need unprecedented assistance,
in
order to respond to the kinds of allegations that are coming out of
Kosovo in
a time frame that will make our work relevant. The discussions I've had
in
Germany, in the United Kingdom, here, and that I hope to have in France
next
week, are very much a part of our effort to obtain this kind of
assistance.
I'm happy to say that the support that is promised to us is starting to
materialize, and I hope that it will permit us to face this massive flow
of
information and organize it in a coherent fashion that will allow us to
discharge our mandate in a real-time environment.
QUESTION: Did you discuss an indictment of Slobodan Milosevic, and did
you
discuss reports that Justice Arbour is planning to leave this position;
and
what is the US view of that?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, obviously, the question of what is going to
happen
to Mr. Milosevic is a subject that is very much on our minds, and
Justice
Arbour knows what we have said both publicly and privately; that she and
the
Tribunal need to follow out the trail of evidence to its conclusion. We,
as I
said, are supportive of her efforts.
She and I did not personally discuss the subject of -- it is my
understanding. We talked about the challenge of the position. I was
there
when she was chosen as prosecutor, and I made very clear to her our
tremendous support for the work that she has done and will continue to
do.
She is a great public servant, and someone that the international
community
has the highest respect for.
JUSTICE ARBOUR: ...We are here, and elsewhere, to ensure that we get the
assistance to move the cases forward in that direction. Whether it
points to
any particular individual, I think the law is very clear: there is no
immunity before our Tribunal for heads of state. There's no immunity,
essentially, for any individual, both in a personal or a command
responsibility position. All our discussions take place in that
framework.
[Arbour used the word "partners" several times in the press conference.
Following are some choice:
'PARTNER' EXCERPTS
1 - Arbour: "We have long-standing relationships with [NATO] information
providers. We are now looking at trying to accelerate the flow of that
kind
of information and the quality of the product. Of course, we're doing so
at a
time where that the collection capacity of all these potential providers
is
taxed by the need for them to collect information relevant to their
efforts
in the region.
"So we are, of course, competing with other interests at a time when
we're
trying to get access for information for our purposes. It's a dialogue
and a
partnership that we have to maintain."
2- Arbour: "I can assure you that one of the main subjects of discussion
that
I raised -- not only here but in all the capitals that I visited
recently --
is the need for an immediate, very robust arrest initiative in
Bosnia.... I
believe that what will ...have a very immediate impact -- would be the
demonstration that we have the capacity to investigate and we have
partners
who have the political will and the operational skills to execute arrest
warrants even in hostile environments."
3 - Arbour: "There's no question that we would like to access the
largest
number of pieces [of information] and to have the capacity to process
this
information. As I said, I think we've now put in place mechanisms that
allow
us, in partnership with many others who are in the field in Albania and
in
Macedonia, to try to process refugee accounts and, from our point of
view,
select those who will provide the best base for a court case that will
be
reflective of the magnitude of what has transpired."
Further Reading:
1) "Reichstag Fire Trial, the Sequel," by Jared Israel. Biting account
of
Slobodan Milosevic's appearance the the 'Tribunal.'
http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/point1.htm
2) 'SZAMUELY'S LIST, PART 1 - 22 Reasons Why I Don't Want to be
Imprisoned by
the Hague Tribunal'
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/szamuely/szam.htm
3) 'Back to the Dark Ages?' by Jared Israel at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/bac.htm
4) 'Learning from the Inquisition,' by Prof. Kosta Cavoski at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-4.htm
Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes.
www.tenc.net
---
Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
Vuoi gestire da solo la pubblicita' della tua Newsletter?
Vuoi sapere quanti utenti hanno letto le tue News?
Vuoi pagare solo quello che consumi come traffico mail?
eC-Messenger e' il sistema white label ideato da Domeus
che ti permette di sfruttare al meglio le potenzialita' del
knowledge management e del CRM
http://www.domeus.it/ad2688590/interestmarketing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/lovie.htm
The Love Song of Arbour and Albright
by Jared Israel
Due to the stand taken by Slobodan Milosevic, everyone is asking: is the
Hague 'Tribunal' a legitimate court? If it is not, if it is in fact a
sham,
then it must be an instrument of NATO/Imperial rule; there is no third
alternative. And if it is an instrument of Imperial rule, used to
demonize
and punish those who, coming from materially poor countries,
nevertheless
dare to resist U.S. control, then citizens of the NATO countries must
act
against it. Otherwise, shall we not share a shameful responsibility? (1)
Below are excerpts from a joint press conference held April 30, 1999, by
Louise Arbour, then Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY (The Hague 'Tribunal')
and
U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright.
A) At the time, the United States and other NATO countries had spent
five
weeks perpetrating the main international crime: waging an aggressive
war
against a state which had invaded no other.
Moreover the United States and its allies:
* Bombed civilian facilities (a war crime)
* Dropped anti-personnel weapons (a war crime)
* Bombed a train and at least one refugee column (both war crimes)
* Bombed Serbian TV (a war crime)
* And deliberately created an environmental catastrophe by bombing
chemical
facilities in Pancevo (a war crime).
In the press conference, Arbour made no reference to these publicly
known war
crimes. Instead she accepted as her only field of concern NATO's
accusations
against Yugoslavia. These accusations, which have been over and over
exposed
as without foundation, and even lies, were used to justify the crime of
bombing Yugoslavia.
B) In this highly visible forum, Albright instructed Arbour to indict
President Milosevic.
[Start quote from Albright] "Well, obviously, the question of what is
going
to happen to Mr. Milosevic is a subject that is very much on our minds,
and
Justice Arbour knows what we have said both publicly and privately; that
she
and the Tribunal need to follow out the trail of evidence to its
conclusion.
We, as I said, are supportive of her efforts." [End quote from Albright]
Instead of rejecting what would be a gross and humiliating interference
if
the 'Tribunal' were a real court, Arbour coyly (and shamelessly) linked
the
execution of said indictment with increased funding and help in
gathering
(or, one should say, fabricating) evidence:
[Start quote from Arbour] "We are here, and elsewhere, to ensure that we
get
the assistance to move the cases forward in that direction. Whether it
points
to any particular individual, I think the law is very clear: there is no
immunity before our Tribunal for heads of state. There's no immunity,
essentially, for any individual, both in a personal or a command
responsibility position. All our discussions take place in that
framework."[End quote from Arbour]
C) The crucial question to ask about any would-be judicial system is
this: is
it independent? That is why Justice is pictured wearing a blindfold. At
the
end of the excerpts is a special section featuring Arbour's references
to
NATO countries as her 'partners.'
Hmmm. It occurs to me that if you just add one little 'e' to 'sham' it
gives
you 'shame.'
--JI
***
Press Conference Excerpts
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and
Justice Louise Arbour, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia
Joint Press Conference
Washington, D.C., April 30, 1999
As released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State
Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and
Justice Louise Arbour, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia
Joint Press Conference
Washington, D.C., April 30, 1999
As released by the Office of the Spokesman
U.S. Department of State
http://secretary.state.gov/www/statements/1999/990430a.html
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Justice Arbour and I today discussed how the United
States can provide more information to the Tribunal, and how to speed up
delivery of potential evidence to The Hague. I assured her that we are
asking
Congress for additional resources for the Tribunal to meet new demands
for
investigations in Kosovo. And we discussed other needs of her
investigations,
which I am not going to get into, but which I assure you that the United
States will do everything we possibly can to meet.
We are also thinking ahead to the Tribunal's needs after the fighting
stops.
We have consulted with Justice Arbour and begun planning for how we
could
facilitate access by Tribunal investigators to crime scenes in Kosovo.
The Tribunal now needs real-time support for its Kosovo investigations,
and
the United States is determined to give it. The world needs to know
exactly
what is happening there, and we are committed to helping discover it.
Milosevic's victims, and those everywhere who love justice, need to know
that
there will be no impunity for those who commit these heinous offenses.
And
we're committed to helping the Tribunal ensure that those responsible
are
held accountable.
Justice Arbour.
JUSTICE ARBOUR: Thank you. I don't have a statement. I think I'd rather
turn
to your questions, except to say that I've had very fruitful
discussions. We
had announced a few weeks ago that we now need unprecedented assistance,
in
order to respond to the kinds of allegations that are coming out of
Kosovo in
a time frame that will make our work relevant. The discussions I've had
in
Germany, in the United Kingdom, here, and that I hope to have in France
next
week, are very much a part of our effort to obtain this kind of
assistance.
I'm happy to say that the support that is promised to us is starting to
materialize, and I hope that it will permit us to face this massive flow
of
information and organize it in a coherent fashion that will allow us to
discharge our mandate in a real-time environment.
QUESTION: Did you discuss an indictment of Slobodan Milosevic, and did
you
discuss reports that Justice Arbour is planning to leave this position;
and
what is the US view of that?
SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Well, obviously, the question of what is going to
happen
to Mr. Milosevic is a subject that is very much on our minds, and
Justice
Arbour knows what we have said both publicly and privately; that she and
the
Tribunal need to follow out the trail of evidence to its conclusion. We,
as I
said, are supportive of her efforts.
She and I did not personally discuss the subject of -- it is my
understanding. We talked about the challenge of the position. I was
there
when she was chosen as prosecutor, and I made very clear to her our
tremendous support for the work that she has done and will continue to
do.
She is a great public servant, and someone that the international
community
has the highest respect for.
JUSTICE ARBOUR: ...We are here, and elsewhere, to ensure that we get the
assistance to move the cases forward in that direction. Whether it
points to
any particular individual, I think the law is very clear: there is no
immunity before our Tribunal for heads of state. There's no immunity,
essentially, for any individual, both in a personal or a command
responsibility position. All our discussions take place in that
framework.
[Arbour used the word "partners" several times in the press conference.
Following are some choice:
'PARTNER' EXCERPTS
1 - Arbour: "We have long-standing relationships with [NATO] information
providers. We are now looking at trying to accelerate the flow of that
kind
of information and the quality of the product. Of course, we're doing so
at a
time where that the collection capacity of all these potential providers
is
taxed by the need for them to collect information relevant to their
efforts
in the region.
"So we are, of course, competing with other interests at a time when
we're
trying to get access for information for our purposes. It's a dialogue
and a
partnership that we have to maintain."
