> http://www.sps.org.yu/aktuelno/

23. januar 2001.
SAOPTENJE SOCIJALISTICKE PARTIJE SRBIJE
(Povodom izjave Rasela Donsona) ...
JAGODINA: VIE DEMOKRATIJE - MANJE PLATE...
PODSECANJE: NAI NEPRIJATELJE ZA NUKLEARNI OTPAD...

21. januar 2001.
SAOPTENJE SOCIJALISTICKE PARTIJE SRBIJE
(Krenje Rezolucije 1244 Saveta Bezbednosti) ...

18. januar 2001.
SAOPTENJE SOCIJALISTICKE PARTIJE SRBIJE
(Obnavljanje rada Komiteta za Kosovo i Metohiju) ...

17. januar 2001.
SAOPTENJE SOCIJALISTICKE PARTIJE SRBIJE
(uranijumska municija i zagadjenje) ...

11. januar 2001.
SEDNICA GLAVNOG ODBORA SOCIJALISTICKE PARTIJE SRBIJE...

09. januar 2001.
TRECA EVROMEDITERANSKA KONFERENCIJA PARTIJA LEVICE...
OD ISTORIJSKE JE VANOSTI DA SRBI MA GDE IVELI I SVI GRAANI SRBIJE I
JUGOSLAVIJE, BEZ OBZIRA NA POLITICKE RAZLIKE, SIMPATIJE ILI MRNJE,
SACUVAJU NARODNI KONSENZUS O TOME DA ODBRANA ZEMLJE I NARODA NE MOE BITI
ZLOCIN...

Prethodne vesti

---

> http://www.sps.org.yu/eng/news/2001-01-08.html

Socialist Party of Serbia
Head Committee
January 8th 2000,
Belgrade
Press Release

Socialist Party of Serbia is of the opinion that the position of the
Yugoslav Foreign Affairs Minister Mr. Goran Svilanovic, taken at the
talks
with the outgoing American administration, regarding readiness of
Yugoslavia to co-operate in commencing of the Hague Tribunal proceedings
is directly contrary to the national interest of the Serb people and the
state interest of both Serbia and Yugoslavia. Such a position is also
contrary to the statements of the President of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia Mr. Vojislav Kostunica and of the Federal Prime Minister Mr.
Zoran Zizic, both asserting that Hague Tribunal is a political court.

Yugoslav Minister of Foreign Affairs, encountering an administration
that
waged a criminal and illegal war against Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
and that committed massive crimes against citizens of Yugoslavia, shifts
all the blame to his own people and accepts collective, complete and
only
guilt for all that transpired at the territories of former Yugoslavia,
even though Serbs were the utmost victims of the secession, separatism
and
terrorism.

Acceptance of one political Tribunal to try defenders of the fatherland
is
nothing but renunciation of states and peoples right of self-defence. At
the same time, Albanian terrorist sentenced by courts are freed, while
at
Kosovo and Metohia persecution, killing and kidnapping of Serbs
continues,
and Albanian terrorism is spreading to the south of Serbia.

Such Svilanovics statements are not only alibi and amnesty for crimes
done
to Serbs but also disgraceful message that it was an error that Serb
people defended their country and that nation was protected. That is
more
than clear message to all those who will, in near or distant future, be
in
the position to defend the country again, that they will be held
responsible in some new tribunal set aside for Serbs only. For that
reason, and not for any individual person, it is of historical
importance
that Serbs, wherever they may reside and all the citizens of Serbia and
Yugoslavia, regardless of their political differences, sympathies or
hatred, preserve national consensus that defence of the country may not
and could not be a crime and that Serbs, Serbia and Yugoslavia in the
course of all these years did not cause nor committed any crimes against
other peoples and states. To the contrary. Thats why such statements of
the Yugoslav Foreign Affairs Minister are damaging for Serbia and for
Yugoslavia as well as for the Serb people as a whole.

---

> http://www.sps.org.yu/eng/news/2001-01-11.html

January 11th 2001,
Belgrade
Press Release

Today, in Belgrade, a session of the Head Committee of the Socialist
Party
of Serbia was held under the chairmanship of the Chairman of the
Socialist
Party of Serbia Mr . Slobodan Milosevic. While deliberating upon actual
situation in the country and the tasks of the Party in the period to
come,
it has been established that it is of historical importance that
citizens
of the Serbia and Yugoslavia preserve consensus that freedom and
self-defence of the country may not be crime, as well as that Serbia and
Yugoslavia did not commit crime against other peoples and states.

Socialist Party of Serbia is of the opinion that the position of the
Yugoslav Foreign Affairs Minister Mr. Goran Svilanovic, taken at the
talks
with the outgoing American administration, regarding readiness of
Yugoslavia to co-operate in commencing of the Hague Tribunal proceedings
is directly contrary to the national interest of the Serb people and the
state interest of both Serbia and Yugoslavia. Yugoslav Minister of
Foreign
Affairs, encountering an administration that waged a criminal and
illegal
war against Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and that committed massive
crimes against citizens of Yugoslavia, shifts all the blame to his own
people and accepts collective, complete and only guilt for all that
transpired at the territories of former Yugoslavia, even though Serbs
were
the utmost victims of the secession, separatism and terrorism.

Such Svilanovics statements are not only alibi and amnesty for crimes
done
to Serbs but also disgraceful message that it was an error that Serb
people defended themselves and that the freedom of the country was
protected. That is more than clear message to all those who will, in
near
or distant future, be in the position to defend the country again, that
they will be held responsible in some new tribunal set aside for Serbs
only. Thats why such statements of the Yugoslav Foreign Affairs Minister
are damaging for Serbia and for Yugoslavia as well as for the Serb
people
as a whole.

At the session of the Head Committee of the Socialist Party of Serbia it
was once more reiterated that preservation of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia as a joint state of the Serb and Montenegrin people, its
citizens, Republic of Serbia and Republic of Montengro is of national
and
state interest and of significance for all its citizens, peoples and
both
federal units, with respect to the will of the citizens and peoples and
constitutional procedure.

Press Service of the
Head Committee of the SPS

---

> http://www.sps.org.yu/eng/news/2001-01-21.html

Belgrade, January 21st 2001

Press Release

Socialist Party of Serbia expresses deep concern regarding the
continuation of systematic violations of the UN Security Council
Resolution 1244 (1999) and terrorism that is overflowing to the other
parts of Serbia in the Zone of ground security. Under the auspices of
UNMIK and K-For new illegal elections are being prepared in the Province
in order to continue with the implementation of the programme of the
separatists.

At the same time, all that is happening last weeks and months, in the
field, at the municipalities of Preshevo, Buyanovac and Medvedya, in
essence represents a part of the plan for gradual legalisation of
newly-established circumstances and presence of the terrorist KLA, for
transformation of new terrorist leaders into "side in the conflict" or
partners for dialogue with state authorities. Question is, why state
representatives are conscientiously avoiding to call terrorists in the
Zone of ground security terrorist in front of the TV cameras, but prefer
to speak of Albanian extremists or armed groups of Albanians. Why on
terrorists crimes such as murders of policemen and civilians, on
abductions they use formulation increase of violence? Thats well known
vocabulary of Coushner and NATO officials who did not make themselves
glorious on understanding of Serbs legitimate interests. In the European
countries there is an atmosphere of state of emergency in regard of use
of
depleted uranium and plutonium ammunitions and other forbidden weapons
used in the aggression of NATO against Yugoslavia. Heads of states and
governments, parliaments, including European parliament, political,
humanitarian and other organisations are requesting all facts to be made
public and their citizens and interests protected. Yugoslav public,
however, even though it is direct victim of the use of such weapons and
thus having more right to know the truth is still denied knowledge of
what
is Yugoslav Government doing or planning to do at the domestic and
international fields. Is the Government of our country conscientious of
the historical responsibility it carries right now regarding the
protection of most important interests such as health of the people and
future generations, or keeping silent is part of its European policy?

In such circumstances, Yugoslav Government was in a hurry to withdraw,
quite some time ago, Yugoslav ambassador at the United Nations, while a
new one is not yet appointed. Public has the right to know who will and
when put these issues to the Security Council, General Assembly and
other
organs of the United Nations.

Press Service of the
Head Committee of the SPS

---

Copyright 1997-2000 SPS

---

Bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"
Sito WEB : http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra

I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only")

Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid%c2%91979 oppure
> http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/

Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Una newsletter personale,
un forum web personale,
una mailing list personale, ...?
Gratis sotto
http://www.ecircle.it/ad824010/www.ecircle.it

-------- Original Message --------
Oggetto: ‘INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE’ AND THE END OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [fwd]
Data: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:55:04 +0100
Da: Herman de Tollenaere

PUBLICA.CZ http://www.publica.cz/forum/forum_chandler.htm

‘INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE’ AND THE END OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
By Dr David Chandler, Research Fellow,
Policy Research Institute, Leeds Metropolitan University

shortened version of “International Justice”, in the New Left Review,
No.6,
Nov/Dec 2000

The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 has been saluted as
a triumph for ‘international justice’ over the traditional claims of
state
sovereignty. The war was in clear breach of international law: waged
without
UN Security Council authorization, against an elected, civilian
government
which
had not violated any external treaty, justifiable neither as a threat to
peace and security, nor in terms of any NATO country’s self-defence. It
has
been
welcomed instead as a ‘humanitarian’ crusade, explicitly setting
individual
rights above the territorial rights of nation-states. But if the
sovereignty
of some states—Yugoslavia, Iraq—is to be limited, that of others— the
NATO
powers—is to be increased under the new order: they are to be given the
right
to intervene at will. It is, in other words, not sovereignty itself but
sovereign
equality—the recognition of the legal parity of nation-states,
regardless
of their wealth or power—which is being targeted by the new
interventionists.
Yet such equality has been the constitutive principle of the entire
framework
of existing international law and of all attempts, fragile as they may
be, to
establish the rule of ‘right’ over ‘might’ in regulating inter-state
affairs.
‘Humanitarian intervention’. This article will examine the implications
of
such a right to ‘humanitarian’ military intervention for the future of
inter-state
regulation and international law.

