Informazione
>The Rockford Institute
>CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
>www.rockfordinstitute.org
>
>Report on TRI/CFIA Conference
>AMERICAN POLICY IN THE BALKANS FOR THE NEW ADMINISTRATION:
>L E A D E R S H I P O R M A R G I N A L I Z A T I O N ?
>held in Washington D.C. on November 14, 2000
>
>Contents:
>I - INTRODUCTION: Conference Objective
>II - RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NEW U.S. ADMINISTRATION
>III - RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NEW AUTHORITIES IN BELGRADE
>IV - CONCLUSION
>APPENDIX: ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT KOSTUNICA TO THE CONFERENCE
>===========================================
>I - THE PURPOSE OF THE CONFERENCE
>
>The Rockford Institute's Center for International Affairs takes an active
>interest in Balkan affairs not because Southeast Europe is an inherently
>important part of the world - which it is not - but because American
>policies in that region over the past decade have come to embody all that
>is wrong with the fundamental assumptions, values, and modus operandi of
>the decision-making community in Washington.
>
>It is our considered opinion that a thorough revision of those policies,
>and the subsequent new approach of the United States to the Balkans would
>be an important step towards a new, national interest-based foreign policy
>formulation in general. Accordingly, we saw the election of Vojislav
>Kostunica as president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the
>downfall of Slobodan Milosevic, as a welcome opportunity to make that step.
>
>Aware of the importance of time, and apprehensive that in the absence of
>specific alternative proposals the outgoing national security team's
>prejudices and bureaucratic inertia may impose a negative continuity on the
>new Administration, we convened a conference in the nation's capital on
>November 14 to discuss these issues. We gathered a team of analysts who
>take an active interest in Southeast Europe and who share the desire for an
>active, national interest-based U.S. foreign policy, free from passionate
>attachments and ideological straightjackets, in the Balkans or any other
>part of the world.
>
>The panel, chaired by Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, Director of TRI's Center for
>International Affairs, included Gary Dempsey of CATO Institute, Dr. John C.
>Hulsman of Heritage Foundation, Cliff Kincaid (Washington-based
>investigative reporter and broadcaster), Bill Lind (Free Congress
>Foundation), Dr. Branko Milanovic who is a senior economist with The World
>Bank, The Hon. Branko Terzic of Deloitte & Touche, Benjamin Works
>(SIRI-US), as well as senior policy analysts and advisors from both the
>U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. While the individual speakers
>offered thoughts on a variety of topics relevant to American policy toward
>post-Milosevic Serbia, the overall consensus of the panelists and
>participants is summarized in the following policy recommendations for the
>incoming administration in Washington. Also included are some suggestions
>for the newly elected government in Belgrade.
>
>II - RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NEW U.S. ADMINISTRATION
>
>1. All key European countries have moved rapidly to reestablish normal
>relations with Belgrade based on Serbia's unique position in the heart of
>the Balkans. America's failure to follow suit will cause rift with
>Europeans and turn American leadership into self-imposed marginalization.
>In order to avoid such outcome, detrimental to its interests, the United
>States must move away from the now evident failure of a policy toward
>Serbia publicly based only on the personality of one man - Slobodan
>Milosevic - and predicated on the unrealistic notion that his removal from
>power would solve all outstanding regional problems. While his downfall has
>vastly improved the prospects for repairing historically close ties between
>the U.S. and Serbia, the new Washington Administration should define a new,
>national interest-based approach to the former Yugoslavia without delay.
>
>2. A national interest-based policy ought to reassess U.S. relations
>with Yugoslavia (Serbia-Montenegro) on the basis of prospects for (i)
>regional stability and development and (ii) promotion of American
>commercial interests. It must avoid every temptation to vindicate ex post
>facto the failed 1990s policy premised on treating the Serbian nation not
>as an integral part of an extended European economic and political
>structure but as an inherently antagonistic entity and a permanent black
>hole at the center of the region. The departure from office of persons
>inseparable from the Clinton Administration's failures - notably Secretary
>of State Albright, Ambassador Holbrooke, and President Clinton himself -
>will greatly improve prospects for this reassessment.
>
>3. The new team in Washington should be aware of the damage caused to
>American interests by the NATO war against Yugoslavia in 1999 and by the
>ongoing, open-ended, and ultimately futile "nation-building" mission in
>Kosovo. The new Administration should take note of legislative efforts,
>such as the Warner/Byrd amendment in the Senate and the Kasich amendment in
>the House of Representatives, which reflect an increasing Congressional
>awareness of that damage. It should support such efforts. Far from
>constituting some ill-defined "isolationist" retreat from America's
>international responsibilities, they reflect the desire of elected
>representatives of the American people to impose reasonable burden-sharing
>criteria on the Kosovo mission. These efforts are a positive step in the
>achievement of a national interest-based reassessment of American policy
>and of an early American disengagement from Kosovo.
>
>4. The United States should stop the current efforts by the outgoing
>Administration and supporters of its policy in the Congress and in NGOs to
>impose a de facto (and, later, de jure) independent status for Kosovo.
>These efforts are manifested in the re-launching of the long-discredited
>notion of Kosovo as a third republic in Yugoslavia, and in willful efforts
>to misconstrue the wording of Security Council Resolution 1244 as not
>specifying that Kosovo is part of the sovereign territory of the Republic
>of Serbia as well as that of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. If
>continued, U.S. support for Kosovo independence will have twofold effect.