2- Arbour: "I can assure you that one of the main subjects of discussion
that
I raised -- not only here but in all the capitals that I visited
recently --
is the need for an immediate, very robust arrest initiative in
Bosnia.... I
believe that what will ...have a very immediate impact -- would be the
demonstration that we have the capacity to investigate and we have
partners
who have the political will and the operational skills to execute arrest
warrants even in hostile environments."
3 - Arbour: "There's no question that we would like to access the
largest
number of pieces [of information] and to have the capacity to process
this
information. As I said, I think we've now put in place mechanisms that
allow
us, in partnership with many others who are in the field in Albania and
in
Macedonia, to try to process refugee accounts and, from our point of
view,
select those who will provide the best base for a court case that will
be
reflective of the magnitude of what has transpired."
Further Reading:
1) "Reichstag Fire Trial, the Sequel," by Jared Israel. Biting account
of
Slobodan Milosevic's appearance the the 'Tribunal.'
http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/point1.htm
2) 'SZAMUELY'S LIST, PART 1 - 22 Reasons Why I Don't Want to be
Imprisoned by
the Hague Tribunal'
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/szamuely/szam.htm
3) 'Back to the Dark Ages?' by Jared Israel at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/bac.htm
4) 'Learning from the Inquisition,' by Prof. Kosta Cavoski at
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-4.htm
Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes.
www.tenc.net
---
Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
Vuoi gestire da solo la pubblicita' della tua Newsletter?
Vuoi sapere quanti utenti hanno letto le tue News?
Vuoi pagare solo quello che consumi come traffico mail?
eC-Messenger e' il sistema white label ideato da Domeus
che ti permette di sfruttare al meglio le potenzialita' del
knowledge management e del CRM
http://www.domeus.it/ad2688590/interestmarketing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
Ai delegati del Partito Socialista della Serbia
riuniti per l'undicesimo anniversario della fondazione del partito
---
Italijanska Koordinacija za Jugoslaviju
(Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia - CNJ)
pozdravlja delegate Socijalisticke Partije Srbije
(SPS) okupljene povodom jedanaeste
godisnjice formiranja njihove partije.
CNJ - koja okuplja desetine grupacija sa cele
italijanske teritorije, grupacija koje vec
godinama ucestvuju u akcijama solidarnosti
u korist jugoslovenskih radnika i u sirenju
kontroinformacija o ratu koji je pratio
razjedinjenje Socijalisticke Federativne Republike
Jugoslavije - je solidarna sa rukovodiocima i
aktivistima SPS-a i ohrabruje ih da u ovom, za
Srbiju i Jugoslaviju tako kriticnom trenutku,
ojacaju opoziciju procesu ekonomske
liberalizacije, politickog razbijanja i ponovne
vojne kolonizacije u toku.
SFRJ je bila neprevazidjen primer zajednickog
zivota naroda i kultura, postovanja socijalnih i
nacionalnih prava, nezavisnosti i prestiza na
internacionalnoj sceni.
Unistavanje sadasnje Savezne Republike Jugoslavije
ostvarilo bi reakcionarni i imperijalisticki nacrt
razjedinjavanja Balkana u mozaik malih nesuverenih
protektorata bez sredstava za samostalni razvoj,
koji bi se zasnivali na etnickim razlikama i samim
tim svojim stanovnicima ne bi mogli garantovati
ona prava koja u jednoj modernoj drzavi proizilaze
iz drzavljanstva. Za narode Balkana sloboda i
opstanak mogu se zasnivati samo na jedinstvu u
miru. To jos vise vazi za srpski narod, koji je
oduvek bio brojan i u susednim republikama.
Srbi su manje od bilo koga mogli biti zainteresovani
za razbijanje sopstvene drzave, i nije
slucajno sto su bas oni, zajedno sa svojim
socijalistickim bivsim predsednikom - danas
ilegalno zatvorenim u inostranstvu, zrtvom
jednog politickog procesa - bili glavna meta
kampanje za demonizaciju i stratesku dezinformaciju.
CNJ, nadajuci se da ce SPS i u buducnosti biti
oslonac jugoslovenskim patriotima u njihovoj
borbi za jedinstvo i nacionalnu slobodu, a protiv
agresije i strane kolonizacije, podseca na
upozorenje iz jugoslovenske himne:
"Proklet bio izdajica svoje domovine".
17 jul 2001
---
Il Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ)
saluta i delegati del Partito Socialista della
Serbia (SPS) riuniti in occasione dell'undicesimo
anniversario della fondazione del partito.
Il CNJ - che riunisce decine di realta' locali
sparse su tutto il territorio italiano, da anni
attive nella solidarieta' ai lavoratori jugoslavi
e nella controinformazione sulla guerra che ha
accompagnato lo squartamento della Repubblica
Federativa Socialista di Jugoslavia - solidarizza
ed incoraggia i dirigenti e la base militante
dell'SPS affinche' in questo momento cosi' critico
per la Serbia e per la Jugoslavia rafforzino
l'opposizione al processo di liberalizzazione
economica, frantumazione politica e ricolonizzazione
militare in atto.
La RFSJ era esempio insuperato di convivenza tra
genti e culture, di rispetto dei diritti sociali e
nazionali, di indipendenza e prestigio nello
scenario internazionale. Il paventato scioglimento
della attuale Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia
porterebbe a compimento il disegno reazionario ed
imperialista di frantumazione dei Balcani in un
mosaico di piccoli protettorati senza sovranita' ne'
mezzi per uno sviluppo autonomo, fondati sulla
"differenza etnica" e dunque incapaci di garantire
ai loro abitanti quei diritti che in uno Stato moderno
derivano dalla cittadinanza. Per i popoli dei Balcani
non esiste liberta' ne' sopravvivenza possibile
se non in un quadro di pacifica unita'. Questo e'
ancora piu' vero per il popolo serbo, da sempre
massicciamente insediato anche nelle repubbliche
limitrofe alla Repubblica di Serbia. I serbi meno di
tutti avevano interesse alla frantumazione del loro
paese, e non e' un caso che proprio i serbi, ed il
loro ex-presidente socialista, oggi illegalmente
detenuto all'estero e vittima di un processo politico,
siano stati il bersaglio principale della campagna di
demonizzazione e disinformazione strategica.
Il CNJ, auspicando che l'SPS possa rimanere in futuro
un punto di riferimento per i patrioti jugoslavi nella
lotta per l'unita' e la liberta' nazionale contro
l'aggressione e la ricolonizzazione straniera, ricorda
il monito contenuto nelle parole dell'inno nazionale
jugoslavo: "Sia maledetto il traditore della propria
patria".
17 luglio 2001
---
> THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF SERBIA
>
> Head Committee
>
> Belgrade, July 8, 2001
>
> Telephone +381 11 3282 575, Fax +381 11 3282 491
>
> TO THE FRIENDLY POLITICAL PARTIES AND MOVEMENTS ABROAD
>
>
> Dear friends,
>
>
> The Socialist Party of Serbia will mark July 17, day of 11th
anniversary of its foundation, with various political and working
activities.
>
> The special session of the Head Committee is scheduled for July 17,
2001 and will be attended by abut 350 members of the Head Committee,
44 Federal and 37 Serbian MPs and also by heads of diplomatic missions
accredited in Belgrade.
>
> Political situation in Yugoslavia is indeed causing profound
concern, not only by members and sympathizers of SPS as a main
opposition party, but by great majority of citizens of Yugoslavia.
This is first of all because of recent abduction of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia and of Republic of Serbia Slobodan Milosevic,
actual president of the Socialist Party of Serbia, by unconstitutional
and unlawful decree of Serbian Government headed by Prime-Minister
Djindjic. Illegal handing over of Slobodan Milosevic to the so-called
"tribunal" in the Hague has been met by popular anger, as unique
precedent provoking unforeseeable consequences. It is understood to be
expression of the policy to cover-up the crimes against peace and
humanity committed by NATO leaders responsible for the aggression
against Yugoslavia, as well as by Albanian terrorists having acted in
alliance with NATO.
>
> Rapid worsening of socio-economic situation, widening of
unemployment, fall of production and spreading of poverty among
population is another reason of profound concern.
>
> Finally, resignation of Federal Government, the state crisis and
inability of the actual regime to fulfill any of promises eight months
after elections, make prospects unpredictable in many aspects. New
federal elections have become inevitable and elections on other levels
very probable before the end of this year.
>
> Having regard to all this, leadership of the Socialist Party of
Serbia would welcome messages of solidarity, moral and political
support in its continuous struggle for peace, preservation of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as key factor of stability and
development in the region, as well as for freedom, social justice,
democracy and equality of individuals, peoples and states.
>
>
> With solidarity greetings,
>
> Vladimir Krsljanin, International Secretary
>
> To join or help this struggle, visit:
> http://www.sps.org.yu/ (official SPS website)
> http://www.belgrade-forum.org/ (forum for the world of equals)
> http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend
Slobodan Milosevic)
---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
Vuoi comprare - ma anche vendere - on line?
da oggi su Domeus hai una piazza tutta per te, 24 ore su 24.
Fatti un giro e vedrai che non te ne pentirai.
http://www.domeus.it/ad2688610/domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
riuniti per l'undicesimo anniversario della fondazione del partito
---
Italijanska Koordinacija za Jugoslaviju
(Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia - CNJ)
pozdravlja delegate Socijalisticke Partije Srbije
(SPS) okupljene povodom jedanaeste
godisnjice formiranja njihove partije.
CNJ - koja okuplja desetine grupacija sa cele
italijanske teritorije, grupacija koje vec
godinama ucestvuju u akcijama solidarnosti
u korist jugoslovenskih radnika i u sirenju
kontroinformacija o ratu koji je pratio
razjedinjenje Socijalisticke Federativne Republike
Jugoslavije - je solidarna sa rukovodiocima i
aktivistima SPS-a i ohrabruje ih da u ovom, za
Srbiju i Jugoslaviju tako kriticnom trenutku,
ojacaju opoziciju procesu ekonomske
liberalizacije, politickog razbijanja i ponovne
vojne kolonizacije u toku.
SFRJ je bila neprevazidjen primer zajednickog
zivota naroda i kultura, postovanja socijalnih i
nacionalnih prava, nezavisnosti i prestiza na
internacionalnoj sceni.