International Law and Sovereign Equality

The concept of sovereign equality is often understood as an integral
part
of the long-standing doctrine of state sovereignty. In fact, it is of
much
more
recent provenance than the classic state system which emerged at the end
of
the
Thirty Years War. The Peace of Westphalia of 1648 famously recognized
the
secular
rights of German princelings above the religious claims of the Papacy,
legitimating no external power beyond that of the sovereign; it was this
formal recognition of the principle of territorial sovereignty which
henceforth
became the basis of relations between states. There was, however, no
international
law in the modern sense: such rights of sovereignty were effectively
restricted
to the major powers and there was no explicit framework of an
international
community which could formally limit their exercise. Without
international
law, the regulation of inter-state relations could not extend beyond
voluntary
agreements between the sovereign states—strategic alliances, aimed at
preserving
local interests and maintaining a relatively stable balance of power.

The epoch of this classic, ‘anarchical’ state-system, with no defined
limits
to the sovereignty of the major powers, was also the era of colonialism.
The
states included within it were those which could defend their own
territory
from
the claims of other states. It was therefore quite consistent to argue
that in
countries which could not demonstrate such ‘empirical statehood’—the
colonies—sovereignty could not apply. Meanwhile, those with sufficient
military
force to intervene in other states’ affairs—in other words, the great
powers—continued to do so. During the colonial era, the major powers
either
regulated their territorial acquisitions directly—as in Africa and
India—or,
as in China, Japan and the Ottoman Empire, insisted that their own
actions
could
not be fettered by local domestic legislation, claiming the right of
extraterritoriality. Under the Westphalian system, then, superior force
was
the guarantor of effective sovereignty.

The Westphalian model came under attack with the modernization and
growing
world importance of the leading non-European states. Challenges to
Western
rule
and increasing international instability led to new attempts to regulate
inter-state
affairs. The Hague Conference of 1899 saw the attendance of China,
Japan,
the Ottoman Empire, Persia and Siam. In 1905 Japan’s defeat of Russia
came as
a powerful shock to European imperial confidence, closely bound up with
assumptions of racial superiority. The second Hague Conference of 1907
was
the first gathering of modern states at which Europeans were outnumbered
by the
representatives of other countries. But it was the watershed of the
First
World War—bringing in its wake the collapse of the Russian,
Austro-Hungarian and
Ottoman empires, the rise of colonial resistance, the establishment of
the
Soviet Union and the threat of new world war—that was decisive in
turning
Western policy makers away from the strength-based Westphalian system
and
towards a more juridical concept of sovereignty and a framework of
international law.

The principle of national self-determination was proclaimed by Woodrow
Wilson
at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference—for the newly created states of
Central
Europe.
The extension of such a right to the rest of the world—ringingly
affirmed
by the Bolsheviks’ Declaration of the Rights of Toiling and Exploited
Peoples in
January 1918—was held at bay. The expansion of the concept of
territorial
sovereignty beyond the principle of ‘might is right’ remained highly
controversial within policy-making circles. Robert Lansing, US Secretary
of State, recalled his doubts:

The more I think about the President’s declaration as to the right of
‘self-determination’, the more convinced I am of the danger of putting
such
ideas into the minds of certain races. It is bound to be the basis of
impossible
demands on the Peace Conference and create trouble in many lands.

What effect will it have on the Irish, the Indians, the Egyptians, and
the
nationalists among the Boers? Will it not breed discontent, disorder and
rebellion? Will not the Mohammedans of Syria and Palestine and possibly
Morocco
and Tripoli rely on it? [2]

This ‘danger’ was a central concern of the inter-war settlement. The
League
of Nations timidly initiated legal restriction of great-power
sovereignty
through
the introduction of the mandate system, with colonial administrators now
deputed to ‘advance the interests’ of the subject peoples. The
mandates—implying
a recognition that colonial rule could only be temporary—were the first
formal
admission that empire was no longer a legitimate political form. But the
concept of sovereign equality remained confined to a few, the right of
self-determination denied to large sections of the world’s population,
Japan’s
attempt to include a clause on racial equality in the League of Nations
Charter firmly
rejected. The development of a universal legal conception of sovereign
equality
would have to await a further world war.

The 1945 settlement, preserved in the principles of the UN Charter,
reflected
a new international situation, transformed by the emergence of the
Soviet
Union
as a world power and the spread of national liberation struggles in
Asia, the
Middle East and Africa. Ideologies of race and empire, too, seemed
definitively
vanquished with the defeat of the Nazi regime. It was a decisive moment
in
the transformation of the Westphalian system. In this context, the
inter-war
consensus on ‘the non-applicability of the right to self-determination
to
colonial peoples’ could no longer be sustained. United States policy
makers,
as they looked forward to assuming the mantle of the now declining
British
Empire,
realized that updated institutions for the management of international
relations
would have to ‘avoid conventional forms of imperialism’. [3] The
result
was nominal Great-Power acceptance—however hypocritical—of a law-bound
international
system.

Central to this new mechanism of international regulation was the
conception
of sovereign equality. The UN Charter, the first attempt to construct a
law-bound
‘international community’ of states, recognized all its members as
equal.
Article 2(1) explicitly stressed ‘the principle of sovereign equality’,
while
both Article 1(2) and Article 55 emphasized ‘respect for the principle
of
equal rights and self-determination of peoples’. New nations—which would
have failed
Westphalian tests of ‘empirical statehood’, and hence been dismissed as
‘quasi-states’—were granted sovereign rights, [4] while the sovereignty
of
the great powers was now, on paper at least, to be restricted. The UN
system
did not, of course, realize full sovereign equality. In practice, the
Security
Council overwhelmingly predominated, with each of its self-appointed
permanent
members—the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China—retaining
rights
of veto. Still, sovereign equality was given technical recognition in
parity
of representation in the General Assembly and lip-service to principle
of
non-interventionism, setting legal restrictions on the right to wage
war.

Justice and war

Under the Westphalian system, the capacity of the most powerful states
to
use force against the less powerful was a normal feature of the
international
order.
Under the legal framework set up by the Charter, the sovereign’s right
to
go to war (other than by UN agreement or in self-defence) was, for the
first time,
outlawed—a point sometimes missed by those who would argue that the
post-1945
order ‘failed to break’ with Westphalian norms. [5] The principle of
non-intervention was, in fact, a constituting principle of the new
international
community of states. Just as the rule of law in domestic jurisdictions
depends
upon the concentration of legalized force in a single authority, and the
criminalization of the individual exercise of violence, so within the
post-war
system of international regulation, the legal monopoly of the use of
force
resides in the UN. [6] Article 2(4) states:

All members shall refrain in their international relations from the
threat
or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence
of any state, or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the
United
Nations.

‘We may not appreciate’, writes Louis Henkin, ‘how remarkable that was,
that
transformative development in the middle of the twentieth century:
“sovereign
states” gave up their “sovereign” right to go to war.’ [7] . It marked,
it
seemed, the end of the Westphalian system of legitimating great-power
domination
through the use of force.

The universal recognition of sovereign equality entailed a new
conception
of states, whose legal authority now derived not from wealth or might
but
nationhood. Formally speaking, non-Western states from now on had the
same
standing as Western ones within the international order, despite
continuing
inequalities of economic and military power. [8] In theory, however, a
framework of international law had been created that limited the
exercise
of state sovereignty—including the right to wage war. In legal terms, at
least,
might no longer equalled right.

‘International Justice’ or International Law?

Even so mild a form of international regulation is now coming under
ferocious
attack. The case for the special treatment of some states, and demotion
of
others, has been put in a variety of registers. British barrister and
newspaper
pundit Geoffrey Robertson offers a rabid rogue-list: ‘The reality is
that
statesare not equal. There can be no “dignity” or “respect” when
statehood
is an
attribute of the governments which presently rule Iraq and Cuba and
Libya
and North Korea and Somalia and Serbia and the Sudan’. [9] Max Boot,
features
editor of the Wall Street Journal, prefers a swaggering cynicism: ‘There
is no compelling reason, other than an unthinking respect for the status
quo, why
the West should feel bound to the boundaries it created in the past.’
[10]
BrianUrquhart, a former UN undersecretary-general, sees sovereign
equality as
the ‘central barrier’ to peace and justice, providing a ‘cloak of
impunity’ for
every kind of abuse. [11]

Pitted against the concept of international law based on sovereign
equality
is a new form of global ‘justice’, formulated in explicit opposition to
it.
Advocates
of this justice herald the emergence of a new, ‘human-rights’ based
order
of international relations, arguing that the post-1945 framework—here,
‘international society’—is being eclipsed by the ethical demands of
global
‘civil society’. For Martin Shaw, erstwhile International Socialist, the
‘crucial issue’ is to face up to the necessity which enforcing these
principles would impose
to breach systematically the principles of sovereignty and
non-intervention…
The global society perspective, therefore, has an ideological
significance
which
is ultimately opposed to that of international society. [12]

For Robertson, too, ‘the movement for global justice’ is ‘a struggle
against
sovereignty’. [13] Sovereign equality is seen by these ideologues as a
legal
fiction, a mask for the abuse of power. International law is merely an
‘anachronism’, a historical hangover, while ‘some of its classic
doctrines—sovereign and diplomatic immunity, non-intervention in
internal
affairs, non-compulsory submission to the ICJ, equality of voting in the
General Assembly—continue to damage the human rights cause.’ [14]

The denial of sovereign equality obviously has major consequences for
both
the form and content of international law. The most prominent is the
rise of
the idea of a ‘duty’ of forcible ‘humanitarian’ intervention—the
so-called
devoir
d’ingerence. [15] Its advocates naturally retain the right to decide
on
whom this obligation falls. Robertson explains that ‘humanitarian
intervention
cannot be the prerogative of the UN’ since it cannot be relied upon to
act when
necessary. The duty of intervention must therefore stand independently:
‘UNanimity cannot be the only test of legitimacy’. [16] For Shaw,
‘it
is unavoidable that global state action will be undertaken largely by
states,
ad hoc coalitions of states and more permanent regional groupings of
states’. [17]
In practice, the prosecution of international justice turns out to be
the
prerogative of the West.