>It will unnecessarily further impair regional stability, which remains the
>only real American interest in the Balkans. Moreover, it will further
>damage American relations with our allies, who are opposed to Kosovo
>independence. The recent elections favoring moderate forces associated with
>Ibrahim Rugova (who also favors Kosovo independence but who has
>demonstrated a dedication to nonviolent methods distinctly different from
>those of the Clinton Administration's favored entity, the Kosovo Liberation
>Army) lends some hope that some reasonable solution among the parties can
>be found. In summary, the next Administration should base its Kosovo policy
>on
>(i) the need for the parties, if possible, to work a settlement out for
>themselves, and
>(ii) to follow the lead of out European allies in facilitating a solution,
>rather than trying to dictate one as the current Administration is
>inclined.
>
>5. Similarly, the United States should cease efforts to pressure
>Belgrade to accept the independence of Montenegro, a status the people of
>Montenegro have not indicated they desire. Even if it is accepted that the
>U.S. is no longer formally encouraging the secessionist minority in
>Podgorica, some segments of the bureaucracy (notably at the Department of
>State) and NGOs with known close links to the Clinton Administration are
>still effectively doing so.
>
>6. The United States should expeditiously follow the lead of our
>European allies in removing of all sanctions against Yugoslavia, including
>the so-called outer wall. Continued use sanctions against the new
>democratic government in Belgrade to force compliance with preexisting
>demands by the Clinton Administration is counterproductive. It effectively
>prevents American companies from taking optimal advantage of the many
>business opportunities that are opening up in Serbia - opportunities that
>will be taken by their European competitors. It is noted that despite
>hortatory language in current legislation regarding such demands, the
>President currently has full legal authority to lift sanctions, and he
>should use it as soon as possible. This should be done
>(i) immediately, with respect to compliance with sanctions still formally
>in effect, and
>(ii) as quickly as possible, with respect to formal lifting of sanctions
>imposed by legislation or by executive order.
>The United States should favor immediately rescinding resolutions by the
>Security Council imposing sanctions, most notably SC747 of May 30, 1992.
>The United States, both bilaterally and in international bodies, should
>support efforts to provide appropriate aid to Yugoslavia for economic
>reconstruction.
>
>7. The United States should cease all efforts to coerce the new
>government in Belgrade into surrendering persons indicted by The Hague war
>crimes tribunal. These efforts may result in further dangerous precedents
>contrary to the American interest in opposing the establishment of a
>standing international criminal court, for which The Hague tribunal for
>Yugoslavia and its counterpart for Rwanda are precursors. Such coercion is
>also counterproductive in that, if successful, it would undercut the
>legitimacy of the new government in Belgrade, which was elected as an
>authentic expression of the national will by an electorate that uniformly
>regards The Hague tribunal as politicized tool of American policy rather
>than a judicial body. The United States should favor the repatriation of
>the tribunal's functions to the Yugoslav successor states, including
>Serbia-Montenegro. In particular, the United States should regard as
>sufficient for the purposes of justice forthcoming steps by the new
>authorities in Belgrade to hold its own citizens responsible for violations
>of domestic law.
>
>III - RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NEW AUTHORITIES IN BELGRADE
>
>While the focus of the conference was to arrive at specific recommendations
>to the new American Administration, there was also a consensus on
>suggestions for the new democratic government in Belgrade and for President
>Kostunica:
>
>1. Belgrade should move to repair relations with Washington, and the
>re-establishment of full diplomatic relations will be a welcome first step.
>At the same time, such efforts should be pursued in a quiet, businesslike
>way at the diplomatic "working level." Any high-visibility state visits at
>the head of state or foreign minister level would be counterproductive
>prior to the departure of the current Administration. If such contacts are
>inevitable, they should take place in third countries, in the context of
>multilateral gatherings. Belgrade's current focus on Europe is entirely
>appropriate and should continue for the time being. In all contacts with
>the outgoing Administration the Yugoslav government should not hesitate to
>raise unresolved issues that the Clinton team can and should rectify,
>including the unconditional removal of the outer wall of sanctions and the
>granting of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status to Yugoslavia.
>
>2. Belgrade should move with deliberation on economic reconstruction.
>While the outline of transition suggested by the G-17 group of economists
>is useful, the new Yugoslav authorities should take note of the
>difficulties experienced by other formerly socialist economies during the
>past decade. It should not neglect broader public interest in favor of the
>models of transition and theories of political economy that may result in a
>Gaydar-like de-industrialization. The government in Belgrade should be
>aware that
>(i) the record of the IMF in promoting sustained economic development is
>ambiguous; and
>(ii) the European Union, while an essential partner in the economic
>recovery of Yugoslavia, may be more interested in it as a pool of
>inexpensive labor than as a potential equal partner.
>In each instance, outside advice and assistance should be accepted in a
>discriminating manner. Foreign investment is to be encouraged, but measures
>should be taken to ensure that foreign acquisitions of domestic enterprises
>do not result in asset-stripping. The development of a patriotic business
>culture in Serbia is inseparable from the reassertion of the country's
>self-respect, dignity and sovereignty.
>
>3. The new government in Belgrade should not compromise on the
>principle that Kosovo is sovereign Serbian, as well as Yugoslav territory.
>At the same time, based on existing realities, it should begin to establish
>dialogue with other essential parties. In particular, Belgrade should
>insist that UNMIK and KFOR comply with provisions of UNSC Resolution 1244
>regarding reintroduction of Yugoslav forces into Kosovo, particularly with
>reference to restoring the integrity of Kosovo's border with neighboring
>states. Belgrade should insist that UNMIK and KFOR live up to their
>responsibility to demilitarize the former elements of the Kosovo Liberation
>Army (which remain under arms) and to protect all persons in Kosovo
>regardless of ethnicity or religion. It should be insisted that a workable,
>short-term plan be reached for the return to their homes of persons who
>fled or were driven out of Kosovo since the end of the war and for their
>subsequent protection. The Belgrade government should make efforts to
>conduct a dialogue with moderate (i.e., non-KLA) Albanians on achieving a
>peaceful solution.