Unistavanje sadasnje Savezne Republike Jugoslavije
ostvarilo bi reakcionarni i imperijalisticki nacrt
razjedinjavanja Balkana u mozaik malih nesuverenih
protektorata bez sredstava za samostalni razvoj,
koji bi se zasnivali na etnickim razlikama i samim
tim svojim stanovnicima ne bi mogli garantovati
ona prava koja u jednoj modernoj drzavi proizilaze
iz drzavljanstva. Za narode Balkana sloboda i
opstanak mogu se zasnivati samo na jedinstvu u
miru. To jos vise vazi za srpski narod, koji je
oduvek bio brojan i u susednim republikama.
Srbi su manje od bilo koga mogli biti zainteresovani
za razbijanje sopstvene drzave, i nije
slucajno sto su bas oni, zajedno sa svojim
socijalistickim bivsim predsednikom - danas
ilegalno zatvorenim u inostranstvu, zrtvom
jednog politickog procesa - bili glavna meta
kampanje za demonizaciju i stratesku dezinformaciju.
CNJ, nadajuci se da ce SPS i u buducnosti biti
oslonac jugoslovenskim patriotima u njihovoj
borbi za jedinstvo i nacionalnu slobodu, a protiv
agresije i strane kolonizacije, podseca na
upozorenje iz jugoslovenske himne:
"Proklet bio izdajica svoje domovine".
17 jul 2001
---
Il Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ)
saluta i delegati del Partito Socialista della
Serbia (SPS) riuniti in occasione dell'undicesimo
anniversario della fondazione del partito.
Il CNJ - che riunisce decine di realta' locali
sparse su tutto il territorio italiano, da anni
attive nella solidarieta' ai lavoratori jugoslavi
e nella controinformazione sulla guerra che ha
accompagnato lo squartamento della Repubblica
Federativa Socialista di Jugoslavia - solidarizza
ed incoraggia i dirigenti e la base militante
dell'SPS affinche' in questo momento cosi' critico
per la Serbia e per la Jugoslavia rafforzino
l'opposizione al processo di liberalizzazione
economica, frantumazione politica e ricolonizzazione
militare in atto.
La RFSJ era esempio insuperato di convivenza tra
genti e culture, di rispetto dei diritti sociali e
nazionali, di indipendenza e prestigio nello
scenario internazionale. Il paventato scioglimento
della attuale Repubblica Federale di Jugoslavia
porterebbe a compimento il disegno reazionario ed
imperialista di frantumazione dei Balcani in un
mosaico di piccoli protettorati senza sovranita' ne'
mezzi per uno sviluppo autonomo, fondati sulla
"differenza etnica" e dunque incapaci di garantire
ai loro abitanti quei diritti che in uno Stato moderno
derivano dalla cittadinanza. Per i popoli dei Balcani
non esiste liberta' ne' sopravvivenza possibile
se non in un quadro di pacifica unita'. Questo e'
ancora piu' vero per il popolo serbo, da sempre
massicciamente insediato anche nelle repubbliche
limitrofe alla Repubblica di Serbia. I serbi meno di
tutti avevano interesse alla frantumazione del loro
paese, e non e' un caso che proprio i serbi, ed il
loro ex-presidente socialista, oggi illegalmente
detenuto all'estero e vittima di un processo politico,
siano stati il bersaglio principale della campagna di
demonizzazione e disinformazione strategica.
Il CNJ, auspicando che l'SPS possa rimanere in futuro
un punto di riferimento per i patrioti jugoslavi nella
lotta per l'unita' e la liberta' nazionale contro
l'aggressione e la ricolonizzazione straniera, ricorda
il monito contenuto nelle parole dell'inno nazionale
jugoslavo: "Sia maledetto il traditore della propria
patria".
17 luglio 2001
---
> THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF SERBIA
>
> Head Committee
>
> Belgrade, July 8, 2001
>
> Telephone +381 11 3282 575, Fax +381 11 3282 491
>
> TO THE FRIENDLY POLITICAL PARTIES AND MOVEMENTS ABROAD
>
>
> Dear friends,
>
>
> The Socialist Party of Serbia will mark July 17, day of 11th
anniversary of its foundation, with various political and working
activities.
>
> The special session of the Head Committee is scheduled for July 17,
2001 and will be attended by abut 350 members of the Head Committee,
44 Federal and 37 Serbian MPs and also by heads of diplomatic missions
accredited in Belgrade.
>
> Political situation in Yugoslavia is indeed causing profound
concern, not only by members and sympathizers of SPS as a main
opposition party, but by great majority of citizens of Yugoslavia.
This is first of all because of recent abduction of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia and of Republic of Serbia Slobodan Milosevic,
actual president of the Socialist Party of Serbia, by unconstitutional
and unlawful decree of Serbian Government headed by Prime-Minister
Djindjic. Illegal handing over of Slobodan Milosevic to the so-called
"tribunal" in the Hague has been met by popular anger, as unique
precedent provoking unforeseeable consequences. It is understood to be
expression of the policy to cover-up the crimes against peace and
humanity committed by NATO leaders responsible for the aggression
against Yugoslavia, as well as by Albanian terrorists having acted in
alliance with NATO.
>
> Rapid worsening of socio-economic situation, widening of
unemployment, fall of production and spreading of poverty among
population is another reason of profound concern.
>
> Finally, resignation of Federal Government, the state crisis and
inability of the actual regime to fulfill any of promises eight months
after elections, make prospects unpredictable in many aspects. New
federal elections have become inevitable and elections on other levels
very probable before the end of this year.
>
> Having regard to all this, leadership of the Socialist Party of
Serbia would welcome messages of solidarity, moral and political
support in its continuous struggle for peace, preservation of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as key factor of stability and
development in the region, as well as for freedom, social justice,
democracy and equality of individuals, peoples and states.
>
>
> With solidarity greetings,
>
> Vladimir Krsljanin, International Secretary
>
> To join or help this struggle, visit:
> http://www.sps.org.yu/ (official SPS website)
> http://www.belgrade-forum.org/ (forum for the world of equals)
> http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend
Slobodan Milosevic)
---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
Vuoi comprare - ma anche vendere - on line?
da oggi su Domeus hai una piazza tutta per te, 24 ore su 24.
Fatti un giro e vedrai che non te ne pentirai.
http://www.domeus.it/ad2688610/domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
DJINDJIC HA PAURA DI PERDERE LA SUA CREDIBILITA'!?
"Quando ero all'opposizione, l'Unione Europea
ci promise tre miliardi di marchi in contanti per Milosevic.
Dove sono?"
"Io ammonisco seriamente l'Occidente. Se il mio governo
cade cio' costerebbe alla comunita' internazionale 10 milioni
di dollari."
Djindjic ha affermato che Belgrado si aspettava di ricevere
un primo versamento di 300 milioni di Euro entro agosto, ma di
avere scoperto che di questi 225 milioni di Euro dovranno servire
a ripagare i debiti...
"Sto perdendo la mia credibilita' e non posso piu' stabilizzare
il paese"
14 Jul 2001 15:14
Serb PM attacks West over aid delay-report
BERLIN, July 14 (Reuters) - Serbian Prime Minister
Zoran Djindjic has slammed the West for delaying the
aid it promised in return for the handover of ousted
leader Slobodan Milosevic to The Hague war crimes
court.
"We didn't make any conditions for the handover. We
wanted to show our goodwill to integrate into the
international community," Djindjic told Germany's Der
Spiegel weekly magazine in an interview due for
publication on Sunday.
"But I must admit that I am shocked about the farce of
the western aid which should amount to $1.3 billion,"
he said. "If we do not receive a financial injection
immediately, we will have demonstrations and unrest by
September at the latest."
Djindjic, a leading member of the Serbian reform bloc
that ousted Milosevic as Yugoslav president last year,
has come under heavy criticism from senior colleagues
and protesters in Belgrade for his covert handover of
Milosevic last month.
After Milosevic arrived in The Hague, Western
officials pledged $1.28 billion to help end
Yugoslavia's economic misery and rebuild a country
shattered by NATO's 1999 bombing campaign.
Djindjic said Belgrade had been expecting to receive a
first instalment of 300 million euros ($255 million)
by August, but had discovered that 225 million euros
of that would go towards paying off old debts, while
the remaining 75 million euros would only be
transferred in November at the earliest.
"That is like giving a seriously ill person medicine
when he is dead. Our crisis months are July, August,
September," Djindjic told the magazine.
Djindjic said support for Socialists and radicals
would increase without immediate financial transfers,
especially if Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica
kept raising doubts about whether the West would come
up with the cash.
"I am seriously warning the West. If my government
falls that would cost the international community $10
billion."
Djindjic warned of a possible takeover of the
government by radicals, a Socialist comeback and a new
Balkans crisis, which would end cooperation with The
Hague tribunal and create hundreds of thousands of
refugees.
"I am losing my credibility and cannot stabilise the
country anymore," he said. "What we need is sincere
help, not empty declarations of sympathy. When I was
in the opposition, the European Union promised us
three billion marks in cash for the fall of Milosevic.
Where is it?"
SERBIAN PREMIER SHOCKED WITH "WESTERN ASSISTANCE MOCKERY"
HAMBURG, July 14 (Tanjug) Serbian Premier Zoran Djindjic has
strongly condemned Western countries for their tardiness in sending the
pledged assistance to Yugoslavia and described this as a "mockery."
"We have made no conditions for Milosevic's extradition to the
International Criminal Tribunal (for the former Yugoslavia) in The
Hague.
We thus wanted to show our readiness to integrate in the international
community. However, I have to admit I am shocked with the mockery of
'Western assistance' which should total 1.3 billion dollars," Djindjic
said
in an interview, which will be published in the German weekly Der
Spiegel
on Monday.
"We were to receive the first tranche of 300 million euros in
August. All of a sudden, we receive announcements that 225 million euros
of
that amount will be withheld as debts partly originating from the Tito
era.
Twothirds of the amount thus represents default interest, because
Milosevic
refused to pay back loans for ten years," the Serbian premier said. The
earliest date for the payment of the remaining 75 million is November.
We
were told that these were currently the principles in the West. This is
tantamount to giving medication to a seriously ill person only after his
or
her death," Djindjic said.
"I am seriously warning the West. If my government falls, it
will
cost the international community 10 billion dollars. (...) I cannot
constantly talk about Western assistance to our people without seeing it
arrive. I am losing my credibility and can no longer stabilise the
country.
Why should I risk losing my family in a bomb attack, if everything is
brought into question here," Djindjic said.
"We need true help, not empty pledges of support. While I was
in
the opposition, the European Union promised to pay three billion German
marks in cash for Milosevic's overthrow. Where is this money now," the
Serbian premier wondered.