Such is overtly the substance of NATO’s new ‘strategic concept’,
promulgated
at the Alliance’s fiftieth anniversary summit in Washington in late
April
1999,
at the height of the Balkan War. As US Deputy Secretary of State Strobe
Talbott
explained,

We must be careful not to subordinate NATO to any other international
body
or compromise the integrity of its command structure. We will try to act
in
concert with other organizations, and with respect for their principles
and
purposes.
But the Alliance must reserve the right and freedom to act when its
members,
by consensus, deem it necessary. [18]

Similarly, a new study of ‘humanitarian intervention’ in the wake of
the Kosovo
war argues explicitly for ad hoc and arbitrary powers to intervene:

A code of rules governing intervention would be likely in the early
twenty-first
century to limit rather than help effective and responsible action on
the
part of the international community… Any attempt to get general
agreements
would
be counter-productive… It may be inevitable, possibly even preferable,
for
responses to international crises to unfold selectively. [19]

Ironically, the new ‘global’ forms of justice and rights protection will
be distinctly less universal than those of the UN-policed international
society
they set out to replace. David Held argues that, ‘in the first
instance’,
at least,

cosmopolitan democratic law could be promulgated and defended by those
democratic states and civil societies that are able to muster the
necessary
political judgement and to learn how political practices and
institutions
must change and adapt in the new regional and global circumstances. [20]

Rather more bluntly, Shaw explains the rationale of all-round NATO
intervention:

This perspective can only be centred on a new unity of purpose among
Western
peoples and governments, since only the West has the economic, political
and military resources and the democratic and multinational institutions
and
culture necessary to undertake it. The West has a historic
responsibility
to take
on this global leadership. [21]

This line of argument is now increasingly official doctrine. The
Guardian
could hail British military intervention in Sierra Leone as ‘the duty
owed by a
wealthy and powerful nation to, in this case, one of the world’s poorest
countries’. [22] Here inequality is expressly theorized as the basis
of
the new world order. Yet the modern system of law (whether international
or
domestic) depends, both at the basic level of its derivation and in the
vital
question of its application, on the concept of formal equality between
its
subjects. All international institutions—whether the UN, OSCE or even
NATO
itself—derive their authority from inter-state agreements. International
law derives its legitimacy from the voluntary assent of nation-states.
Without
such consent, the distinction between law (based on formal equality) and
repression
(based on material force) disappears. The equal application of the law
entails
parity between its subjects, without which it ceases to have meaning. In
today’s climate, the rights of weaker states can be infringed on the
grounds that
the law does not fully apply to them, while more powerful states can
claim
immunity
from the law on the grounds that it is they who ultimately enforce it.

The extension of ‘international justice’ is, in short, the abolition of
international law. For there can be no international law without equal
sovereignty, no system of rights without state-subjects capable of being
its bearers. In a world composed of nation-states, rather than a single
global
power, universal law can only derive from national governments. What the
jettisoning of the principle of non-interventionism means is the
re-legitimation
of the right of the Great Powers to practice what violence they please.
Their
apologists declare that war is now the ‘lesser evil’, compared to the
new
moral crimes of ‘indifference’ or ‘appeasement’.

Liberal interventionists have emerged as the biggest advocates of
increased
military spending. [23] For these ideologues, the absolute end of
‘international justice’ can only be compromised by diplomacy or
negotiation.
The new professors of Human Rights at the UN University’s Peace and
Governance
Programme are happy to condone those ‘good international citizens’ who
are
‘tempted to go it alone’ waging war for ‘justice’, with or without
international
sanction. [24] Robertson likewise insists that ‘a human rights offensive
admits of no half-measures’; ‘crimes against humanity are, by
definition,
unforgivable’
; ‘justice, in respect of crimes against humanity, is non-negotiable’.
[25]
Such war can know no legal bounds. In the Middle East, in Africa and the
Balkans,
the exercise of ‘international justice’ signifies a return to the
Westphalian
system of open great-power domination over states which are too weak to
prevent
external claims against them.


Dr David Chandler, Research Fellow, Policy Research Institute, Leeds
Metropolitan University. His latest book is Bosnia: Faking Democracy
After
Dayton (Pluto Press, 1999) his next book Human Rights and International
Intervention will be published by Verso in Autumn 2001.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] This article is a shortened version of “International Justice” which
appears in the New Left Review, No.6, Nov/Dec 2000.
[2] Robert Lansing, The Peace Negotiations: A Personal Narrative, London
1921, p. 87.
[3] Justin Rosenberg, The Empire of Civil Society, London 1994.
[4] R. H. Jackson, Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations
and
the Third World, Cambridge 1990.
[5] David Held, Democracy and the Global Order, Cambridge 1995, p.88.
[6] O. Ramsbotham and T. Woodhouse, Humanitarian Intervention in
Contemporary
Conflict: A Reconceptualization, Cambridge 1996, p. 35.
[7] Louis Henkin, ‘That “S” Word: Sovereignty, and Globalization, and
Human
Rights, etc’, Fordham Law Review, 1999, vol. Lxviii, no. 1, p. 1.
[8] Sovereign equality was confirmed in many subsequent UN resolutions,
notably
the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic
Affairs
of States and Protection of their Independence and Sovereignty of 21
December
1965 (Resolution 2131 [XX]) and the Declaration on Principles of
International
Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in
Accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations of 24 October 1970 (Resolution
2625
[XXV]).
[9] Geoffrey Robertson, Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global
Justice, London 1999, p. 372.
[10] Max Boot, ‘Paving the Road to Hell: The Failure of UN
Peacekeeping’,
Foreign Affairs, 2000, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 143­8.
[11] Brian Urquhart, ‘In the Name of Humanity’, New York Review of
Books,
27 April 2000.
[12] Martin Shaw, Global Society and International Relations:
Sociological
Concepts and Political Perspectives, Cambridge 1994, p. 134­5.
[13] Crimes Against Humanity, p. xviii.
[14] Crimes Against Humanity, p. 83.
[15] M. Bettati and B. Kouchner, Le Devoir d’ingerence, Paris 1987.
[16] Crimes Against Humanity, pp. 382, 72.
[17] Global Society, p. 186.
[18] Cited in B. Simma, ‘NATO, the UN and the Use of Force: Legal
Aspects’,
European Journal of International Law, 1999, vol. 10, pp. 1­22.
[19] Albrecht Schnabel and Ramesh Thakur, eds, Kosovo and the Challenge
of
Humanitarian Intervention, New York: forthcoming. See
www.unu.edu/p&g/kosovo_full.htm
[20] Democracy and the Global Order, p. 232.
[21] Global Society and International Relations, pp. 180­1.
[22] ‘We Are Right To Be There’, Guardian, 13 May 2000.
[23] For example, John Gray, ‘Crushing Hatreds’, Guardian, 28 March
2000;
John Lloyd, ‘Prepare for a Brave New World’, New Statesman, 19 April
1999.
[24] See, for example, Kosovo and the Challenge of Humanitarian
Intervention.
[25] Crimes Against Humanity, pp. 73, 260, 268.


---

Bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"
Sito WEB : http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra

I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only")

Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid%c2%91979 oppure
> http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/

Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Da oggi su eCircle - Filesharing.
Puoi disporre in ogni gruppo di 20 MB
per documenti, file musicali, films e foto.
Condividili con i soci della tua communita!
http://www.ecircle.it/ad823802/www.ecircle.it

Oggetto: CADU News - May 2000
Data: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 14:03:32 +0100
Da: Greater Manchester and District CND <gmdcnd@...>
...

Dear All

We have been having some problems with send attachments to E-Mails, so
here's the newsletter as a simple cut and paste effort.