>
>4. The Belgrade government absolutely should not surrender any person
>to The Hague war crimes tribunal. While the consensus of the conference was
>against any cooperation with the tribunal (including establishment of an
>office in Belgrade), it was suggested that some contact might be useful
>(i) only if such contacts on the territory of Serbia or Montenegro are not
>investigatory but purely for exchange of information, and
>(ii) as a means to transfer functions currently claimed by the tribunal to
>national courts.
>It was recommended that the Belgrade authorities should expect any
>cooperation to presuppose a willingness of the tribunal to take appropriate
>action with respect to violations of the laws of war by persons acting on
>behalf of the countries supporting the tribunal. It was specifically
>suggested that materials relating to the activities of Agim Ceku both
>during "Operation Storm" and in Kosovo, as well as any available
>information about other relevant activities, be provided to the tribunal's
>representatives as a test case of their willingness to act as a legitimate
>instrument of justice. It was suggested that all related statements by
>current Administration's officials - such as James O'Brien's warning to
>Belgrade that Washington expects Yugoslavia to fully cooperate with The
>Hague by April 2001 - should be treated as an exercise in rhetorical
>bravado, since no current official can impose conditions on a foreign party
>that would be binding for the new Administration. It was unanimously
>concluded that Belgrade's refusal to allow the tribunal's jurisdiction in
>Yugoslavia and to surrender its citizens is the greatest single service
>that the Serbs can render to the real international community - the
>community of people, in America and elsewhere, who reject the notion of
>supranational authority.
>
>IV - CONCLUSION
>
>In our view it is both possible and desirable that the relations between
>the United States and Yugoslavia will improve and develop on the basis of
>mutual respect, friendship and common interest.
>
>The regime of Slobodan Milosevic was one obstacle to the development of
>such relations, and his removal provides an opportunity to make a fresh
>start. The other obstacle to such relations is the ideology of hegemonist
>interventionism that prevails in America's current foreign policy
>establishment. It is contrary to the authentic tradition of the American
>republic, to its true interests, and to the will of the American people. It
>should be replaced by national interest-based policies, in the Balkans and
>elsewhere.
>
>By revising its approach to Yugoslavia, and developing truly even-handed
>policies that will be free from ideological and special interest pressures,
>the next Administration will act in the true American interest, and in the
>interest of peace, stability and prosperity in the Balkans.
>
>By standing firm on the key issues that affect its own national interest,
>and especially by refusing to compromise its sovereignty (The Hague) and
>territorial integrity (Kosovo), the government of Yugoslavia will also help
>promote such new policies in Washington. If it bases its strategy firmly on
>the principle of enlightened nationalism, and refuses to be drawn into any
>arrangements that may erode those fundamental principles, Belgrade will
>best defend its own interests while at the same time contributing to the
>abandonment of the insidious path of imperial over-reach in Washington.
>
>APPENDIX: ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT KOSTUNICA TO THE CONFERENCE
>
>The Conference was honored by a video address by the President of
>Yugoslavia, Dr. Vojislav Kostunica, that contained his views on the current
>state of relations between his country and the United States and his
>thinking on the ways to overcome existing problems in the period ahead.
>Here is the transcript of the address:
>
>"Regardless of who emerges as the winner from the present electoral
>imbroglio, we can safely assume that by the end of January there will be a
>new Administration in Washington.
>"When it comes to the Balkans, that Administration will be as "new" as the
>newly elected President wants it to be. In my opinion this provides both
>our countries with a unique opportunity to turn a new page, not only in
>rhetoric but also in fact, and to make a fresh start after a very difficult
>decade in our relations.
>"Some of the wounds of that decade will take time to heal, and the healing
>process will not be aided by our pretending that they do not exist. And
>yet, there are times when the opportunities for a change of course simply
>must be taken, when it would be foolish, or tragic, not to make the
>attempt. In Belgrade it would be foolish; in Washington it would be tragic.
>We are fully prepared to do our part. We hope and trust that America will
>do hers.
>"Let me deal briefly with the legacy of the past, and then look ahead.
>"There are no inherent disputes between our two countries, which had been
>friends and allies for most of the past century. Those problems that do
>exist could have been avoided, and are not insoluble.
>"One such problem is Kosovo. While a complete normalization of relations
>between our countries would be much easier if NATO were not in occupation
>of our sovereign territory, making progress in other areas will facilitate
>the quest for a lasting solution in the southern Serbian province. There is
>no easy, obvious, or early solution. We know this, and by now Washington
>also knows this better than it did.
>"We should turn our sadly shared experience into a more common attitude,
>and move towards a shared judgment. Milosevic did not invent the Kosovo
>problem, and his disappearance by itself cannot solve the historic
>difficulties that he made so much worse.
>"His crimes must be properly assessed. This is just as important for you
>as it is for us. Important for us because his orders were executed by our
>citizens in our sovereign jurisdiction; important for you because his
>crimes were given such ideological and mesmerizing importance, and even
>invented when there were not enough of them. The crimes and criminality of
>the "KLA," so obvious to us, were - in this mesmerized environment -
>largely invisible to ordinary Americans, and ignored by their leaders.
>"The first thing we can all do is stop pretending that there is a story of
>blame from which we ourselves are exempt, or from which anyone is exempt.
>We must break the cycle of blame. This rupture is an essential part of
>peace-making at every level.
>"This brings me to the question of war crimes. We have exactly the same
>problem with international jurisdictions as Americans do. Like you, we know
>enough about the world to know that international politics can distort the
>idea of justice. Let me assure you: anti-Serbianism is as common a
>prejudice in the Balkans as is anti-Americanism on the world stage. The
>essential case for justice, the need for it, is simply this: that the human
>heart craves it.