---
Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
TUTTO PER LA CASA, PER LA COPPIA, PER IL BAMBINO
Da oggi le migliori offerte
direttamente nella tua casella di posta
http://www.domeus.it/ad2688620/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
"Quando ero all'opposizione, l'Unione Europea
ci promise tre miliardi di marchi in contanti per Milosevic.
Dove sono?"
"Io ammonisco seriamente l'Occidente. Se il mio governo
cade cio' costerebbe alla comunita' internazionale 10 milioni
di dollari."
Djindjic ha affermato che Belgrado si aspettava di ricevere
un primo versamento di 300 milioni di Euro entro agosto, ma di
avere scoperto che di questi 225 milioni di Euro dovranno servire
a ripagare i debiti...
"Sto perdendo la mia credibilita' e non posso piu' stabilizzare
il paese"
14 Jul 2001 15:14
Serb PM attacks West over aid delay-report
BERLIN, July 14 (Reuters) - Serbian Prime Minister
Zoran Djindjic has slammed the West for delaying the
aid it promised in return for the handover of ousted
leader Slobodan Milosevic to The Hague war crimes
court.
"We didn't make any conditions for the handover. We
wanted to show our goodwill to integrate into the
international community," Djindjic told Germany's Der
Spiegel weekly magazine in an interview due for
publication on Sunday.
"But I must admit that I am shocked about the farce of
the western aid which should amount to $1.3 billion,"
he said. "If we do not receive a financial injection
immediately, we will have demonstrations and unrest by
September at the latest."
Djindjic, a leading member of the Serbian reform bloc
that ousted Milosevic as Yugoslav president last year,
has come under heavy criticism from senior colleagues
and protesters in Belgrade for his covert handover of
Milosevic last month.
After Milosevic arrived in The Hague, Western
officials pledged $1.28 billion to help end
Yugoslavia's economic misery and rebuild a country
shattered by NATO's 1999 bombing campaign.
Djindjic said Belgrade had been expecting to receive a
first instalment of 300 million euros ($255 million)
by August, but had discovered that 225 million euros
of that would go towards paying off old debts, while
the remaining 75 million euros would only be
transferred in November at the earliest.
"That is like giving a seriously ill person medicine
when he is dead. Our crisis months are July, August,
September," Djindjic told the magazine.
Djindjic said support for Socialists and radicals
would increase without immediate financial transfers,
especially if Yugoslav President Vojislav Kostunica
kept raising doubts about whether the West would come
up with the cash.
"I am seriously warning the West. If my government
falls that would cost the international community $10
billion."
Djindjic warned of a possible takeover of the
government by radicals, a Socialist comeback and a new
Balkans crisis, which would end cooperation with The
Hague tribunal and create hundreds of thousands of
refugees.
"I am losing my credibility and cannot stabilise the
country anymore," he said. "What we need is sincere
help, not empty declarations of sympathy. When I was
in the opposition, the European Union promised us
three billion marks in cash for the fall of Milosevic.
Where is it?"
SERBIAN PREMIER SHOCKED WITH "WESTERN ASSISTANCE MOCKERY"
HAMBURG, July 14 (Tanjug) Serbian Premier Zoran Djindjic has
strongly condemned Western countries for their tardiness in sending the
pledged assistance to Yugoslavia and described this as a "mockery."
"We have made no conditions for Milosevic's extradition to the
International Criminal Tribunal (for the former Yugoslavia) in The
Hague.
We thus wanted to show our readiness to integrate in the international
community. However, I have to admit I am shocked with the mockery of
'Western assistance' which should total 1.3 billion dollars," Djindjic
said
in an interview, which will be published in the German weekly Der
Spiegel
on Monday.
"We were to receive the first tranche of 300 million euros in
August. All of a sudden, we receive announcements that 225 million euros
of
that amount will be withheld as debts partly originating from the Tito
era.
Twothirds of the amount thus represents default interest, because
Milosevic
refused to pay back loans for ten years," the Serbian premier said. The
earliest date for the payment of the remaining 75 million is November.
We
were told that these were currently the principles in the West. This is
tantamount to giving medication to a seriously ill person only after his
or
her death," Djindjic said.
"I am seriously warning the West. If my government falls, it
will
cost the international community 10 billion dollars. (...) I cannot
constantly talk about Western assistance to our people without seeing it
arrive. I am losing my credibility and can no longer stabilise the
country.
Why should I risk losing my family in a bomb attack, if everything is
brought into question here," Djindjic said.
"We need true help, not empty pledges of support. While I was
in
the opposition, the European Union promised to pay three billion German
marks in cash for Milosevic's overthrow. Where is this money now," the
Serbian premier wondered.
---
Questa lista e' curata da componenti del
Coordinamento Nazionale per la Jugoslavia (CNJ).
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il CNJ, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
TUTTO PER LA CASA, PER LA COPPIA, PER IL BAMBINO
Da oggi le migliori offerte
direttamente nella tua casella di posta
http://www.domeus.it/ad2688620/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
(English version at the bottom) Le Tribunal criminel international pour
l'ancienne Yougoslavie
Quelques éléments qu'il convient de savoir à ce propos
par William Blum
Quinze jours à peine après les bombardements de la Yougoslavie par
l'Otan, en mars 1999, des spécialistes canadiens, britanniques et grecs
du droit international, ainsi que l'Association américaine des Juristes,
commençaient à enregistrer des plaintes adressées au Tribunal criminel
international pour l'ancienne Yougoslavie, à La Haye, et accusant les
dirigeants des pays de l'OTAN et des fonctionnaires de l'OTAN même de
crimes similaires à ceux pour lesquels, peu de temps avant, le Tribunal
avait prononcé des condamnations contre des dirigeants serbes. Parmi ces
accusations figuraient "de graves violations des lois humanitaires
internationales consistant, entre autres, en tueries volontaires, en
graves souffrances et dommages tout aussi volontaires, tant sur le plan
corporel que sur le plan de la santé, en l'emploi d'armes nocives et
autres censées occasionner des souffrances inutiles, en la destruction
délibérée de villes et de villages, en attaques abusives contre des
cibles civiles, en dévastations militairement injustifiées, en attaques
contre des immeubles et habitations sans défense, en destructions et
dégâts volontaires infligés à des institutions vouées à la religion, au
bien-être social, à l'éducation, aux arts et aux sciences". Le requête
canadienne cite 68 dirigeants, parmi lesquels William Clinton, Madeleine
Albright, William Cohen, Tony Blair, le Premier ministre canadien Jean
Chrétien et les fonctionnaires de l'OTAN Javier Solana, Wesley Clark et
Jamie Shea. La plainte parle également de "violation ouverte" de la
Charte des Nations unies, du traité de l'OTAN lui-même, des Conventions
de Genève et des Principes du Droit international reconnus par le
Tribunal militaire international de Nuremberg. La plainte était
accompagnée d'un nombre considérable de preuves venant étayer les
accusations. Ces preuves mettent paerticulièrement en évidence le fait
que c'est bien la campagne de bombardements de l'OTAN qui a causé le
plus gros des victimes en Yougoslavie, provoqué la plupart des atrocités
serbes, déclenché un désastre pour l'environnement et laissé sur place
de dangereux reliquats sous forme de bombes à fragmentation ou à
l'uranium appauvri qui n'ont pas explosé. En juin, quelques-unes des
plaintes sont parvenues au procureur en chef du tribunal de La Haye, la
Canadienne Louise Arbour. Bien qu'elle ait cordialement reçu cette
lettre en mains propres, en même temps que trois épais volumes de
preuves illustrant les crimes de guerre présumés, rien de substantiel
n'est sorti de la réunion, en dépit de la réitération des lettres et
demandes de suivi de la part des plaignants. En novembre, son
successeur, la Suisesse Carla Del Ponte, a également rencontré certains
des plaignants et a reçu un nouveau lot de preuves supplémentaires. En
novembre, la lettre des plaignants faisait remarquer que les poursuites
à l'encontre des personnes qu'ils avaient citées constituaient "non
seulement une demande légale, mais également une demande de justice pour
les victimes et de dissuasion des pays puissants comme ceux de l'OTAN
qui, par leur puissance militaire et leur emprise sur les médias, ne
sont pas soumis à la moindre restriction naturelle susceptible de
dissuader des pays bien moins puissants". Accuser les vainqueurs de la
guerre, et pas seulement ceux qui l'ont perdue, fut-il prétendu,
constituerait un grand tournant dans la législation criminelle
internationale. Dans l'une des lettres adressées à Arbour, Michael
Mandel, professeur de droit à Toronto et initiateur de la requête
canadienne, ajoutait:
"Malheureusement, comme vous le savez, on a émis de nombreux doutes à
propos de l'impartialité de votre tribunal. Dans les premiers jours du
conflit, après qu'une plainte formelle et, selon nous, justifiée, contre
les dirigeants de l'OTAN, eut été déposée devant ce même tribunal par
des membres de la Faculté de Droit de l'Université de Belgrade, vous
êtes apparue dans une conférence de presse en compagnie de l'un des
accusés, le ministre britannique des Affaires étrangères, Robin Cook,
qui y est allé de son grand numéro en vous remettant un dossier sur les
crimes de guerre serbes. Début mai, vous êtes apparue dans une autre
conférence de presse avec le secrétaire d'Etat américain, Madeleine
Albright, qui, à l'époque, faisait elle-même l'objet de deux plaintes
formelles de crimes de guerre au cours desquels on avait pris pour
cibles des civils yougoslaves. A la même époque, Albright avait déclaré
publiquement que les Etats-Unis étaient le principal bailleur de fonds
du tribunal et qu'il lui avait même accordé davantage d'argent.(1)
Arbour elle-même n'a guère tenté de cacher le parti-pris en faveur de
l'OTAN qu'elle affichait sous sa robe. Elle se fiait à l'OTAN et au fait
que celle-ci pût être à la fois ses propres police, juge, jury et
gardienne de prison. Dans une année au cours de laquelle l'arrestation
du général Pinochet donnait un coup de pouce inspirant à la cause du
droit international et à celle de la justice internationale, le Tribunal
criminel international pour l'ancienne Yougoslavie, sous la direction
d'Arbour, décida que pour les grandes puissances il s'agirait d'une
affaire comme une autre, et ce fut particulièrement le cas pour la
grande puissance la plus susceptible d'être poursuivie et qui, comme par
hasard, lui versait le plus gros de son salaire. Voici ses propres mots:
"Bien sûr, je m'abstiendrai de tout commentaire à propos des allégations
concernant les violations des lois humanitaires internationales
prétendument commises par des ressortissants des pys de l'OTAN.