As usual, please feel free to use the articles in this newsletter, but,
always give CADU credit for them

Thanks

Clare Frisby

CADU News May 2000

Issue Number Four

Campaign Against Depleted Uranium,

1) NATO fudges on DU in Kosov@
2) NATO report on DU in Kosov@
3) Yugoslav claims more DU rounds were used
4) Gulf War Veterans
5) Vieques Update
6) DU, NATO, UN and the WHO
7) Mariam Appeal Day for the People of Iraq
8) What is DU in YU action?
9) Depleted Uranium Protesters Convicted of Trespass
10) DU Tank Armour Production Part of Major US Department of Energy
Investigation
11) German Greens Begin Anti-DU initiative.
12) DU found in Scrap Yard
13) CADU Petition
14) What is CADU?
15) CADU Website - volunteer wanted
16) CADU International Conference on Depleted Uranium 4 - 5 November
Manchester
17) BAe Systems wins DU contract
18) IMPORTANT - Affiliate to CADU to receive CADU News

1) NATO FUDGES ON DU IN KOSOV@

NATO finally responded to a request from UN Secretary General, Kofi
Annan,
for information on use of depleted uranium munitions (DU) during the
conflict in the Balkans last year. However, not only did NATO take 5
months to respond to Kofi Annan, in typically uninformative manner they
provided as little information as they could get away with. This in
itself
is indicative of the way in which NATO views both its own role and
status
in world affairs, and that of the UN.
NATO’s secretary-general, George Robertson wrote to Kofi Annan saying
that
American A-10 ground attack aircraft used armour-piercing depleted
uranium
rounds against Serb armoured vehicles during NATO’s 78-day air campaign
last spring. The ammunition was part of the aircraft’s standard load.
"DU (depleted uranium) rounds were used whenever the A-10 engaged armour

during Operation Allied Force, therefore, it was used throughout Kosovo,

during approximately 100 missions."
The NATO letter said U.S. jets had fired approximately 31,000 rounds of
depleted uranium during the war against Yugoslavia. That translates to
about 10 1/2 tons — or 21,000 pounds — of ammunition, experts say.
By comparison, the United States and Britain fired 630,000 pounds of
depleted uranium in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq during the Gulf War,
according to the Pentagon.
The UN’s Annan had requested the information on depleted uranium targets

last October. A U.N. team sent to Kosovo last summer to investigate the
habitability of the region after the war could not assess the threat
posed
by depleted uranium contamination, because the Pentagon and NATO refused
to
divulge where the ammunition had been fired.
NATO has now provided a map of where DU was used with their letter, (see

above) but the map is totally inadequate as it is in no way detailed
enough
to assess environmental pollution caused by DU
"The major focus of these operations was in an area west of the
Pec-Dakovica-Prizren highway, in the area surrounding Klina, in the area

around Prizen and in an area to the north of a line joining Suva Reka
and

Urosevac," the letter said.
Robertson noted in NATO’s letter that the map was not complete, saying
"many missions using DU also took place outside of these areas." He
concluded: "At this moment it is impossible to state accurately every
location where DU ammunition was used."
The Pentagon has tried to downplay the risks of exposure to depleted
uranium dust and debris since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Dan Fahey, of the Military Toxics Project in the US, said the map raised

questions about the safety of people living in areas contaminated by
depleted uranium dust and debris, as well as the health of peacekeeping
troops and relief workers.
"It is NATO’s responsibility, and specifically the responsibility of the

United States, to go in there and start doing a clean-up, especially
considering the fact we were fighting the war to protect the civilian
populations and enable them to live in their land free of external
harm,"
Pentagon spokesman Vic Warzinski said depleted uranium contamination was

"not that major of a threat" in Kosovo.
For more information, try Website:
www.homepage.jefnet.com/gwvrl/

2) NATO Report on DU and Kosov@

A draft special report, from the Civilian Affairs Committee of the NATO
Parliamentary Assembly released a report which makes interesting reading

for those of us involved in the DU issue. Rapporteur, Volker Kroning of

Germany suggests in this report that the lawfulness of the use of DU in
Kosov@ could be challenged under International Humanitarian Law.
The report, entitled ‘Kosovo and International Humanitarian Law’
examines
which aspects of NATO’s intervention may have clashed with International

Humanitarian Law (IHL), and what NATO members can do to improve the
application and enforcement of this law by all members of the
international
community.
The relevant section, ‘The Use of Certain Weapons’ begins by stating
that
"one of the most controversial aspects of NATO’s intervention in Kosovo
was
the use of certain types of weapons, in particular cluster bombs and
depleted uranium (DU) munitions". In relation to DU specifically, the
report has the following to say:-
"Depleted uranium is 0.7 times as radioactive as naturally
occurring
uranium, and has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. While the type of
radiation emitted by depleted uranium (alpha particles) has little
penetrative capabilities, DU attacks often result in the dispersion of
fine
radioactive dust, which, when inhaled, is likely to be trapped in the
(DU
is insoluble), where it can have a more serious effect. Furthermore, DU
bears many of the same poisonous characteristics as other heavy metals
such
as lead, whose effects are known to be hazardous. So far, although
scientific inquiries into the toxicity of DU are underway, there is
insufficient information to conclude that DU munitions have a
long-lasting
nefarious effect which could affect civilian populations. Nevertheless,
in
light of media coverage of its use in both the Gulf War and Kosovo, of
the
imposition of safety guidelines issued to KFOR soldiers, and indications

that DU promotes growth of cancerous cells in lab cell cultures, the
lawfulness of its use could challenged under IHL.
One of the chief problems is that spent DU munitions may be a source of
danger long after hostilities have ceased. Should DU munitions be
recognised as posing a lasting radioactive and chemical poisoning
threat,
their prohibition may be invoked through Article 23(a) of the 1907 Hague

Convention, which prohibits the use of poison. Even if DU munitions are
recognised as radioactively and/or chemically harmful, whether they
qualify
as poison is a
debatable issue. Another issue is whether DU munitions qualify, as they
do
in the opinion of some, as a type of nuclear weapon. The question then
is
the use of nuclear weapons is permissible under IHL, although no
international legal instrument specifically prohibits them. In the eyes
of
many legal experts, as well as the International Court of Justice, the
requirement to avoid attacks of an indiscriminate nature (Art. 51/4 and
51/5 of PI) intrinsically prohibits the use of nuclear weapons, as well
as
the use of weapons which have lasting environmental pollution effects."
[Italics are mine]
The report concludes that NATO’s reliance on air power, to fulfil its
‘zero-casualty’ aim is "if not legally, then morally objectionable". The

report goes on to quote Henry Kissinger (of all people) "What kind of
humanism expresses its reluctance to suffer military casualties by
devastating the civilian economy of its adversary for years to come"
The full report can be seen on the following NATO Website:
www.naa.be/publications/comrep/1999/as245cc-e.html
By Cath at CADU

3) Yugoslav study claims more DU rounds were used

In a report from the Yugoslav Defence Ministry, issued last month, it
was
claimed that NATO in fact used far more rounds of depleted uranium than
was
admitted by western leaders. Gen. Slobodan Petkovic, Deputy Defence
Minister, who presented the report said NATO used about 50,000 rounds
containing depleted uranium, whereas the letter from NATO to the United
Nations earlier this year mentioned only about 30,000 (see front page).
A team of Yugoslav experts undertook the study of all the environmental
effects of the NATO air strikes. They say NATO warplanes used depleted
uranium rounds on eight sites in Yugoslavia during the alliance's 78-day

bombing campaign last year.
The locations contaminated by the depleted uranium and described in the
75-page document include six sites in Serbia and one in Montenegro,
Serbia's smaller partner in the Yugoslav federation.
The eighth location is in Kosovo, Serbia's southern province. The region
is
now run by U.N. and NATO peace keepers, preventing examination of the
contamination by a Yugoslav team.
The Yugoslav authorities accuse Nato of polluting the soil, air and
water
through its attacks on oil refineries and chemical factories. Petkovic
said
most of the rounds were fired on Kosovo along the border with Albania.
For
the first time, the Yugoslav army has admitted that radioactive
materials
were dropped outside Kosovo as well. Petkovic said the areas had been
sealed off and Yugoslav experts had detected radioactivity well above
safe
levels. Some of the affected areas are said to be in parts of southern
Serbia, where there is a high ethnic Albanian population.

4) Gulf War Veterans

In view of the conclusion to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Report (see

page 2), which states that NATO’s zero-casualty war is ‘morally
objectionable’, it is worth noting that this ‘zero’ isn’t quite what it
seems. During the Gulf War of 1991, only 49 British soldiers were killed
-
testimony to the new era of modern warfare which relies heavily on air
power, and weapons such as DU munitions.
However, since this time, over 400 Gulf War veterans have died. Only 40

out of the 35,000 British forces in the Gulf have been tested for DU
poisoning; but all have tested positive. This is the new warfare - when

the war is over, the killing continues. And this killing is entirely
indiscriminate.

5) VIEQUES UPDATE

In the last CADU news we reported on the situation in Vieques, an island
in
Puerto Rico, where the US Navy has been testing munitions including DU
for
50 years. Locals had been camped out on the testing ranges to prevent
the
US military from re-commencing testing there. As CADU news goes to
press,
the latest on the situation is featured below:
"On May 4 federal authorities began to arrest the people conducting
Civil
Disobedience in Vieques. This has been considered as an offence of the
U.S. Government against the will of the people of Vieques and Puerto
Rico
that took back their land for one full year to prevent the bombing and
shelling of the Island. The U.S. Government's response to the demands
for
Human Rights of the people of Vieques was a military invasion of Vieques

that was met with no resistance by the protesters that from the outset
had
vowed to non-violence Civil Disobedience.
The diverse group of protesters that have been arrested is composed by
grassroots community leaders and members of the community at-large,
religious leaders, elected officials from Puerto Rico and the US,
including
two members of the U.S. Congress and members of the Puerto Rican
Legislature; leaders of the Puerto Rican Independence party, students,
union members, and known artists. Spirits where high and protesters
were
calm as they promised to be back to prevent the resumption of the
bombings.
The struggle of David versus Goliath has reached a new stage and will
surely continue and intensify until the final goal of a Navy-free
Vieques
is achieved.
This is the moment to put forward all planned activities of protest or
to
plan protest events in your community. Today and tomorrow many protests
will take place in U.S. and Puerto Rico."
The protesters in Vieques have called for supporters to write to Clinton
to
condemn the use of force by the federal authorities to remove the
protesters. - President Clinton, The White House, Washington DC 20500.
More information from their Website on www.viequeslibre.org

6) DU, NATO, UN and the WHO!