>"We accept that the judicial process should be an integral part of eventual
>reconciliation. But the instrumentalization of judicial retaliation can
>only postpone effective reconciliation, and make it more difficult. Sooner
>rather than later the work of the Hague Tribunal - with which we shall find
>modes of cooperation - should be repatriated to the successor states of the
>former Yugoslavia. If there is to be a supra-national alternative, it could
>only be a world tribunal to which all members of the United Nations submit
>their jurisdiction and their sovereignty. I am not suggesting that the
>creation of such a body is desirable, let alone inevitable; I am simply
>stating a fact.
>"Kosovo, The Hague, and other problems need resolving, but they should not
>be allowed to dominate the dialogue between our countries. There are many
>areas of potentially fruitful cooperation and mutually beneficial exchange
>that can and should be developed. America's creativity, so impressively
>evidenced in science, technology, and sustained economic growth, and
>America's inexhaustible entrepreneurial drive can help us rejoin the ranks
>of European nations to which we rightfully belong.
>"I hope that the Rockford Institute conference on American policy in the
>Balkans in the coming decade will make a real contribution to the
>attainment of that objective. I extend my best wishes to all its
>participants, and look forward to seeing their specific recommendations."
>****************************************
>Report prepared by Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, Director
>Center for International Affairs of The Rockford Institute
>
>HEAD OFFICE CHICAGO AREA OFFICE
>928 N Main Street 4722 Oakton Street
>Rockford, IL 61103 Skokie, IL 60076-3012
>(815) 964-5054 (847) 679-9850
>Facsimile 964-9403 Facsimile 679-9851
>
>Attachment Converted: C:\CYBERNET\EUDORA\ATTACH\TRIDCDCo.doc
>
---
Questo e' il bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
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").
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid=91979 oppure
> http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
Sito WEB del Coordinamento:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eCircle ti offre una nuova opportunita:
Il tuo sondaggio sul web sugli argomenti che preferisci
Facile da gestire e con rappresentazioni grafiche dei risultati.
E' facile, veloce e gratuito!
Da oggi su
http://www.ecircle.it/ad264750/www.ecircle.it
>CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
>www.rockfordinstitute.org
>
>Report on TRI/CFIA Conference
>AMERICAN POLICY IN THE BALKANS FOR THE NEW ADMINISTRATION:
>L E A D E R S H I P O R M A R G I N A L I Z A T I O N ?
>held in Washington D.C. on November 14, 2000
>
>Contents:
>I - INTRODUCTION: Conference Objective
>II - RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NEW U.S. ADMINISTRATION
>III - RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NEW AUTHORITIES IN BELGRADE
>IV - CONCLUSION
>APPENDIX: ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT KOSTUNICA TO THE CONFERENCE
>===========================================
>I - THE PURPOSE OF THE CONFERENCE
>
>The Rockford Institute's Center for International Affairs takes an active
>interest in Balkan affairs not because Southeast Europe is an inherently
>important part of the world - which it is not - but because American
>policies in that region over the past decade have come to embody all that
>is wrong with the fundamental assumptions, values, and modus operandi of
>the decision-making community in Washington.
>
>It is our considered opinion that a thorough revision of those policies,
>and the subsequent new approach of the United States to the Balkans would
>be an important step towards a new, national interest-based foreign policy
>formulation in general. Accordingly, we saw the election of Vojislav
>Kostunica as president of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the
>downfall of Slobodan Milosevic, as a welcome opportunity to make that step.
>
>Aware of the importance of time, and apprehensive that in the absence of
>specific alternative proposals the outgoing national security team's
>prejudices and bureaucratic inertia may impose a negative continuity on the
>new Administration, we convened a conference in the nation's capital on
>November 14 to discuss these issues. We gathered a team of analysts who
>take an active interest in Southeast Europe and who share the desire for an
>active, national interest-based U.S. foreign policy, free from passionate
>attachments and ideological straightjackets, in the Balkans or any other
>part of the world.
>
>The panel, chaired by Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, Director of TRI's Center for
>International Affairs, included Gary Dempsey of CATO Institute, Dr. John C.
>Hulsman of Heritage Foundation, Cliff Kincaid (Washington-based
>investigative reporter and broadcaster), Bill Lind (Free Congress
>Foundation), Dr. Branko Milanovic who is a senior economist with The World
>Bank, The Hon. Branko Terzic of Deloitte & Touche, Benjamin Works
>(SIRI-US), as well as senior policy analysts and advisors from both the
>U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. While the individual speakers
>offered thoughts on a variety of topics relevant to American policy toward
>post-Milosevic Serbia, the overall consensus of the panelists and
>participants is summarized in the following policy recommendations for the
>incoming administration in Washington. Also included are some suggestions
>for the newly elected government in Belgrade.
>
>II - RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NEW U.S. ADMINISTRATION
>
>1. All key European countries have moved rapidly to reestablish normal
>relations with Belgrade based on Serbia's unique position in the heart of
>the Balkans. America's failure to follow suit will cause rift with
>Europeans and turn American leadership into self-imposed marginalization.
>In order to avoid such outcome, detrimental to its interests, the United
>States must move away from the now evident failure of a policy toward
>Serbia publicly based only on the personality of one man - Slobodan
>Milosevic - and predicated on the unrealistic notion that his removal from
>power would solve all outstanding regional problems. While his downfall has
>vastly improved the prospects for repairing historically close ties between
>the U.S. and Serbia, the new Washington Administration should define a new,
>national interest-based approach to the former Yugoslavia without delay.
>
>2. A national interest-based policy ought to reassess U.S. relations
>with Yugoslavia (Serbia-Montenegro) on the basis of prospects for (i)
>regional stability and development and (ii) promotion of American
>commercial interests. It must avoid every temptation to vindicate ex post
>facto the failed 1990s policy premised on treating the Serbian nation not
>as an integral part of an extended European economic and political
>structure but as an inherently antagonistic entity and a permanent black
>hole at the center of the region. The departure from office of persons
>inseparable from the Clinton Administration's failures - notably Secretary
>of State Albright, Ambassador Holbrooke, and President Clinton himself -
>will greatly improve prospects for this reassessment.