J'accepte les garanties proposées par les dirigeants de l'OTAN me
certifiant qu'ils entendent mener leurs opérations en République
fédérale de Yougoslavie en pleine conformité vis-à-vis des lois
humanitaires internationales. A nombre d'entre eux, lorsque l'occasion
s'est présentée, j'ai rappelé leurs obligations de mener des enquêtes
honnêtes et sans préjugés sur tout manquement possible à cette ligne de
conduite ainsi que l'obligation des responsables du commandement de
prévenir et de sévir, si cela était nécessaire."(2)
OTAN, conférence de presse, 16 mai 1999. Question: L'OTAN reconnaît-elle
la juridiction du juge Arbour sur ses activités? Jamie Shea: Je pense
qu'il nous faut distinguer la théorie et la pratique. Je crois que
lorsque le juge Arbour commencera son enquête [sur les Serbes], elle le
fera parce que nous le lui permettrons. (…) Ce sont les pays de l'OTAN
qui ont fourni les fonds destinés à établir le tribunal, nous sommes
parmi les bailleurs de fonds majoritaires.
Le tribunal – créé en 1993, et qui a pour père les Etats-Unis, pour mère
le Conseil de Sécurité et Madeleine Albright comme accoucheuse –
s'appuie également sur les avantages militaires des puissances de l'OTAN
pour rechercher et arrêter les suspects qu'il jugera pour crimes de
guerre. Quant à la plainte, rien de plus n'a été fait avec Del Ponte
qu'avec Arbour mais, en décembre dernier, dans une interview accordée à
The Observer, de Londres, on a demandé à Del Ponte si elle était
disposée à activer les plaintes déposées contre le personnel de l'OTAN.
Elle a répondu: "Si je n'accepte pas de le faire, je ne suis pas à ma
place. Je dois démissionner de ma tâche." Le tribunal a ensuite déclaré
qu'il s'était livré à une enquête sur les crimes possibles de l'OTAN,
que l'enquête était soumise à l'examen de Del Ponte et qu'elle
constituait la réponse appropriée aux inquiétudes du public à propos de
la tactique de l'OTAN. "Il est très important pour ce tribunal
d'affirmer son autorité sur toutes les autorités sans exception du
conflit armé dans l'ancienne Yougoslavie." Etait-ce un signe du ciel que
le nouveau millénaire allait nous valoir une justice plus égalitaire?
Etait-ce réellement possible? Bien sûr que non! Dans les milieux
officiels, tant civils que militaires, des Etats-Unis et du Canada, on
se montra incrédule, outré, irrité, on opposa des démentis (…) c'était
"révoltant" (…) "injustifié". Del Ponte reçut clairement le message.
Quatre jours après la publication de l'interview dans The Observer, le
bureau du juge sortit une déclaration: "L'OTAN n'est soumis à aucune
enquête du Bureau du Porcureur du Tribunal criminel international pour
l'ancienne Yougoslavie. Il n'y a aucune enquête formelle sur les actions
de l'OTAN durant le conflit au Kosovo."(3) Et il n'y en aurait pas, il
était inutile de l'ajouter. Mais la plainte contre l'OTAN – jusqu'ici
largement ignorée par les médias américains – était désormais connue de
tous. Elle recevait brusquement beaucoup de publicité et les partisans
des bombardements se mirent sur la défensive. L'argument le plus
communément utilisé dans la défense de l'OTAN et contre les accusations
de crimes de guerre était que la mort et la dévastation infligées au
secteur civil étaient "accidentelles". Toutefois, cette prétention doit
être remise en question, à la lumière de certains rapports. Par exemple,
le responsable de la guerre aérienne de l'OTAN, le lieutenant-général
Michael Short, à déclaré à un moment donné:
"Si vous vous éveillez le matin et que vous n'avez pas de courant chez
vous, ni de gaz dans votre cuisinière et que le pont que vous empruntez
pour vous rendre au travail a été détruit et restera écroulé dans le
Danube durant les vingt prochaines années, je crois que vous allez
commencer par vous demander: 'Hé! Slobo, qu'est-ce qui se passe, ici? On
va encore devoir supporter ça combien de temps?"(4)
Le général Short, a déclaré le New York Times, "espère que la détresse
des citoyens yougoslaves va saper le soutien aux autorités de
Belgrade."(5) A un moment, le porte-parole de l'OTAN, Jamie Shea, a
ajouté: "Si le président Milosevic veut réellement que toute sa
population ait de l'eau et de l'électricité, tout ce qu'il doit faire,
c'est accepter les cinq conditions de l'OTAN et nous mettrons un terme à
cette campagne."(6) Après le bombardement, en avril, d'un grand immeuble
de bureaux à Belgrade – qui abritait des partis politiques, des stations
de TV et de radio, ainsi que plus d'une centaine de compagnies privées –
le Washington Post déclara:
"Ces derniers jours, il a été dit que les officiels américains ont
exprimé l'espoir que les membres de l'élite économique serbe allaient
bientôt se retourner contre Milosevic une fois qu'ils auraient compris
ce qu'ils étaient susceptibles de perdre en continuant à résister aux
exigences de l'OTAN."(7)
Avant que des missiles ne frappent ce bâtiment, les planificateurs de
l'OTAN avaient estimé les risques: "Estimation des pertes: 50-100
employés du gouvernement et/ou des partis. Estimation des pertes civiles
involontaires: 250 – Appartements dans le rayon attendu de
l'explosion."(8) Les planificateurs disaient qu'environ 250 civils
vivant dans les appartements voisins pouvaient être tués lors du
bombardement. Qu'avons-nous, ici? Nous avons des adultes qui se disent
entre eux: Nous allons lancer A, et nous pensons que le résultat
pourrait bien être B. Mais même si B se produit réellement, nous disons
à l'avance – et nous insisterons là-dessus par la suite – que c'était
involontaire.
Après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, il était urgent qu'il y eût un
tribunal criminel international permanent pour juger les personnes
accusées de crimes de guerre, de crimes contre l'humanité et de
génocide, mais la guerre froide intervint, entre-temps. Finalement, en
1998, à Rome, les nations du monde sortirent la charte du Tribunal
criminel international. Les négociateurs américains, toutefois,
insistèrent pour que la charte contienne des garanties qui,
essentiellement, accorderaient tout droit de veto aux Etats-Unis, via
son siège au Conseil de Sécurité, à propos de n'importe quelle
poursuite. La requête américaine fut rejetée et c'est avant tout pour
cette raison que les Etats-Unis refusèrent de se joindre aux 120 autres
nations qui signèrent la charte. Le Tribunal criminel international est
un instrument que Washington ne peut contrôler suffisamment pour
l'empêcher de poursuivre des fonctionnaires militaires et
gouvernementaux américains. De hauts fonctionnaires américains ont
explicitement admis que ce danger constitue la raison de leur aversion
pour la nouvelle cour de justice proposée.(9) Mais ce n'est bien
évidemment pas le cas avec le Tribunal criminel international pour
l'ancienne Yougoslavie qui, en tant que tel, est tout à fait dans les
cordes de Washington, c'est-à-dire un tribunal en faveur du Nouvel Ordre
Mondial.
NOTES
1. Ce matériel et la majeure partie du matériel restant relatif à la
plainte adressée Tribunal a été transmis à l'auteur par Mandel et par
d'autres plaignants.
2. Communiqué de presse du Procureur en chef Louise Arbour, La Haye, 13
mai 1999.
3. The Observer (Londres), 26 décembre 1999; Washington Times, 30 et 31
décembre 1999; New York Times, 30 décembre 1999.
4. Washington Post, 24 mai 1999, p.1.
5. New York Times, 13 mai 1999, p.1.
6. Conférence de presse de l'OTAN, Bruxelles, 25 mai 1999.
7. Washington Post, 22 avril 1999, p.18.
8. Ibid., 20 septembre 1999, p.1.
9. New York Times, 2 décembre 1998, p.1; 3 janvier 2000.
L'article ci-dessus est tiré de "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's
Only Superpower", par William Blum <bblum6@...>
http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.html
---
> http://www.zmag.org/tribunal.htm
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
Some things you should know about it
By William Blum
Beginning about two weeks after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia began in
March, 1999, international-law professionals from Canada, the United
Kingdom, Greece, and the American Association of Jurists began to file
complaints with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia
in The Hague, Netherlands, charging leaders of NATO countries and
officials
of NATO itself with crimes similar to those for which the Tribunal had
issued
indictments shortly before against Serbian leaders. Amongst the charges
filed
were: "grave violations of international humanitarian law", including
"wilful
killing, wilfully causing great suffering and serious injury to body
and health,
employment of poisonous weapons and other weapons to cause unnecessary
suffering, wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, unlawful
attacks on
civilian objects, devastation not necessitated by military objectives,
attacks on
undefended buildings and dwellings, destruction and wilful damage done
to
institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and
sciences."
The Canadian suit names 68 leaders, including William Clinton, Madeleine
Albright, William Cohen, Tony Blair, Canadian Prime Minister Jean
Chretien,
and NATO officials Javier Solana, Wesley Clark, and Jamie Shea. The
complaint also alleges "open violation" of the United Nations Charter,
the
NATO treaty itself, the Geneva Conventions, and the Principles of
International Law Recognized by the International Military Tribunal at
Nuremberg. The complaint was submitted along with a considerable amount
of
evidence to support the charges. The evidence makes the key point that
it was
NATO's bombing campaign which had given rise to the bulk of the deaths
in
Yugoslavia, provoked most of the Serbian atrocities, created an
environmental
disaster, and left a dangerous legacy of unexploded depleted uranium and
cluster bombs. In June, some of the complainants met in The Hague with
the
court's chief prosecutor, Louise Arbour of Canada. Although she
cordially
received their brief in person, along with three thick volumes of
evidence
documenting the alleged war crimes, nothing of substance came of the
meeting,
despite repeated follow-up submissions and letters by the plaintiffs.