The following is an unedited article from the San Francisco Examiner, of

May 1st, reproduced here because it offers some insight into DU on the
world stage.

'Depleted uranium': A tale of poisonous denial
By Robert James Parsons

GENEVA - When a United Nations agency announced that NATO had officially

confirmed using depleted-uranium munitions in Kosovo, the story hit the
world's media, then quickly faded.
The agency went on record as saying that there was too little
information
for firm conclusions but no cause for serious concern. The Pentagon
officially echoed this, and attention shifted elsewhere.
For those following the story, this was another episode in a game of
hide-and-don't-tell that the U.S. government has been playing for years,

both at home and abroad. But as the game continues, there is cause for
serious concern.
The U.S. government denies there is anything harmful about depleted
uranium
that would prevent its use in battle situations anywhere. Numerous
independent experts say depleted uranium is deadly and will pollute
indefinitely those areas struck by the munitions. They blame it for
most
of the illnesses of Persian Gulf war syndrome.
The Military Toxics Project, a non-governmental organisation that has
been
tracking depleted uranium for years, has just published an update. Dan
Fahey, its author and the project's research director for depleted
uranium,
draws primarily on declassified government documents and public
statements,
building a grim indictment of irresponsibility that is nothing short of
criminal.
Since the first use of depleted uranium in the Iraq war (a use that
continues today with the bombing of the no-fly zones), the controversy
has
spread into the international arena, including the United Nations.
During the Kosovo war, the Pentagon brought out a RAND Corporation think

tank study to prove once and for all that depleted uranium is harmless.
Independent experts, contesting the use of depleted uranium in Kosovo
and
Serbia, protested.
Later, in a paper entitled "Fear of Falling," Fahey analysed the study
in
detail, showing it to be a sham. Yet the U.S. government still cites it
as
a proof that the depleted uranium problem has been laid to rest.

But NATO's admission, even unofficial, of depleted uranium use in the
Kosovo war alarmed aid agencies operating there.
The World Health Organisation was asked to investigate. The WHO,
however,
has an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency giving the
latter the last word over anything touching public health and radiation.

A fact sheet on depleted uranium announced as in the works, was
cancelled.
(The Atomic Energy Agency was set up in '50s by the nuclear powers of
the
time to push the nuclear industry on a public wary of living with
nuclear
waste and with radiation in general. The United States plays a dominant
role within it. Holding the only mandate in the U.N. system to promote a

part of the private sector, it has been repeatedly denounced by
non-governmental organisations as incompatible with the ideals expressed
in
the U.N. charter.)
An initial U.N. mission to Yugoslavia in May produced a report of
serious
contamination by depleted uranium. The report's sponsor, the United
Nations
Environment Program's director, Klaus Toepfer, suppressed it - under
pressure from Washington, according to inside sources. It nonetheless
eventually leaked out.
The program's Balkans Task Force brought out a major study in October,
but
the section on depleted uranium had been whittled down from 72 pages to
two
on orders from Toepfer, again apparently under pressure from Washington.

The task force had tried to involve the WHO, but the Atomic Energy
Agency,
in keeping with the agreement, excluded the WHO from the radiation
appraisal. Measuring was done using Geiger counters incapable of
detecting
the particular alpha radiation that depleted uranium emits, and none was

found.
Meantime, in August, the WHO had announced it was undertaking a
"generic"
(general) study of depleted uranium, but no details were available. In
March, it became known that the study was under the WHO's Dr. Michael
Repacholi, an electromagnetic field expert, who, it has since been
discovered, has delegated it to Barry Smith, a consultant in England,
who
is a geologist.
Faced with the Atomic Energy Agency's opposition to studying radiation
and
health, the WHO has opted to study DU as a heavy metal pollutant.
This is hardly of help to those exposed to tons of virtually
indestructible
radioactive dust particles, including the international aid agencies
awaiting an official pronouncement from the WHO.

The recent NATO confirmation of depleted uranium use in Kosovo, complete

with a map, should have finally sounded the alarm.
After being put on hold for six months by NATO, the task force finally
had
something specific and official, but the pressure was on to play it
down.
The publication of the map in a Geneva daily on the day that the task
force
was meeting to decide on strategy forced its hand.
When the task force chairman, former Finnish environmental minister
Pekka
Haavisto, called a press conference to disclose the map and its
accompanying letter, it was Toepfer's spokesperson, the man who had cut
out
the 70 pages from the October report, not Haavisto's, who orchestrated
the
event.
Not surprisingly, Haavisto was kept on a leash. Hence the announced
conclusion: no cause for serious concern.
But there are indications that not everybody agrees.
The UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees, the main coordinator of aid to
Kosovo, has quietly decided to refrain from sending pregnant staff to
Kosovo, to offer those assigned there the option of going elsewhere and
to
put a note into the personnel files of those sent there - to facilitate
compensation claims for illnesses that might develop from depleted
uranium
contamination.
The German and Dutch governments, whose occupation zones coincide with
the
areas hardest hit by depleted uranium, according to NATO's map, have
ordered their soldiers not to eat anything outside their post mess
halls,
especially not from the surrounding countryside. This echoes independent

experts' claims that the dust has entered the food chain of the region.
Dutch soldiers stationed last fall in part of the same heavily hit area

(around Prizren) had to hand in all clothing and equipment, which was
then
shipped back to the Netherlands sealed in heavy-duty plastic.
The government claimed asbestos contamination, but a Dutch military
source
points to DU, noting that the vehicles, also sent back, ended up in a
radiation decontamination plant.
Fahey's "Don't Look, Don't Find" discusses a U.S. Army report issued
well
before the Gulf War: "Though no anti-DU movement existed at the time,
the
Army predicted that DU munitions might be removed from the arsenal by
political force once the health and environmental impacts of DU were
widely
known."
Although the U.S. government seems intent on keeping those impacts
unknown,
the public is finding out. Mariam Appeal Day for the People of Iraq.

7) Mariam Appeal Day for the People of Iraq
by Cat Euler

Over 1,000 people attended the immensely successful Mariam Appeal
conference in London last month. Iraqi artists displayed the amazing
range
of creativity for which the Tigris and Euphrates region has long been
known. Middle Eastern food and music added to the celebration of
culture
which must continue, despite the horrendous effects of sanctions and
depleted uranium. This is when human beings reach their finest hour: to

create, to live, to survive with dignity and art in the midst of
deprivation and death. It is an inspiration to all of us.

Both the showing of the Hugh Livingstone video, The Ultimate Bullet, and

the DU workshop which followed, were also well attended, with some 50
people at each. The video is a sobering and well documented account of
the
journey of a US Gulf War vet to Iraq to meet with Iraqi veterans of the
same war, to discover the similar sufferings which both have
experienced.
It is a good teaching tool for those of you who are organising local
meetings on depleted uranium.

I began the workshop with some overheads showing the US DoD map of the
extensive area of southern Iraq where DU munitions were used. I quickly

discovered the difference between presenting information on DU to people

who have no thought that they or their loved ones might be contaminated,

and presenting the same information to people who have relatives living
in
Basra. Rather than being concerned with theoretical or strictly
scientific
information about isotopes, the questions on practical matters came
thick
and fast. "My nephew lives in Basra, are all the buildings there
contaminated?" "Is it possible to clean it up?" "Is there any hope for

us?" I tried to answer these moving questions as simply and accurately
as
possible. It is unlikely, I said, that the heaviest contamination
travels
more than a few dozen or, at most, hundred metres from the point of
impact.
However, we have documented evidence that DU particles can travel on
the
winds as far as 40 km. Further documented measurements need to be
carried
out in order to establish the maximum distance. We can’t know how much
contamination exists in Basra without a full radiological survey. There

are probably spots which have greater and lesser or no contamination.
Yes,
I said, it may be possible to ‘clean it up’ in the sense that it can be
isolated from the human environment for a long time if it is properly
buried. However, the known methods would cost billions of pounds for an
extensive geographical area, and the recently announced chemical binding

methods, though perhaps less costly, are untried. I feel as though I
don’t
have enough information on their effect on both soluble and insoluble
dust
particles. I said the US and British governments should take
responsibility
for funding the clean up. I said it was important that people in the
area
drank distilled water whenever possible, but the look of despair on some

people’s faces told me how impossible it seemed in conditions of
sanctions
to obtain even this. Yes, I said, I always believe there is hope, that

while there is life there is always hope. I must believe this, and why
not?

The people from the region are deeply concerned, and do not have
sufficient
information. Their concerns and fears were echoed by many I spoke to
during a trip to Belgrade last month. Women do not know how their babies

will be affected; they do not know where the contamination is, and they
must continue living and surviving in sanctions-deprived circumstances
despite the fear that comes with not knowing. I now hold very close to
my
heart the difference between providing information to the interested and

providing information to the victims. In Serbia, too, the music and art
continue.

Other DU activists also contributed valuable information at the
workshop.
One woman told us of her constant letters to members of parliament and
the
civil service. She had been told, in one response, that the Department
for
International Development (DfID) was in partnership with the World
Health
Organisation (WHO) to carry out cancer and other health surveys in Iraq.

However, they were only looking at health effects and had no plans to
look
at causation, and no plans to survey DU contamination. This attitude on

the part of WHO, also expressed at the UN, may very well be related to
the
1959 agreement WHO signed with the International Atomic Energy Authority

(IAEA), which mandates mutual agreement for overlapping research
interests,
and agrees on secrecy for ‘sensitive’ information.

8) What is DU in YU action?