>
>3. The new team in Washington should be aware of the damage caused to
>American interests by the NATO war against Yugoslavia in 1999 and by the
>ongoing, open-ended, and ultimately futile "nation-building" mission in
>Kosovo. The new Administration should take note of legislative efforts,
>such as the Warner/Byrd amendment in the Senate and the Kasich amendment in
>the House of Representatives, which reflect an increasing Congressional
>awareness of that damage. It should support such efforts. Far from
>constituting some ill-defined "isolationist" retreat from America's
>international responsibilities, they reflect the desire of elected
>representatives of the American people to impose reasonable burden-sharing
>criteria on the Kosovo mission. These efforts are a positive step in the
>achievement of a national interest-based reassessment of American policy
>and of an early American disengagement from Kosovo.
>
>4. The United States should stop the current efforts by the outgoing
>Administration and supporters of its policy in the Congress and in NGOs to
>impose a de facto (and, later, de jure) independent status for Kosovo.
>These efforts are manifested in the re-launching of the long-discredited
>notion of Kosovo as a third republic in Yugoslavia, and in willful efforts
>to misconstrue the wording of Security Council Resolution 1244 as not
>specifying that Kosovo is part of the sovereign territory of the Republic
>of Serbia as well as that of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. If
>continued, U.S. support for Kosovo independence will have twofold effect.
>It will unnecessarily further impair regional stability, which remains the
>only real American interest in the Balkans. Moreover, it will further
>damage American relations with our allies, who are opposed to Kosovo
>independence. The recent elections favoring moderate forces associated with
>Ibrahim Rugova (who also favors Kosovo independence but who has
>demonstrated a dedication to nonviolent methods distinctly different from
>those of the Clinton Administration's favored entity, the Kosovo Liberation
>Army) lends some hope that some reasonable solution among the parties can
>be found. In summary, the next Administration should base its Kosovo policy
>on
>(i) the need for the parties, if possible, to work a settlement out for
>themselves, and
>(ii) to follow the lead of out European allies in facilitating a solution,
>rather than trying to dictate one as the current Administration is
>inclined.
>
>5. Similarly, the United States should cease efforts to pressure
>Belgrade to accept the independence of Montenegro, a status the people of
>Montenegro have not indicated they desire. Even if it is accepted that the
>U.S. is no longer formally encouraging the secessionist minority in
>Podgorica, some segments of the bureaucracy (notably at the Department of
>State) and NGOs with known close links to the Clinton Administration are
>still effectively doing so.
>
>6. The United States should expeditiously follow the lead of our
>European allies in removing of all sanctions against Yugoslavia, including
>the so-called outer wall. Continued use sanctions against the new
>democratic government in Belgrade to force compliance with preexisting
>demands by the Clinton Administration is counterproductive. It effectively
>prevents American companies from taking optimal advantage of the many
>business opportunities that are opening up in Serbia - opportunities that
>will be taken by their European competitors. It is noted that despite
>hortatory language in current legislation regarding such demands, the
>President currently has full legal authority to lift sanctions, and he
>should use it as soon as possible. This should be done
>(i) immediately, with respect to compliance with sanctions still formally
>in effect, and
>(ii) as quickly as possible, with respect to formal lifting of sanctions
>imposed by legislation or by executive order.
>The United States should favor immediately rescinding resolutions by the
>Security Council imposing sanctions, most notably SC747 of May 30, 1992.
>The United States, both bilaterally and in international bodies, should
>support efforts to provide appropriate aid to Yugoslavia for economic
>reconstruction.
>
>7. The United States should cease all efforts to coerce the new
>government in Belgrade into surrendering persons indicted by The Hague war
>crimes tribunal. These efforts may result in further dangerous precedents
>contrary to the American interest in opposing the establishment of a
>standing international criminal court, for which The Hague tribunal for
>Yugoslavia and its counterpart for Rwanda are precursors. Such coercion is
>also counterproductive in that, if successful, it would undercut the
>legitimacy of the new government in Belgrade, which was elected as an
>authentic expression of the national will by an electorate that uniformly
>regards The Hague tribunal as politicized tool of American policy rather
>than a judicial body. The United States should favor the repatriation of
>the tribunal's functions to the Yugoslav successor states, including
>Serbia-Montenegro. In particular, the United States should regard as
>sufficient for the purposes of justice forthcoming steps by the new
>authorities in Belgrade to hold its own citizens responsible for violations
>of domestic law.
>
>III - RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE NEW AUTHORITIES IN BELGRADE
>
>While the focus of the conference was to arrive at specific recommendations
>to the new American Administration, there was also a consensus on
>suggestions for the new democratic government in Belgrade and for President
>Kostunica:
>
>1. Belgrade should move to repair relations with Washington, and the
>re-establishment of full diplomatic relations will be a welcome first step.
>At the same time, such efforts should be pursued in a quiet, businesslike
>way at the diplomatic "working level." Any high-visibility state visits at
>the head of state or foreign minister level would be counterproductive
>prior to the departure of the current Administration. If such contacts are
>inevitable, they should take place in third countries, in the context of
>multilateral gatherings. Belgrade's current focus on Europe is entirely
>appropriate and should continue for the time being. In all contacts with
>the outgoing Administration the Yugoslav government should not hesitate to
>raise unresolved issues that the Clinton team can and should rectify,
>including the unconditional removal of the outer wall of sanctions and the
>granting of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status to Yugoslavia.
>
>2. Belgrade should move with deliberation on economic reconstruction.