In
November, her successor, Carla Del Ponte of Switzerland, also met with
some
of the complainants and received extensive evidence. The complainants'
brief
in November pointed out that the prosecution of those named by them was
"not
only a requirement of law, it is a requirement of justice to the
victims and of
deterrence to powerful countries such as those in NATO who, in their
military
might and in their control over the media, are lacking in any other
natural
restraint such as might deter less powerful countries." Charging the
war's
victors, not only its losers, it was argued, would be a watershed in
international criminal law. In one of the letters to Arbour, Michael
Mandel, a
professor of law in Toronto and the initiator of the Canadian suit,
added:
Unfortunately, as you know, many doubts have already been raised about
the
impartiality of your Tribunal. In the early days of the conflict, after
a formal
and, in our view, justified complaint against NATO leaders had been
laid
before it by members of the Faculty of Law of Belgrade University, you
appeared at a press conference with one of the accused, British Foreign
Secretary Robin Cook, who made a great show of handing you a dossier of
Serbian war crimes. In early May, you appeared at another press
conference
with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, by that time herself the
subject
of two formal complaints of war crimes over the targeting of civilians
in
Yugoslavia. Albright publicly announced at that time that the US was
the major
provider of funds for the Tribunal and that it had pledged even more
money to
it.{1}
Arbour herself made little attempt to hide the pro-NATO bias she wore
beneath
her robe. She trusted NATO to be its own police, judge, jury, and
prison guard.
In a year in which the arrest of General Pinochet was giving an
inspiring lift to
the cause of international law and international justice, the
International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, under Arbour's leadership,
ruled
that for the Great Powers it would be business as usual, particularly
the Great
Power that was most vulnerable to prosecution, and which,
coincidentally, paid
most of her salary. Here are her own words:
I am obviously not commenting on any allegations of violations of
international
humanitarian law supposedly perpetrated by nationals of NATO countries.
I
accept the assurances given by NATO leaders that they intend to conduct
their
operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in full compliance
with
international humanitarian law. I have reminded many of them, when the
occasion presented itself, of their obligation to conduct fair and
open-minded
investigations of any possible deviance from that policy, and of the
obligation
of commanders to prevent and punish, if required.{2}
NATO Press Briefing, May 16, 1999: Question: Does NATO recognize Judge
Arbour's jurisdiction over their activities? Jamie Shea: I think we
have to
distinguish between the theoretical and the practical. I believe that
when Justice
Arbour starts her investigation [of the Serbs], she will because we
will allow
her to. ... NATO countries are those that have provided the finance to
set up the
Tribunal, we are amongst the majority financiers.
The Tribunal -- created in 1993, with the US as the father, the
Security Council
as the mother, and Madeleine Albright as the midwife -- also relies on
the
military assets of the NATO powers to track down and arrest the
suspects it
tries for war crimes. There appeared to be no more happening with the
complaint under Del Ponte than under Arbour, but in late December, in
an
interview with The Observer of London, Del Ponte was asked if she was
prepared to press charges against NATO personnel. She replied: "If I am
not
willing to do that, I am not in the right place. I must give up my
mission." The
Tribunal then announced that it had completed a study of possible NATO
crimes, which Del Ponte was examining, and that the study was an
appropriate
response to public concerns about NATO's tactics. "It is very important
for this
tribunal to assert its authority over any and all authorities to the
armed conflict
within the former Yugoslavia." Was this a sign from heaven that the new
millennium was going to be one of more equal justice? Could this really
be?
No, it couldn't. From official quarters, military and civilian, of the
United
States and Canada, came disbelief, shock, anger, denials ...
"appalling" ...
"unjustified". Del Ponte got the message. Four days after The Observer
interview appeared, her office issued a statement: "NATO is not under
investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International
Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. There is no formal inquiry into the
actions
of NATO during the conflict in Kosovo."{3} And there wouldn't be, it
was
unnecessary to add. But the claim against NATO -- heretofore largely
ignored
by the American media -- was now out in the open. It was suddenly
receiving a
fair amount of publicity, and supporters of the bombing were put on the
defensive. The most common argument made in NATO's defense, and against
war-crime charges, has been that the death and devastation inflicted
upon the
civilian sector was "accidental". This claim, however, must be
questioned in
light of certain reports. For example, the commander of NATO's air war,
Lt.
Gen. Michael Short, declared at one point:
If you wake up in the morning and you have no power to your house and
no gas
to your stove and the bridge you take to work is down and will be lying
in the
Danube for the next 20 years, I think you begin to ask, "Hey, Slobo,
what's this
all about? How much more of this do we have to withstand?"{4}
General Short, said the New York Times, "hopes that the distress of the
Yugoslav public will undermine support for the authorities in
Belgrade."{5} At
one point, NATO spokesman Jamie Shea added: "If President Milosevic
really
wants all of his population to have water and electricity all he has to
do is
accept NATO's five conditions and we will stop this campaign."{6} After
the
April NATO bombing of a Belgrade office building -- which housed
political
parties, TV and radio stations, 100 private companies, and more -- the
Washington Post reported:
Over the past few days, U.S. officials have been quoted as expressing
the hope
that members of Serbia's economic elite will begin to turn against
Milosevic
once they understand how much they are likely to lose by continuing to
resist
NATO demands.{7}
Before missiles were fired into this building, NATO planners spelled
out the
risks: "Casualty Estimate 50-100 Government/Party employees. Unintended
Civ Casualty Est: 250 -- Apts in expected blast radius."{8} The
planners were
saying that about 250 civilians living in nearby apartment buildings
might be
killed in the bombing. What do we have here? We have grown men telling
each
other: We'll do A, and we think that B may well be the result. But even
if B
does in fact result, we're saying beforehand -- as we'll insist
afterward -- that it
was unintended.
Following World War II there was an urgent need for a permanent
international
criminal court to prosecute those accused of war crimes, crimes against
humanity, and genocide, but the Cold War intervened. Finally, in 1998 in
Rome, the nations of the world drafted the charter of The International
Criminal Court. American negotiators, however, insisted on provisions in
the
charter that would, in essence, give the United States veto power over
any
prosecution through its seat on the Security Council. The American
request
was rejected, and primarily for this reason the US refused to join 120
other
nations who supported the charter. The ICC is an instrument Washington
can't
control sufficiently to keep it from prosecuting American military and
government officials. Senior US officials have explicitly admitted that
this
danger is the reason for their aversion to the proposed new court.{9}
But this
is clearly not the case with the International Criminal Tribunal for
the Former
Yugoslavia. It's Washington's kind of international court, a court for
the New
World Order.
NOTES
1. This and most of the other material concerning the complaint to the
Tribunal mentioned here were transmitted to the author by Mandel and
other
complainants.
2. Press Release from Chief Prosecutor Louise Arbour, The Hague, May 13,
1999.
3. The Observer (London), December 26, 1999; Washington Times, December
30 and 31, 1999; New York Times, December 30, 1999
4. Washington Post, May 24, 1999, p.1
5. New York Times, May 13, 1999, p.1
6. NATO press conference, Brussels, May 25, 1999
7. Washington Post, April 22, 1999, p.18
8. Ibid., September 20, 1999, p.1
9. New York Times, December 2, 1998, p.1; January 3, 2000
The above is excerpted from "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only
Superpower" by William Blum <bblum6@...>
> http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.html
---
Questa lista e' provvisoriamente curata da componenti della
ASSEMBLEA ANTIMPERIALISTA (ex Coord. Naz. "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"):
> http://www.tuttinlotta.org
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono questa struttura, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
Sito WEB (non aggiornato):
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
TI PIACE IL CINEMA MA NON USCIRE DI CASA?
Sei un appassionato di DVD, Home Theatre,
Videocamere digitali?
Da oggi tutte le migliori offerte
direttamente nella tua casella di posta
http://www.domeus.it/ad2670360/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
l'ancienne Yougoslavie
Quelques éléments qu'il convient de savoir à ce propos
par William Blum
Quinze jours à peine après les bombardements de la Yougoslavie par
l'Otan, en mars 1999, des spécialistes canadiens, britanniques et grecs
du droit international, ainsi que l'Association américaine des Juristes,
commençaient à enregistrer des plaintes adressées au Tribunal criminel
international pour l'ancienne Yougoslavie, à La Haye, et accusant les
dirigeants des pays de l'OTAN et des fonctionnaires de l'OTAN même de
crimes similaires à ceux pour lesquels, peu de temps avant, le Tribunal
avait prononcé des condamnations contre des dirigeants serbes. Parmi ces
accusations figuraient "de graves violations des lois humanitaires
internationales consistant, entre autres, en tueries volontaires, en
graves souffrances et dommages tout aussi volontaires, tant sur le plan
corporel que sur le plan de la santé, en l'emploi d'armes nocives et
autres censées occasionner des souffrances inutiles, en la destruction
délibérée de villes et de villages, en attaques abusives contre des
cibles civiles, en dévastations militairement injustifiées, en attaques
contre des immeubles et habitations sans défense, en destructions et
dégâts volontaires infligés à des institutions vouées à la religion, au
bien-être social, à l'éducation, aux arts et aux sciences". Le requête
canadienne cite 68 dirigeants, parmi lesquels William Clinton, Madeleine
Albright, William Cohen, Tony Blair, le Premier ministre canadien Jean
Chrétien et les fonctionnaires de l'OTAN Javier Solana, Wesley Clark et
Jamie Shea. La plainte parle également de "violation ouverte" de la
Charte des Nations unies, du traité de l'OTAN lui-même, des Conventions
de Genève et des Principes du Droit international reconnus par le
Tribunal militaire international de Nuremberg. La plainte était
accompagnée d'un nombre considérable de preuves venant étayer les
accusations. Ces preuves mettent paerticulièrement en évidence le fait
que c'est bien la campagne de bombardements de l'OTAN qui a causé le
plus gros des victimes en Yougoslavie, provoqué la plupart des atrocités
serbes, déclenché un désastre pour l'environnement et laissé sur place
de dangereux reliquats sous forme de bombes à fragmentation ou à
l'uranium appauvri qui n'ont pas explosé. En juin, quelques-unes des
plaintes sont parvenues au procureur en chef du tribunal de La Haye, la
Canadienne Louise Arbour. Bien qu'elle ait cordialement reçu cette
lettre en mains propres, en même temps que trois épais volumes de
preuves illustrant les crimes de guerre présumés, rien de substantiel
n'est sorti de la réunion, en dépit de la réitération des lettres et
demandes de suivi de la part des plaignants. En novembre, son
successeur, la Suisesse Carla Del Ponte, a également rencontré certains
des plaignants et a reçu un nouveau lot de preuves supplémentaires. En
novembre, la lettre des plaignants faisait remarquer que les poursuites
à l'encontre des personnes qu'ils avaient citées constituaient "non
seulement une demande légale, mais également une demande de justice pour
les victimes et de dissuasion des pays puissants comme ceux de l'OTAN
qui, par leur puissance militaire et leur emprise sur les médias, ne
sont pas soumis à la moindre restriction naturelle susceptible de
dissuader des pays bien moins puissants". Accuser les vainqueurs de la
guerre, et pas seulement ceux qui l'ont perdue, fut-il prétendu,
constituerait un grand tournant dans la législation criminelle
internationale. Dans l'une des lettres adressées à Arbour, Michael
Mandel, professeur de droit à Toronto et initiateur de la requête
canadienne, ajoutait:
"Malheureusement, comme vous le savez, on a émis de nombreux doutes à
propos de l'impartialité de votre tribunal. Dans les premiers jours du
conflit, après qu'une plainte formelle et, selon nous, justifiée, contre
les dirigeants de l'OTAN, eut été déposée devant ce même tribunal par
des membres de la Faculté de Droit de l'Université de Belgrade, vous
êtes apparue dans une conférence de presse en compagnie de l'un des
accusés, le ministre britannique des Affaires étrangères, Robin Cook,
qui y est allé de son grand numéro en vous remettant un dossier sur les
crimes de guerre serbes. Début mai, vous êtes apparue dans une autre
conférence de presse avec le secrétaire d'Etat américain, Madeleine
Albright, qui, à l'époque, faisait elle-même l'objet de deux plaintes
formelles de crimes de guerre au cours desquels on avait pris pour
cibles des civils yougoslaves. A la même époque, Albright avait déclaré
publiquement que les Etats-Unis étaient le principal bailleur de fonds
du tribunal et qu'il lui avait même accordé davantage d'argent.(1)
Arbour elle-même n'a guère tenté de cacher le parti-pris en faveur de
l'OTAN qu'elle affichait sous sa robe. Elle se fiait à l'OTAN et au fait
que celle-ci pût être à la fois ses propres police, juge, jury et
gardienne de prison. Dans une année au cours de laquelle l'arrestation
du général Pinochet donnait un coup de pouce inspirant à la cause du
droit international et à celle de la justice internationale, le Tribunal
criminel international pour l'ancienne Yougoslavie, sous la direction
d'Arbour, décida que pour les grandes puissances il s'agirait d'une
affaire comme une autre, et ce fut particulièrement le cas pour la
grande puissance la plus susceptible d'être poursuivie et qui, comme par
hasard, lui versait le plus gros de son salaire. Voici ses propres mots:
"Bien sûr, je m'abstiendrai de tout commentaire à propos des allégations
concernant les violations des lois humanitaires internationales
prétendument commises par des ressortissants des pys de l'OTAN.