DU in YU is non-government, non-profit organisation that gathers people
that are willing to act in anti DU campaign in Yugoslavia.
Also, it covers wider problems of ecology and danger from nuclear and
radioactive sources.

DU in YU action centre is located in Nis, second biggest town in
Yugoslavia, 250 km southern of Belgrade, and only 50 km eastern from
Kosovo. The DU danger is very real here, although DU probably hadn't
been
used in the town itself (the nearest location where DU traces were found
is
Nis Airport, located 5 km from town centre). The biggest threat to the
citizens of Nis came from the south; more that 80% of food that people
of
Nis consume came from zones of high risk: Vranje, Bujanovac, Presevo,
Leskovac, Prokuplje, areas where it's confirmed that DU had been used.
We
will try to inform people of Nis about DU in our local environment, as
well
as citizens of towns where DU was used. We plan to organise public
lectures, TV and radio campaign, and to demand from our authorities to
protect the sites where DU is found. We would also try to make an
international impact as the only NGO in Yugoslavia whose main task is to

protect people from DU. We also hope that we can make a network
of local ecological organisations in southern Serbia, and, in future, on

the national level.

We will try to cooperate with all relevant people and institutions in
Serbia as well as from abroad. We've already got a response from some
nuclear physicist from "Vinca Nuclear Institute" in Belgrade, Prof. Dr
Vladimir Ajdacic among the others.

We are looking forward to any kind of co-operation and help from all
organisations and people that are working on DU topic.
Our address is: Bul. Februar 65a, 18000 Nis, Yugoslavia
Phone: 381 18 43 166, Fax: 381 18 43 828
You can contact us on the following e-mail addresses:
nikolab@... - Nikola Bozinovic
mina_zdravkovic@... - Mina Zdravkovic

9) DEPLETED URANIUM PROTESTERS CONVICTED OF TRESPASS

Minnetonka, Sixty-three human rights, peace and anti-war activists were
convicted of trespass following a 2 1/2-hour bench trial in Hennepin
County
District Court here.
The group walked onto the property of Alliant Techsystems, Inc. Nov. 1,
1999 to protest the company’s manufacture of depleted uranium-238 (DU)
weapons.
The demonstrators, were all fined $25, except for ten who spent more
than
eight hours in custody after their arrest. They were sentenced to time
served.
Char Madigan, a peace activist with Minnesota Alliant Action and the
Midwest Institute for Social Transformation, said the defendants had
"won
the lowest fine ever," in the long series of protests at the company's
gates.
Judge Gary Larson appeared to listen patiently as seven of the
defendants
testified as representatives of the larger group. Several testified to
the
international and U.S. Air Force laws that forbid the use of poison or
poisoned weapons in war. The argument was presented as an affirmative
defence known as a "claim of right." Trespass is permitted in Minnesota
law
if the defendant can show that some higher authority allows the
intrusion.
In spite of testimony regarding the international treaties and U.S.
military law that prohibit the government from employing weapons such as

"poison gas and all analogous materials, liquids or devices," or weapons

that "kill our wound treacherously" or that "cause serious or long-term
damage to the natural environment," the Judge ruled that the claim of
right
had not been established.
The Constitution of the United States holds that treaty law is the
"supreme
law of the land" and that it binds "every judge in every state."
Alliant Techsystems assembled 15 million so-called PGU-14 rounds, a
"depleted uranium penetrator" for the A-10 Warthog, the U.S./NATO plane
used to shoot DU munitions into Kosovo in 1999, and into Iraq in 1991.
10) DU TANK ARMOR PRODUCTION PART OF MAJOR US Department of Energy (DOE)

INVESTIGATION
The Department of Energy next month plans to finalise an extensive
report
that investigates whether workers were subjected to greater exposure
hazards than previously thought in the recycling of uranium for use in
various projects, including the creation of tank armour.
The DOE is trying to track the flow, over nearly 50 years, of recycled
uranium throughout the DOE complex and its characteristics to determine
possible health and environmental issues, according to a memo from DOE
Deputy Secretary Glauthier. The project, called the Historical
Generation
and Flow of Recycled Uranium in the DOE Complex but commonly known as
the
mass balance project, will identify any additional exposure hazards
related
to recycled uranium and estimate the number of workers exposed. DOE
needs
to determine "whether radioactive fission products and plutonium in the
uranium feed or waste streams existed in concentrations that present a
potential health or environmental concern," Glauthier said in the memo.
Transuranic materials such as plutonium and neptunium are more
radioactive
than natural uranium.
In part, the project looks at material sent to the Specific
Manufacturing
Capabilities (SMC) facility at DoE’s Idaho National Engineering Lab to
determine whether potential additional worker exposures exist due to
transuranic contamination. The SMC facility received metallic depleted
uranium (DU) from DOE plants in Ohio and Colorado, and from that
manufactured tank armour for the military, DOE sources say.
DOE officials say they have dismissed concerns over whether tank armour
itself is more dangerous to soldiers due to the possible transuranic
contamination. A DOE source says this is because the level of
transuranic
materials that would be present is minuscule. The department is also
characterising metallic DU at Paducah and its Fernald, OH, facility,
which
commercial facilities could have received to make DU rounds. In a Jan.
20
letter to an environmental group regarding the project, DOE names three
commercial businesses that produced DU rounds. The Fernald Environmental

Management Project is now "compiling data on the depleted uranium and
the
shipment of this material," the letter says.
DOE launched the massive project last fall, in response to workers and
the
public's concern over potential effects on workers at the department's
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky.
>From the US Dept. of Defence Website, thanks to Dan Fahey for posting

11) GERMAN GREENS BEGIN ANTI-DU INITIATIVE

The parliamentary group of the Greens in the Federal German Parliament
on
May 17 announced the start of an initiative for the ban of DU weapons.
The
initiative comprises the following steps:

1) formulation of a parliamentary motion (together with the Social
Democrats) for the ban of DU weapons; the motion would at the same time
instruct the Federal Government to work for an international ban of DU
weapons,

2) the Federal Government shall try to make NATO release more detailed
information on DU use in Kosovo,

3) sufficient protective measures are to be taken in the areas concerned

from DU weapons use,

4) the Ministry of Defence shall conduct preventive measures for
the
protection of German soldiers in Kosovo, and shall instruct them on
possible compensation claims.

This is clearly excellent news for all anti-DU campaigners, and we hope
that other parliamentarians in other countries follow this lead. For
anyone who is interested and can read German, the full text of the
announcement is on the web, at
http://www.gruene-fraktion.de/aktuell/neu/index-uran.htm

12) DU found in Scrap Yard

A rubbish tip manager in Suffolk, England, thought the large lump of
metal
he found in a skip might have some scrap value - until he found that he
had
been carrying 20lb of depleted uranium in his van for 6 months.
According
to a report in the national newspapers, Nicholas Remblance had forgotten

all about the metal until his van set off the Geiger counter at a
weighbridge. Firemen in protective clothing and experts from the nuclear

power station in Sizewell were brought in to investigate and the yard
was
sealed off. Initial tests on Mr Remblance indicated he had not been
affected, but further investigations will be carried out in a few weeks
time. The Environment Agency has ordered an investigation into how the
block turned up in Mr Remblance’s scrap yard.

13) CADU Petition

Enclosed in CADU news this month is a copy of a petition which we would
like supporters to get signatures for. Please photocopy and distribute
-
if you don’t have access to photocopying facilities, we can send you
more.
We hope to have thousands of signatures by the autumn, and add to the
growing pressure on the government to ban DU. The petitions should be
returned to us by the end of October, as we will be collecting them
together to hand in during the international conference on 4th November
(see inside). However, please get them to us as soon as they are
completed,
particularly if signatories have ticked the box requesting more
information
- then we can respond quickly.

14) What is CADU?

The Campaign Against Depleted Uranium is a small, mainly voluntary group

based in Manchester, England which was set up in 1999 to campaign for a
ban
on depleted uranium weapons. We are linked to both European and
international networks opposed to DU. We produce a briefing pack,
leaflets,
other resources and have a display available for loan. Groups and
individuals can affiliate to CADU and will receive this newsletter
quarterly. CADU’s aims are:-

n To fight for a global ban on the manufacture, export, testing and use
of
DU weapons.

n To fight for recognition by the Ministry of Defence that these weapons

are connected with illnesses among Gulf War Veterans and civilians in
Iraq
and elsewhere.

n To put pressure on governments to take responsibility for
environmental
decontamination in areas where they have used DU.

15) CADU Website - volunteer wanted!

CADU now has its own Website, as we said in the last newsletter. The
address is www.cadu.com - easy to remember. We have only just got this
Website up so please bear with us if we have teething problems - we are
new
to this technology. If any of our supporters has web technology skills,

and would like to volunteer to be responsible for maintaining and
updating
our Website - we would love to hear from you. It would really help us
out,
as we are over-stretched as it is. It is a job which could be done
fairly
easily from any part of the country - so get in touch if you think you
may
be the person to help.

16) CADU International Conference on Depleted Uranium 4th - 5th
November 2000

Note change of date due to venue difficulties

Bringing Together Speakers and
Campaigners from All Over the World
We hope this international conference will be an opportunity not
only to
provide accessible information to those not familiar with the issue, but

also provide a working platform for activists to collaborate on key
global
strategies for removing the threat of depleted uranium from all peoples,

and for putting pressure on governments to respond appropriately to this

threat.
The conference will begin at 9am on Saturday 4 November and
conclude at 5
pm on Sunday. The plenary sessions will include speakers from Iraq,
Serbia, and veterans groups. Scientists will present the latest
information on the testing programmes and medical effects. Workshops on

the huge range of issues related to DU include: law, the nuclear
industry,
UN work, government responses, Gulf War and Balkans veterans, clean up
operations, practical support for those affected, the role of the World
Health Organisation and the IAEA, environmental effects, non-violent
protest actions, etc. There will be time for questions from the floor as

well as spontaneously organised workshops.