>While the outline of transition suggested by the G-17 group of economists
>is useful, the new Yugoslav authorities should take note of the
>difficulties experienced by other formerly socialist economies during the
>past decade. It should not neglect broader public interest in favor of the
>models of transition and theories of political economy that may result in a
>Gaydar-like de-industrialization. The government in Belgrade should be
>aware that
>(i) the record of the IMF in promoting sustained economic development is
>ambiguous; and
>(ii) the European Union, while an essential partner in the economic
>recovery of Yugoslavia, may be more interested in it as a pool of
>inexpensive labor than as a potential equal partner.
>In each instance, outside advice and assistance should be accepted in a
>discriminating manner. Foreign investment is to be encouraged, but measures
>should be taken to ensure that foreign acquisitions of domestic enterprises
>do not result in asset-stripping. The development of a patriotic business
>culture in Serbia is inseparable from the reassertion of the country's
>self-respect, dignity and sovereignty.
>
>3. The new government in Belgrade should not compromise on the
>principle that Kosovo is sovereign Serbian, as well as Yugoslav territory.
>At the same time, based on existing realities, it should begin to establish
>dialogue with other essential parties. In particular, Belgrade should
>insist that UNMIK and KFOR comply with provisions of UNSC Resolution 1244
>regarding reintroduction of Yugoslav forces into Kosovo, particularly with
>reference to restoring the integrity of Kosovo's border with neighboring
>states. Belgrade should insist that UNMIK and KFOR live up to their
>responsibility to demilitarize the former elements of the Kosovo Liberation
>Army (which remain under arms) and to protect all persons in Kosovo
>regardless of ethnicity or religion. It should be insisted that a workable,
>short-term plan be reached for the return to their homes of persons who
>fled or were driven out of Kosovo since the end of the war and for their
>subsequent protection. The Belgrade government should make efforts to
>conduct a dialogue with moderate (i.e., non-KLA) Albanians on achieving a
>peaceful solution.
>
>4. The Belgrade government absolutely should not surrender any person
>to The Hague war crimes tribunal. While the consensus of the conference was
>against any cooperation with the tribunal (including establishment of an
>office in Belgrade), it was suggested that some contact might be useful
>(i) only if such contacts on the territory of Serbia or Montenegro are not
>investigatory but purely for exchange of information, and
>(ii) as a means to transfer functions currently claimed by the tribunal to
>national courts.
>It was recommended that the Belgrade authorities should expect any
>cooperation to presuppose a willingness of the tribunal to take appropriate
>action with respect to violations of the laws of war by persons acting on
>behalf of the countries supporting the tribunal. It was specifically
>suggested that materials relating to the activities of Agim Ceku both
>during "Operation Storm" and in Kosovo, as well as any available
>information about other relevant activities, be provided to the tribunal's
>representatives as a test case of their willingness to act as a legitimate
>instrument of justice. It was suggested that all related statements by
>current Administration's officials - such as James O'Brien's warning to
>Belgrade that Washington expects Yugoslavia to fully cooperate with The
>Hague by April 2001 - should be treated as an exercise in rhetorical
>bravado, since no current official can impose conditions on a foreign party
>that would be binding for the new Administration. It was unanimously
>concluded that Belgrade's refusal to allow the tribunal's jurisdiction in
>Yugoslavia and to surrender its citizens is the greatest single service
>that the Serbs can render to the real international community - the
>community of people, in America and elsewhere, who reject the notion of
>supranational authority.
>
>IV - CONCLUSION
>
>In our view it is both possible and desirable that the relations between
>the United States and Yugoslavia will improve and develop on the basis of
>mutual respect, friendship and common interest.
>
>The regime of Slobodan Milosevic was one obstacle to the development of
>such relations, and his removal provides an opportunity to make a fresh
>start. The other obstacle to such relations is the ideology of hegemonist
>interventionism that prevails in America's current foreign policy
>establishment. It is contrary to the authentic tradition of the American
>republic, to its true interests, and to the will of the American people. It
>should be replaced by national interest-based policies, in the Balkans and
>elsewhere.
>
>By revising its approach to Yugoslavia, and developing truly even-handed
>policies that will be free from ideological and special interest pressures,
>the next Administration will act in the true American interest, and in the
>interest of peace, stability and prosperity in the Balkans.
>
>By standing firm on the key issues that affect its own national interest,
>and especially by refusing to compromise its sovereignty (The Hague) and
>territorial integrity (Kosovo), the government of Yugoslavia will also help
>promote such new policies in Washington. If it bases its strategy firmly on
>the principle of enlightened nationalism, and refuses to be drawn into any
>arrangements that may erode those fundamental principles, Belgrade will
>best defend its own interests while at the same time contributing to the
>abandonment of the insidious path of imperial over-reach in Washington.
>
>APPENDIX: ADDRESS BY PRESIDENT KOSTUNICA TO THE CONFERENCE
>
>The Conference was honored by a video address by the President of
>Yugoslavia, Dr. Vojislav Kostunica, that contained his views on the current
>state of relations between his country and the United States and his
>thinking on the ways to overcome existing problems in the period ahead.
>Here is the transcript of the address:
>
>"Regardless of who emerges as the winner from the present electoral
>imbroglio, we can safely assume that by the end of January there will be a
>new Administration in Washington.
>"When it comes to the Balkans, that Administration will be as "new" as the
>newly elected President wants it to be. In my opinion this provides both
>our countries with a unique opportunity to turn a new page, not only in
>rhetoric but also in fact, and to make a fresh start after a very difficult
>decade in our relations.
>"Some of the wounds of that decade will take time to heal, and the healing
>process will not be aided by our pretending that they do not exist. And
>yet, there are times when the opportunities for a change of course simply
>must be taken, when it would be foolish, or tragic, not to make the
>attempt. In Belgrade it would be foolish; in Washington it would be tragic.