J'accepte les garanties proposées par les dirigeants de l'OTAN me
certifiant qu'ils entendent mener leurs opérations en République
fédérale de Yougoslavie en pleine conformité vis-à-vis des lois
humanitaires internationales. A nombre d'entre eux, lorsque l'occasion
s'est présentée, j'ai rappelé leurs obligations de mener des enquêtes
honnêtes et sans préjugés sur tout manquement possible à cette ligne de
conduite ainsi que l'obligation des responsables du commandement de
prévenir et de sévir, si cela était nécessaire."(2)
OTAN, conférence de presse, 16 mai 1999. Question: L'OTAN reconnaît-elle
la juridiction du juge Arbour sur ses activités? Jamie Shea: Je pense
qu'il nous faut distinguer la théorie et la pratique. Je crois que
lorsque le juge Arbour commencera son enquête [sur les Serbes], elle le
fera parce que nous le lui permettrons. (…) Ce sont les pays de l'OTAN
qui ont fourni les fonds destinés à établir le tribunal, nous sommes
parmi les bailleurs de fonds majoritaires.
Le tribunal – créé en 1993, et qui a pour père les Etats-Unis, pour mère
le Conseil de Sécurité et Madeleine Albright comme accoucheuse –
s'appuie également sur les avantages militaires des puissances de l'OTAN
pour rechercher et arrêter les suspects qu'il jugera pour crimes de
guerre. Quant à la plainte, rien de plus n'a été fait avec Del Ponte
qu'avec Arbour mais, en décembre dernier, dans une interview accordée à
The Observer, de Londres, on a demandé à Del Ponte si elle était
disposée à activer les plaintes déposées contre le personnel de l'OTAN.
Elle a répondu: "Si je n'accepte pas de le faire, je ne suis pas à ma
place. Je dois démissionner de ma tâche." Le tribunal a ensuite déclaré
qu'il s'était livré à une enquête sur les crimes possibles de l'OTAN,
que l'enquête était soumise à l'examen de Del Ponte et qu'elle
constituait la réponse appropriée aux inquiétudes du public à propos de
la tactique de l'OTAN. "Il est très important pour ce tribunal
d'affirmer son autorité sur toutes les autorités sans exception du
conflit armé dans l'ancienne Yougoslavie." Etait-ce un signe du ciel que
le nouveau millénaire allait nous valoir une justice plus égalitaire?
Etait-ce réellement possible? Bien sûr que non! Dans les milieux
officiels, tant civils que militaires, des Etats-Unis et du Canada, on
se montra incrédule, outré, irrité, on opposa des démentis (…) c'était
"révoltant" (…) "injustifié". Del Ponte reçut clairement le message.
Quatre jours après la publication de l'interview dans The Observer, le
bureau du juge sortit une déclaration: "L'OTAN n'est soumis à aucune
enquête du Bureau du Porcureur du Tribunal criminel international pour
l'ancienne Yougoslavie. Il n'y a aucune enquête formelle sur les actions
de l'OTAN durant le conflit au Kosovo."(3) Et il n'y en aurait pas, il
était inutile de l'ajouter. Mais la plainte contre l'OTAN – jusqu'ici
largement ignorée par les médias américains – était désormais connue de
tous. Elle recevait brusquement beaucoup de publicité et les partisans
des bombardements se mirent sur la défensive. L'argument le plus
communément utilisé dans la défense de l'OTAN et contre les accusations
de crimes de guerre était que la mort et la dévastation infligées au
secteur civil étaient "accidentelles". Toutefois, cette prétention doit
être remise en question, à la lumière de certains rapports. Par exemple,
le responsable de la guerre aérienne de l'OTAN, le lieutenant-général
Michael Short, à déclaré à un moment donné:
"Si vous vous éveillez le matin et que vous n'avez pas de courant chez
vous, ni de gaz dans votre cuisinière et que le pont que vous empruntez
pour vous rendre au travail a été détruit et restera écroulé dans le
Danube durant les vingt prochaines années, je crois que vous allez
commencer par vous demander: 'Hé! Slobo, qu'est-ce qui se passe, ici? On
va encore devoir supporter ça combien de temps?"(4)
Le général Short, a déclaré le New York Times, "espère que la détresse
des citoyens yougoslaves va saper le soutien aux autorités de
Belgrade."(5) A un moment, le porte-parole de l'OTAN, Jamie Shea, a
ajouté: "Si le président Milosevic veut réellement que toute sa
population ait de l'eau et de l'électricité, tout ce qu'il doit faire,
c'est accepter les cinq conditions de l'OTAN et nous mettrons un terme à
cette campagne."(6) Après le bombardement, en avril, d'un grand immeuble
de bureaux à Belgrade – qui abritait des partis politiques, des stations
de TV et de radio, ainsi que plus d'une centaine de compagnies privées –
le Washington Post déclara:
"Ces derniers jours, il a été dit que les officiels américains ont
exprimé l'espoir que les membres de l'élite économique serbe allaient
bientôt se retourner contre Milosevic une fois qu'ils auraient compris
ce qu'ils étaient susceptibles de perdre en continuant à résister aux
exigences de l'OTAN."(7)
Avant que des missiles ne frappent ce bâtiment, les planificateurs de
l'OTAN avaient estimé les risques: "Estimation des pertes: 50-100
employés du gouvernement et/ou des partis. Estimation des pertes civiles
involontaires: 250 – Appartements dans le rayon attendu de
l'explosion."(8) Les planificateurs disaient qu'environ 250 civils
vivant dans les appartements voisins pouvaient être tués lors du
bombardement. Qu'avons-nous, ici? Nous avons des adultes qui se disent
entre eux: Nous allons lancer A, et nous pensons que le résultat
pourrait bien être B. Mais même si B se produit réellement, nous disons
à l'avance – et nous insisterons là-dessus par la suite – que c'était
involontaire.
Après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, il était urgent qu'il y eût un
tribunal criminel international permanent pour juger les personnes
accusées de crimes de guerre, de crimes contre l'humanité et de
génocide, mais la guerre froide intervint, entre-temps. Finalement, en
1998, à Rome, les nations du monde sortirent la charte du Tribunal
criminel international. Les négociateurs américains, toutefois,
insistèrent pour que la charte contienne des garanties qui,
essentiellement, accorderaient tout droit de veto aux Etats-Unis, via
son siège au Conseil de Sécurité, à propos de n'importe quelle
poursuite. La requête américaine fut rejetée et c'est avant tout pour
cette raison que les Etats-Unis refusèrent de se joindre aux 120 autres
nations qui signèrent la charte. Le Tribunal criminel international est
un instrument que Washington ne peut contrôler suffisamment pour
l'empêcher de poursuivre des fonctionnaires militaires et
gouvernementaux américains. De hauts fonctionnaires américains ont
explicitement admis que ce danger constitue la raison de leur aversion
pour la nouvelle cour de justice proposée.(9) Mais ce n'est bien
évidemment pas le cas avec le Tribunal criminel international pour
l'ancienne Yougoslavie qui, en tant que tel, est tout à fait dans les
cordes de Washington, c'est-à-dire un tribunal en faveur du Nouvel Ordre
Mondial.
NOTES
1. Ce matériel et la majeure partie du matériel restant relatif à la
plainte adressée Tribunal a été transmis à l'auteur par Mandel et par
d'autres plaignants.
2. Communiqué de presse du Procureur en chef Louise Arbour, La Haye, 13
mai 1999.
3. The Observer (Londres), 26 décembre 1999; Washington Times, 30 et 31
décembre 1999; New York Times, 30 décembre 1999.