Speakers already confirmed include: Dr Rosalie Bertell, Doug Rokke,
Military Toxics Project, Dr Chris Busby of the Low Level Radiation
Project,
Bernice Boermans of IALANA, Prof. Malcolm Hooper of the University of
Sunderland

Leaflets with registration details will be available shortly, and
conference programmes will be sent out with your registration pack.
For further information contact Cat Euler, Conference Organiser, at the
CADU office

17) BAE Systems wins DU contract

Jane’s Defence Weekly reported several months ago, that the Ministry of
Defence (UK) selected the Royal Ordnance Division of British Aerospace
Systems to provide the 120mm CHARM 3 Training Round (the name for the DU

bullet) for use in the Challenger battle tanks in service with the
British
Army. It reports that they will be produced at Royal Ordnance
facilities
in Birtley and Glascoed, in a contract worth up to £100 million.
Do any readers live near any of these production plants, or have any
more
information about them? Please get in touch.

17) IMPORTANT - Affiliate to CADU to receive CADU News

We are asking our supporters to now affiliate formally to CADU by
completing the form below. Affiliation means you will automatically
receive
CADU news quarterly. Alternatively, individuals or groups can affiliate
by
becoming ‘Supporting Subscribers’, by contributing a minimum of £2 per
month or £24 per year regularly to CADU, and filling in the standing
order
form below & send it back to us.
Thanks to everyone who has been keeping our campaign going with your
kind
donations. (If you have recently donated and feel that this should
count
as your annual affiliation fee, please write a note to such effect on
the
form)

I would like to affiliate to CADU (please print out and send back by
snail
mail - E-Mail affiliations are free but the extra income from postal
affiliations is always welcome)

Name

Address

The affiliation rates (including 1 copy of CADU News quarterly) are: -
£5 individuals per year £20 groups per year

* I enclose a cheque for for yearly affiliation

* Or, I have filled in the standing order form below for my yearly
affiliation (it is much easier for CADU if affiliators could pay by
standing order, just enter £5 or £20 below)

Account Name Account Number

Bank Name Sort
Code
Bank Address

I authorise the payment of £ every month / year (delete as
appropriate)
starting from (enter date), until
further notice, to Campaign Against
Depleted Uranium, (bank sort code 08-92-99, Account number 65042867)
Co-op
bank, Kings Valley Yew St, Stockport, Cheshire SK4 2JU

Signed Date

****************************************************************************

**************************************
Greater Manchester and District Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
(GM&DCND),
One World Centre, 6 Mount Street, Manchester, M2 5NS, UK
Tel: +44 (0)161 834 8301, Fax: +44 (0)161 834 8187, E-Mail:
gmdcnd@...

***NEW CADU CONTACT DETAILS PLEASE READ CAREFULLY***

The Campaign Against Depleted Uranium (CADU) can also be contacted at
the
above address and fax number, BUT the phone number is: +44 (0)161 834
8176

The CADU web site is: www.cadu.org.uk

*Should you wish to receive the quarterly CADU mailing by E-Mail please
send a message to the above E-Mail address*
****************************************************************************

****************************************

------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Sun, 2 Jul 2000 04:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: di noia luigi <dinoialuigi@...>
Subject: recensione sull'uranio impoverito
To: pck-armamenti@...

Segnalo la pubblicazione da parte del Centro di
Documentazione Wilhelm Wolff del testo “Il metallo
del disonore: l’uranio impoverito” a cura dello
statunitense International Action Center. L’opera più
completa e vigorosa di denuncia delle armi all’uranio
impoverito. Riporto qui la presentazione:

“Prefazione

Questo è un libro importante, da conoscere e far
conoscere.
Esso contiene la denuncia documentata, scientifica,
militante della guerra condotta con armi all’uranio
impoverito: il nuovo tipo di guerra totale che il
Pentagono, la Nato, l’Occidente tutto hanno inaugurato
dieci anni fa sperimentandola sulle carni del popolo
irakeno, ed hanno poi gloriosamente replicato in
Bosnia, in Kosovo ed in Serbia contro i popoli
jugoslavi.
Parliamo di guerra totale perché le armi all’uranio
impoverito (dai missili ai proiettili d’ogni calibro),
oltre a seminare la morte immediata con più efficacia
delle armi convenzionali tradizionali, hanno anche il
”pregio” di seminare, tra le popolazioni prese a
bersaglio, la morte lenta, differita nel tempo. Tumori
di ogni genere (ai polmoni, al cervello, alla pelle,
ai bronchi, alla vescica, alla stomaco, al seno),
leucemia, abbattimento permanente di tutte le difese
immunitarie (un effetto simile a quello che provoca
l’AIDS): ecco cosa sono in grado di produrre le armi
all’uranio impoverito, capaci contemporaneamente di
devastare l’esistenza delle future generazioni con
l’enorme aumento di terribili alterazioni congenite
nei nuovi nati ed un’altrettanta micidiale caduta di
fertilità e della funzionalità sessuale. E non è
finita. Infatti, i bombardamenti all’uranio impoverito
hanno un altro gravissimo effetto letale: contaminare
per milioni e milioni di anni (arrestatevi per un
istante a riflettere su questo “particolare” tempo) la
terra, l’acqua, l’intero ambiente naturale dell’uomo.
Si tratta, insomma, della perfetta fusione tra guerra
nucleare, chimica e biologica, alla faccia
dell’infinità di convenzioni e risoluzioni
internazionali che “mettono al bando” le armi di
distruzione di massa...
Ecco perché si deve chiamare con la massima energia
tutti coloro che si sentono bollire il sangue dinanzi
ad un simile crimine a mobilitarsi, a lottare per
porre fine ad esso, e -tanto per incominciare- a
raccogliere e a diffondere sulla più larga scala
possibile questa denuncia.
Viceversa, la consegna dei poteri economici, politici
e militari che stanno dietro questa vera e propria
pratica del genocidio, è quella del silenzio. Il
silenzio totale. Oppure, quando vengono chiamati in
causa in modo stringente, è quella della irrisione:
“l’uranio impoverito è tanto radioattivo e nocivo
quanto la cassa del mio orologio” (un generale
italiano), “è meno pericoloso di un fiammifero acceso”
(un portavoce K-for). In ogni caso, si garantisce, non
esistono prove inconfutabili che produce dei danni. Ed
invece questo testo fornisce proprio una inconfutabile
analisi delle mostruose conseguenze che l’ultimissima
forma della guerra di distruzione capitalistica
produce. Un’analisi che necessariamente contiene, per
il suo rigore, qualche parte tecnica di lettura un po’
difficile (e forse non indispensabile) per i profani,
ma che altri interventi sanno tradurre in modo
adeguato anche per i non specialisti. Di essa si deve
tenere a mente almeno un dato “tecnico”: non esiste
alcuna soglia di sicurezza per le radiazioni, per cui
in questa materia ogni forma di minimizzazione è in
sprezzo della salute e della vita dell’uomo e della
natura. Ma non meno rilevante è un dato politico: il
feroce embargo imposto alle popolazioni irakene e
serbo-jugoslave, rendendo praticamente impossibile ad
esse approvvigionarsi delle apparecchiature e delle
medicine indispensabili, potenzia al massimo gli
effetti devastanti dei bombardamenti radioattivi.
Guerra nucleare-chimica-biologica combinata con la
guerra economico-politica: in Irak sono state falciate
in questo modo, in dieci anni, oltre un milione e
mezzo di vite!
Ci fermiamo qui per ora. Invitiamo i lettori ad
esaminare attentamente i materiali e diamo loro
appuntamento al termine del libro, alla postfazione,
nella quale svolgeremo qualche nostra considerazione.
Che, s’intende, nulla vieta, a chi lo voglia, di
guardare in anticipo.