>We are fully prepared to do our part. We hope and trust that America will
>do hers.
>"Let me deal briefly with the legacy of the past, and then look ahead.
>"There are no inherent disputes between our two countries, which had been
>friends and allies for most of the past century. Those problems that do
>exist could have been avoided, and are not insoluble.
>"One such problem is Kosovo. While a complete normalization of relations
>between our countries would be much easier if NATO were not in occupation
>of our sovereign territory, making progress in other areas will facilitate
>the quest for a lasting solution in the southern Serbian province. There is
>no easy, obvious, or early solution. We know this, and by now Washington
>also knows this better than it did.
>"We should turn our sadly shared experience into a more common attitude,
>and move towards a shared judgment. Milosevic did not invent the Kosovo
>problem, and his disappearance by itself cannot solve the historic
>difficulties that he made so much worse.
>"His crimes must be properly assessed. This is just as important for you
>as it is for us. Important for us because his orders were executed by our
>citizens in our sovereign jurisdiction; important for you because his
>crimes were given such ideological and mesmerizing importance, and even
>invented when there were not enough of them. The crimes and criminality of
>the "KLA," so obvious to us, were - in this mesmerized environment -
>largely invisible to ordinary Americans, and ignored by their leaders.
>"The first thing we can all do is stop pretending that there is a story of
>blame from which we ourselves are exempt, or from which anyone is exempt.
>We must break the cycle of blame. This rupture is an essential part of
>peace-making at every level.
>"This brings me to the question of war crimes. We have exactly the same
>problem with international jurisdictions as Americans do. Like you, we know
>enough about the world to know that international politics can distort the
>idea of justice. Let me assure you: anti-Serbianism is as common a
>prejudice in the Balkans as is anti-Americanism on the world stage. The
>essential case for justice, the need for it, is simply this: that the human
>heart craves it.
>"We accept that the judicial process should be an integral part of eventual
>reconciliation. But the instrumentalization of judicial retaliation can
>only postpone effective reconciliation, and make it more difficult. Sooner
>rather than later the work of the Hague Tribunal - with which we shall find
>modes of cooperation - should be repatriated to the successor states of the
>former Yugoslavia. If there is to be a supra-national alternative, it could
>only be a world tribunal to which all members of the United Nations submit
>their jurisdiction and their sovereignty. I am not suggesting that the
>creation of such a body is desirable, let alone inevitable; I am simply
>stating a fact.
>"Kosovo, The Hague, and other problems need resolving, but they should not
>be allowed to dominate the dialogue between our countries. There are many
>areas of potentially fruitful cooperation and mutually beneficial exchange
>that can and should be developed. America's creativity, so impressively
>evidenced in science, technology, and sustained economic growth, and
>America's inexhaustible entrepreneurial drive can help us rejoin the ranks
>of European nations to which we rightfully belong.
>"I hope that the Rockford Institute conference on American policy in the
>Balkans in the coming decade will make a real contribution to the
>attainment of that objective. I extend my best wishes to all its
>participants, and look forward to seeing their specific recommendations."
>****************************************
>Report prepared by Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, Director
>Center for International Affairs of The Rockford Institute
>
>HEAD OFFICE CHICAGO AREA OFFICE
>928 N Main Street 4722 Oakton Street
>Rockford, IL 61103 Skokie, IL 60076-3012
>(815) 964-5054 (847) 679-9850
>Facsimile 964-9403 Facsimile 679-9851
>
>Attachment Converted: C:\CYBERNET\EUDORA\ATTACH\TRIDCDCo.doc
>
---
Questo e' il bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
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").
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid=91979 oppure
> http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
Sito WEB del Coordinamento:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eCircle ti offre una nuova opportunita:
Il tuo sondaggio sul web sugli argomenti che preferisci
Facile da gestire e con rappresentazioni grafiche dei risultati.
E' facile, veloce e gratuito!
Da oggi su
http://www.ecircle.it/ad264750/www.ecircle.it
http://www.sps.org.yu/index-ne.htm
---
http://www.sps.org.yu/aktuelno/2000/okt/30-1.html
SAOPŠTENJE SOCIJALISTIÈKE
PARTIJE SRBIJE POVODOM
PODNOŠENJA MOLBE ZA PRIJEM SRJ
U ÈLANSTVO UJEDINJENIH NACIJA
Savezna Republika Jugoslavija nikada nije
iskljuèena iz Ujedinjenih nacija i to nije
sporno nizakoga na Svetu, pa ni za organe
i Sekretarijat Ujedinjenih nacija. Prema
tome, nema osnova ni za podnošenje
molbe za prijem u svetsku organizaciju.
Saveznoj Republici Jugoslaviji je
svojevremeno uskraæeno da uèestvuje u
radu pojedinih organa Ujedinjenih nacija.
Otuda može biti reèi samo o zahtevu za
ukidanje takve ogranièene zabrane na
èemu je Socijalistièka partija Srbije uvek
insistirala.
Podnošenje molbe za prijem u èlanstvo
Ujedinjenih nacija predstavlja kršenje
Ustava SRJ i odluka Savezne skupštine
kojima su izabrani narodni predstavnici
Srbije i Crne Gore utvrdili da SR
Jugoslavija nastavlja èlanstvo u
Ujedinjenim nacijama i drugim
meðunarodnim organizacijama. Ovo je
prihvatila i priznala veæina èlanica
svetske organizacije nastavljajuæi
normalne diplomatske odnose i važnost
meðunarodnih sporazuma od kojih neki
potièu iz prošlog stoleæa.