4. Washington Post, 24 mai 1999, p.1.
5. New York Times, 13 mai 1999, p.1.
6. Conférence de presse de l'OTAN, Bruxelles, 25 mai 1999.
7. Washington Post, 22 avril 1999, p.18.
8. Ibid., 20 septembre 1999, p.1.
9. New York Times, 2 décembre 1998, p.1; 3 janvier 2000.
L'article ci-dessus est tiré de "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's
Only Superpower", par William Blum <bblum6@...>
http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.html
---
> http://www.zmag.org/tribunal.htm
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
Some things you should know about it
By William Blum
Beginning about two weeks after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia began in
March, 1999, international-law professionals from Canada, the United
Kingdom, Greece, and the American Association of Jurists began to file
complaints with the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia
in The Hague, Netherlands, charging leaders of NATO countries and
officials
of NATO itself with crimes similar to those for which the Tribunal had
issued
indictments shortly before against Serbian leaders. Amongst the charges
filed
were: "grave violations of international humanitarian law", including
"wilful
killing, wilfully causing great suffering and serious injury to body
and health,
employment of poisonous weapons and other weapons to cause unnecessary
suffering, wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, unlawful
attacks on
civilian objects, devastation not necessitated by military objectives,
attacks on
undefended buildings and dwellings, destruction and wilful damage done
to
institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and
sciences."
The Canadian suit names 68 leaders, including William Clinton, Madeleine
Albright, William Cohen, Tony Blair, Canadian Prime Minister Jean
Chretien,
and NATO officials Javier Solana, Wesley Clark, and Jamie Shea. The
complaint also alleges "open violation" of the United Nations Charter,
the
NATO treaty itself, the Geneva Conventions, and the Principles of
International Law Recognized by the International Military Tribunal at
Nuremberg. The complaint was submitted along with a considerable amount
of
evidence to support the charges. The evidence makes the key point that
it was
NATO's bombing campaign which had given rise to the bulk of the deaths
in
Yugoslavia, provoked most of the Serbian atrocities, created an
environmental
disaster, and left a dangerous legacy of unexploded depleted uranium and
cluster bombs. In June, some of the complainants met in The Hague with
the
court's chief prosecutor, Louise Arbour of Canada. Although she
cordially
received their brief in person, along with three thick volumes of
evidence
documenting the alleged war crimes, nothing of substance came of the
meeting,
despite repeated follow-up submissions and letters by the plaintiffs.
In
November, her successor, Carla Del Ponte of Switzerland, also met with
some
of the complainants and received extensive evidence. The complainants'
brief
in November pointed out that the prosecution of those named by them was
"not
only a requirement of law, it is a requirement of justice to the
victims and of
deterrence to powerful countries such as those in NATO who, in their
military
might and in their control over the media, are lacking in any other
natural
restraint such as might deter less powerful countries." Charging the
war's
victors, not only its losers, it was argued, would be a watershed in
international criminal law. In one of the letters to Arbour, Michael
Mandel, a
professor of law in Toronto and the initiator of the Canadian suit,
added:
Unfortunately, as you know, many doubts have already been raised about
the
impartiality of your Tribunal. In the early days of the conflict, after
a formal
and, in our view, justified complaint against NATO leaders had been
laid
before it by members of the Faculty of Law of Belgrade University, you
appeared at a press conference with one of the accused, British Foreign
Secretary Robin Cook, who made a great show of handing you a dossier of
Serbian war crimes. In early May, you appeared at another press
conference
with US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, by that time herself the
subject
of two formal complaints of war crimes over the targeting of civilians
in
Yugoslavia. Albright publicly announced at that time that the US was
the major
provider of funds for the Tribunal and that it had pledged even more
money to
it.{1}
Arbour herself made little attempt to hide the pro-NATO bias she wore
beneath
her robe. She trusted NATO to be its own police, judge, jury, and
prison guard.
In a year in which the arrest of General Pinochet was giving an
inspiring lift to
the cause of international law and international justice, the
International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, under Arbour's leadership,
ruled
that for the Great Powers it would be business as usual, particularly
the Great
Power that was most vulnerable to prosecution, and which,
coincidentally, paid
most of her salary. Here are her own words:
I am obviously not commenting on any allegations of violations of
international
humanitarian law supposedly perpetrated by nationals of NATO countries.
I
accept the assurances given by NATO leaders that they intend to conduct
their
operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in full compliance
with
international humanitarian law. I have reminded many of them, when the
occasion presented itself, of their obligation to conduct fair and
open-minded
investigations of any possible deviance from that policy, and of the
obligation
of commanders to prevent and punish, if required.{2}
NATO Press Briefing, May 16, 1999: Question: Does NATO recognize Judge
Arbour's jurisdiction over their activities? Jamie Shea: I think we
have to
distinguish between the theoretical and the practical. I believe that
when Justice
Arbour starts her investigation [of the Serbs], she will because we
will allow
her to. ... NATO countries are those that have provided the finance to
set up the
Tribunal, we are amongst the majority financiers.
The Tribunal -- created in 1993, with the US as the father, the
Security Council
as the mother, and Madeleine Albright as the midwife -- also relies on
the
military assets of the NATO powers to track down and arrest the
suspects it
tries for war crimes. There appeared to be no more happening with the
complaint under Del Ponte than under Arbour, but in late December, in
an
interview with The Observer of London, Del Ponte was asked if she was
prepared to press charges against NATO personnel. She replied: "If I am
not
willing to do that, I am not in the right place. I must give up my
mission." The
Tribunal then announced that it had completed a study of possible NATO
crimes, which Del Ponte was examining, and that the study was an
appropriate
response to public concerns about NATO's tactics. "It is very important
for this
tribunal to assert its authority over any and all authorities to the
armed conflict
within the former Yugoslavia." Was this a sign from heaven that the new
millennium was going to be one of more equal justice? Could this really
be?
No, it couldn't. From official quarters, military and civilian, of the
United
States and Canada, came disbelief, shock, anger, denials ...
"appalling" ...
"unjustified". Del Ponte got the message. Four days after The Observer
interview appeared, her office issued a statement: "NATO is not under
investigation by the Office of the Prosecutor of the International
Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. There is no formal inquiry into the
actions
of NATO during the conflict in Kosovo."{3} And there wouldn't be, it
was
unnecessary to add. But the claim against NATO -- heretofore largely
ignored
by the American media -- was now out in the open. It was suddenly
receiving a
fair amount of publicity, and supporters of the bombing were put on the
defensive. The most common argument made in NATO's defense, and against
war-crime charges, has been that the death and devastation inflicted
upon the
civilian sector was "accidental". This claim, however, must be
questioned in
light of certain reports. For example, the commander of NATO's air war,
Lt.
Gen. Michael Short, declared at one point:
If you wake up in the morning and you have no power to your house and
no gas
to your stove and the bridge you take to work is down and will be lying
in the
Danube for the next 20 years, I think you begin to ask, "Hey, Slobo,
what's this
all about? How much more of this do we have to withstand?"{4}
General Short, said the New York Times, "hopes that the distress of the
Yugoslav public will undermine support for the authorities in
Belgrade."{5} At
one point, NATO spokesman Jamie Shea added: "If President Milosevic
really
wants all of his population to have water and electricity all he has to
do is
accept NATO's five conditions and we will stop this campaign."{6} After
the
April NATO bombing of a Belgrade office building -- which housed
political
parties, TV and radio stations, 100 private companies, and more -- the
Washington Post reported:
Over the past few days, U.S. officials have been quoted as expressing
the hope
that members of Serbia's economic elite will begin to turn against
Milosevic
once they understand how much they are likely to lose by continuing to
resist
NATO demands.{7}
Before missiles were fired into this building, NATO planners spelled
out the
risks: "Casualty Estimate 50-100 Government/Party employees. Unintended
Civ Casualty Est: 250 -- Apts in expected blast radius."{8} The
planners were
saying that about 250 civilians living in nearby apartment buildings
might be
killed in the bombing. What do we have here? We have grown men telling
each
other: We'll do A, and we think that B may well be the result. But even
if B
does in fact result, we're saying beforehand -- as we'll insist
afterward -- that it
was unintended.
Following World War II there was an urgent need for a permanent
international
criminal court to prosecute those accused of war crimes, crimes against
humanity, and genocide, but the Cold War intervened. Finally, in 1998 in
Rome, the nations of the world drafted the charter of The International
Criminal Court. American negotiators, however, insisted on provisions in
the
charter that would, in essence, give the United States veto power over
any
prosecution through its seat on the Security Council. The American
request
was rejected, and primarily for this reason the US refused to join 120
other
nations who supported the charter. The ICC is an instrument Washington
can't
control sufficiently to keep it from prosecuting American military and
government officials. Senior US officials have explicitly admitted that
this
danger is the reason for their aversion to the proposed new court.{9}
But this
is clearly not the case with the International Criminal Tribunal for
the Former
Yugoslavia. It's Washington's kind of international court, a court for
the New
World Order.
NOTES
1. This and most of the other material concerning the complaint to the
Tribunal mentioned here were transmitted to the author by Mandel and
other
complainants.
2. Press Release from Chief Prosecutor Louise Arbour, The Hague, May 13,
1999.
3. The Observer (London), December 26, 1999; Washington Times, December
30 and 31, 1999; New York Times, December 30, 1999
4. Washington Post, May 24, 1999, p.1
5. New York Times, May 13, 1999, p.1
6. NATO press conference, Brussels, May 25, 1999
7. Washington Post, April 22, 1999, p.18
8. Ibid., September 20, 1999, p.1
9. New York Times, December 2, 1998, p.1; January 3, 2000
The above is excerpted from "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only
Superpower" by William Blum <bblum6@...>
> http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.html
---
Questa lista e' provvisoriamente curata da componenti della
ASSEMBLEA ANTIMPERIALISTA (ex Coord. Naz. "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"):
> http://www.tuttinlotta.org
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono questa struttura, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.domeus.it/circles/jugoinfo oppure:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
Sito WEB (non aggiornato):
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
---- Spot ------------------------------------------------------------
TI PIACE IL CINEMA MA NON USCIRE DI CASA?
Sei un appassionato di DVD, Home Theatre,
Videocamere digitali?
Da oggi tutte le migliori offerte
direttamente nella tua casella di posta
http://www.domeus.it/ad2670360/valuemail.domeus
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Per cancellarti da questo gruppo, invia un messaggio vuoto a: jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...