Postfazione

risulterà ora più chiaro perché i poteri economici,
politici e militari che stanno ricorrendo alla
pratica, alla pianificazione, del genocidio attraverso
le armi all’uranio impoverito - poteri che fino a ieri
non si sarebbe esitato a definire imperialisti -
esigano, il silenzio su tutta la vicenda. Il silenzio,
l’occultamento di questo estremo crimine di guerra in
cui si stanno specializzando le democrazie “amanti e
custodi della pace”, sono la migliore garanzia di
poter proseguire indisturbate ed impune su questa
strada.
Per contro, rompere la consegna del silenzio,
contro-informare, è il primo, elementare dovere di
tutti coloro i quali si sentono il bisogno di opporsi
per davvero alle guerre di sfruttamento e di dominio
di cui l’Occidente si rende protagonista. Può esserci
d’aiuto, in questo, l’esperienza passata.
La storia degli effetti letali dell’uranio, infatti,
non è nuova. Non comincia né con la “sindrome del
Golfo” che - oltre la popolazione irakena - ha
colpito, come s’è visto, i soldati statunitensi e
britannici (migliaia dei quali sono già morti, tanto e
smentire l’inganno della guerra a costo zero per
l’occidente), né con le strazianti malformazioni dei
bimbi iracheni o dei figli dei soldati statunitensi
nati dopo la guerra: comincia con la stessa storia del
nucleare. Assai opportunamente il libro contiene la
denuncia delle ferite irreversibili inferte ai popoli
Navajo od alle genti delle isole Marshall, dallo
sfruttamento delle miniere di uranio fatta per decenni
senza nessuna precauzione, dai depositi di scorie
nucleari disseminati un po’ dovunque, dagli
esperimenti nucleari compiuti dagli stati uniti (che
sono oltre la metà degli esperimenti totali).E lascia
intravedere sullo sfondo gli orrori, arrivati proprio
in questi giorni perfino sulle pagine della Washington
Post, di luoghi come Paducah, la cittadina del
Kentucky nei cui impianti di lavorazione dell’uranio
migliaia di operai sono stati usati come cavie umane
negli anni cinquanta e sessanta. Alla faccia di coloro
che ancora si ostinano a distinguere il nucleare
civile da quello militare, supponendo che il primo sia
sicuro, innocuo, o addirittura benefico...
Dunque: da Hiroshima e Nagasaki fino alle isole
Marshall, dalle riserve Navajo a Paducah, da Three
Miles Island fino a Cernobyl, la storia dei tremendi
danni da uranio è lunga (nei soli stati Uniti sono
oltre 4.000 i luoghi contaminati, e nel mondo si
stimano in circa 20 milioni le persone morte
prematuramente a causa dell’inquinamento nucleare). Ma
in essa la guerra all’uranio impoverito segna un salto
di qualità: sia per la scala territoriale a cui è
stata seminata morte per milioni e milioni di anni,
poiché ora ad essere colpiti nuclearmente sono interi
paesi; sia per la capacità acquisita dagli Stati uniti
e dalle altre potenze occidentali di ridurre e
minimizzare l’allarme sociale imponendo il segreto di
stato intorno a questa catena di delitti, già di per
sé meno immediatamente percepibili perché ad effetti
differiti nel tempo; sia, infine, perché l’embargo
impedisce ai paesi colpiti di accedere ai mezzi
necessari per tentare se non altro di contenere la
diffusione del Morbo nucleare. A maggior ragione la
denuncia e la lotta contro questo “crimine contro
l’umanità” non deve conoscere timidezze, né tregue.
Tanto per essere chiari: i curatori di questa
traduzione sono schierati incondizionatamente dalla
parte dei lavoratori e degli oppressi di tutto il
mondo. Pertanto non si sentono neppure sfiorati dal
ricatto che i governi e i mass media occidentali
imbastiscono intorno ai nomi di Saddam e di Milosevic
(per cui non abbiamo alcuna simpatia). Coloro che lo
mettono in atto, infatti, lungi dall’agire per motivi
“umanitari” ed “antiterroristici”, sono i massimi
responsabili delle guerre terroristiche che
l’Occidente, che il “nostro” paese, ha fatto e
continua a fare, anche per mezzo di altrettanto
delittuosi embarghi, ai popoli dell’Irak e della
Jugoslavia. A costoro rispondiamo al modo in cui i
palestinesi di Ramallah hanno risposto al sig. Jospin:
You are terrorist. Siete voi, governanti e generali
dell’Occidente, i veri, grandi terroristi che
insanguinano la terra! E sappiamo molto bene che
l’insanguinate non per salvare i “poveri” kuwaitiani,
kosovari o timoresi di cui non ve ne può fregare di
meno, ma per chiarissimi, riconoscibilissimi,
luridissimi, interessi di rapina e di oppressione.
Il grande merito di Metal of Dishonor è proprio quello
di sbattere sul banco degli imputati precisamente i
poteri, a cominciare dal Pentagono, che
pretenderebbero di “amministrare la giustizia” e di
“preservare la pace” nel mondo. E di farlo con
coraggio dall’interno degli Stati Uniti, che sono il
centro direttivo mondiale della guerra ai “popoli
ribelli” del Terzo Mondo e la potenza che detiene il
semi-monopolio della produzione e della vendita delle
armi di sterminio di massa, senza alcun timore di
“fare il gioco del nemico”. Poiché per i Catalinotto,
per le Flounders e per gli altri il nemico non è
l’irakeno o lo jugoslavo, come ieri per loro e per
quelli come loro, non era il vietnamita: il nemico è
in casa propria, è il Pentagono e -aggiungiamo noi- il
coacervo di interessi economici e politici che sta
dietro e sopra il Pentagono.
Ma questa pubblicazione dell’International Action
Center ha anche il merito di non far alcuna
distinzione tra i colpiti americani (non a caso
appartenenti in larghissima parte alla “bassa truppa”
di estrazione proletaria e, in molti casi, di colore),
i nativi, gli irakeni, i bosniaci, gli jugoslavi,
inclusi i terribili “orchi” serbi. In un’Occidente
imbevuto fino alle midolla di razzismo verso le
popolazioni non europee, non “occidentali”,
considerate alla stregua di sotto-razze, sotto-popoli,
sotto-uomini predestinati a servire come schiavi la
super-razza bianca che abita l’Occidente, questo
atteggiamento alieno da sciovinismo deve insegnare
qualcosa a tutti noi. E ci deve essere d’insegnamento
e di sprone anche il fatto che gli attivisti dell’IAC
abbiano voluto e organizzato proprio a Baghdad un
incontro internazionale di denuncia delle armi
all’uranio impoverito che ha visto insieme, contro i
veri signori della guerra, militanti e studiosi
statunitensi, irakeni, tedeschi, inglesi. Ciò che, nel
piccolo, esprime l’esigenza di una nuova
collaborazione, di una nuova unità militante tra le
classi lavoratrici del mondo intero, contro le guerre
capitalistiche e contro le false “paci”
capitalistiche, altrettanto strangolatorie, che ne
sono la continuazione.
Dice la Flounders: “Oggi il Pentagono non teme alcuna
arma. Teme una sola cosa: la mobilitazione delle
masse, la loro consapevolezza, la loro attivazione, la
loro rabbia”. Esattissimo. E’ la forza organizzata
delle masse lavoratrici statunitensi e mondiali la
sola che può mettere con le spalle al muro il
Pentagono, la Nato ed i loro soci nel crimine.
Coagularla e dispiegarla non sarà facile, non è cos di
un giorno o di un mese o di un anno; ma se davvero si
vuole tagliare il male la radice, è questa l’arma
vincente, e la sola via da percorrere. Non ce ne sono
altre di più facili e più brevi, tantomeno se si
tratta di scorciatoie dettate dalla disperazione.
Per questo, ci sia permesso dirlo con franchezza, non
possiamo condividere gli appelli al diritto o alle
istituzioni internazionali di cui è pieno il testo.
Non è sul terreno del diritto, infatti, che si possono
contrastare e lottare efficacemente i pianificatori
del genocidio, ma su quello dei rapporti di forza sul
campo. Non saranno certo le istituzioni internazionali
che da sempre esprimono gli interessi degli Stati
uniti, della Nato, dei paesi ricchi sfruttatori e
affamatori del Terzo Mondo, quelle istituzioni
internazionali che hanno benedetto la guerra di Corea,
l’assassinio di Lumumba, le aggressioni Usa, Onu e
Nato al Vietnam, all’Irak, alla Jugoslavia, che hanno
permesso per oltre mezzo secolo ad Israele di vessare
liberamente con ogni mezzo il popolo palestinese e
libanese, che legittimano il neocolonialismo
finanziario e termonucleare oggi imperante nel mondo,
che soffocano con l’embargo i popoli riottosi a
piegarsi ai diktat del Fmi e delle cancellerie
occidentali; non saranno certo queste istituzioni che
rispondono ai supremi interessi delle multinazionali,
del mercato, del profitto, del capitale, ad impedire
che l’orrenda storia delle guerre all’uranio
impoverito continui. (Si tenga presente, per dirne
una, che l’Organizzazione mondiale della sanità che fa
capo all’Onu si è finora rifiutata di svolgere la
benché minima indagine sulle conseguenze della guerra
in Irak: si tratta, dopotutto, soltanto di arabi,
peggio se islamici, irakeni..., “surplus people”, come
dice il testo, da far fuori senza convenevoli e senza
rimpianti.)
Né, crediamo, si può star a distinguere tra armi di
sterminio lecite e illecite, come se avesse senso
prevedere uno sterminio regolato, “umanitario”, magari
sotto la supervisione di tribunali presuntamente
indipendenti chiamati a giudicare quali massacri sono
legittimi, e quali non lo sono. No! Il diritto
internazionale non è altro che il diritto del più
forte spadroneggia sulla scena internazionale. Cioè il
diritto di Wall Street, del Pentagono, della Nato, dei
padroni dell’Occidente a fare dappertutto tutto quello
che è nel loro insindacabile interesse. Non facciamo
rientrare dalla finestra quello che abbiamo cacciato
dalla porta. Non appelliamoci alla ragionevolezza e
alla sensibilità di quegli stessi poteri che abbiamo
appena finito di denunciare come criminali.
E’ tutt’altra la direzione in cui dobbiamo rivolgerci.
“La mobilitazione delle masse, la loro consapevolezza,
la loro attivazione, la loro rabbia”, la loro
organizzazione internazionale di lotta: è questa la
grande forza, oggi largamente inespressa, su cui
puntare. La sola che può mettere davvero fine ai
macelli in corso. La sola che può trasformare in
realtà il vecchio “sogno” autenticamente umano della
fine delle guerre di sfruttamento e di dominio.”

Luigi Di Noia

---

Bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"
Sito WEB : http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra

I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only")

Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid%c2%91979 oppure
> http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/

Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eCircle ti offre una nuova opportunita:
la tua agenda sul web - per te e per i tuoi amici
Organizza on line i tuoi appuntamenti .
E' facile, veloce e gratuito!
Da oggi su
http://www.ecircle.it/ad800146/www.ecircle.it