Podnošenje molbe ovih dana za prijem u
Ujedinjene nacije znaèi povlaðivanje
stranim silama i interesima koji potcenjuju
korene i zasluge naše države i naroda za
Evropu i Svet, koji tvrde da je Jugoslavija
poslednja novostvorena država i da je bez
znaèaja to što su Srbija i Crna Gora
najstarije države na Balkanu. Takav potez
i stav mogu imati nesagledive posledice
po vitalne nacionalne i državne interese
naše zemlje.
DICHIARAZIONE DEL PARTITO SOCIALISTA DELLA SERBIA
IN RELAZIONE ALLA PRESENTAZIONE DELLA RICHIESTA DI
AMMISSIONE DELLA RFJ ALLE NAZIONI UNITE
La RF di Jugoslavia non e' stata mai esclusa dalle
Nazioni Unite e questo fatto non e' controverso per
nessuno al mondo, e quindi nemmeno per gli organismi
e per il Segretariato delle Nazioni Unite. Percio'
non c'e' nessuna ragione di presentare la richiesta
di ammissione alla organizzazione mondiale.
La RF di Jugoslavia e' stata a suo tempo sospesa
dalla partecipazione ai lavori di alcuni organi delle
Nazioni Unite. Percio' si puo' parlare solamente di
richiedere la fine di queste limitate proibizioni,
cosa sulla quale il Partito Socialista della Serbia
ha sempre insistito.
La presentazione della richiesta di ammissione alle
Nazioni Unite rappresenta una infrazione della
Costituzione della RFJ e delle decisioni della
Assemblea Federale con le quali i deputati
popolari eletti della Serbia e del Montenegro hanno
attestato che la RFJ prosegue nella sua associazione
alle Nazioni Unite ed alle altre organizzazioni
internazionali. Questo e' stato approvato e riconosciuto
dalla maggioranza dei membri della organizzazione
mondiale con la prosecuzione delle normali
relazioni diplomatiche e con la incessata validita'
degli accordi internazionali, alcuni dei quali
sono stati stipulati nel secolo scorso. In questi
giorni, la presentazione della richiesta di
ammissione alle Nazioni Unite rappresenta una
concessione alle forze ed agli interessi stranieri
che sviliscono le radici ed i meriti del nostro
Stato e del nostro popolo dinanzi all'Europa ed al
mondo, come se la Jugoslavia fosse l'ultimo dei
nuovi Stati ad essere creati e come se fosse senza
importanza il fatto che la Serbia ed il Montenegro
sono gli Stati piu' antichi dei Balcani.
Questa iniziativa e questa attitudine possono
avere conseguenze inimmaginabili per gli interessi
vitali nazionali e statali del nostro paese.
Belgrado, 8/11/2000
http://www.sps.org.yu/aktuelno/2000/nov/08-1.html
8.11.2000. godine, Beograd
LIST "NEDELJNI TELEGRAF"
Gospodin Momèilo ?orgoviæ, direktor i gl.i
odg.urednik
U skladu sa Zakonom o informisanju
zahtevam da u narednom broju Vašeg lista
objavite sledeæi demanti:
Sve što ste objavili u "Nedeljnom
telegrafu", u broju od 8.11.2000. godine, iz
pera novinara Dejana LJutiæa, a što se
odnosi na mene, predstavlja notornu laž.
Jedino je istina da, kao i mnogi drugi, na
Kopaoniku posedujem plac od 4,3 ara koji
sam, pošto nemam sopstvenih finansijskih
sredstava za realizaciju prava na njemu,
ustupila na korišæenje treæem, pravnom
licu.
Gorica Gajeviæ
---
Questo e' il bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
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").
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid=91979 oppure
> http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
Sito WEB del Coordinamento:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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/ad204567/www.ecircle.it
---
http://www.sps.org.yu/aktuelno/2000/okt/30-1.html
SAOPŠTENJE SOCIJALISTIÈKE
PARTIJE SRBIJE POVODOM
PODNOŠENJA MOLBE ZA PRIJEM SRJ
U ÈLANSTVO UJEDINJENIH NACIJA
Savezna Republika Jugoslavija nikada nije
iskljuèena iz Ujedinjenih nacija i to nije
sporno nizakoga na Svetu, pa ni za organe
i Sekretarijat Ujedinjenih nacija. Prema
tome, nema osnova ni za podnošenje
molbe za prijem u svetsku organizaciju.
Saveznoj Republici Jugoslaviji je
svojevremeno uskraæeno da uèestvuje u
radu pojedinih organa Ujedinjenih nacija.
Otuda može biti reèi samo o zahtevu za
ukidanje takve ogranièene zabrane na
èemu je Socijalistièka partija Srbije uvek
insistirala.
Podnošenje molbe za prijem u èlanstvo
Ujedinjenih nacija predstavlja kršenje
Ustava SRJ i odluka Savezne skupštine
kojima su izabrani narodni predstavnici
Srbije i Crne Gore utvrdili da SR
Jugoslavija nastavlja èlanstvo u
Ujedinjenim nacijama i drugim
meðunarodnim organizacijama. Ovo je
prihvatila i priznala veæina èlanica
svetske organizacije nastavljajuæi
normalne diplomatske odnose i važnost
meðunarodnih sporazuma od kojih neki
potièu iz prošlog stoleæa.
Podnošenje molbe ovih dana za prijem u
Ujedinjene nacije znaèi povlaðivanje
stranim silama i interesima koji potcenjuju
korene i zasluge naše države i naroda za
Evropu i Svet, koji tvrde da je Jugoslavija
poslednja novostvorena država i da je bez
znaèaja to što su Srbija i Crna Gora
najstarije države na Balkanu. Takav potez
i stav mogu imati nesagledive posledice
po vitalne nacionalne i državne interese
naše zemlje.
DICHIARAZIONE DEL PARTITO SOCIALISTA DELLA SERBIA
IN RELAZIONE ALLA PRESENTAZIONE DELLA RICHIESTA DI
AMMISSIONE DELLA RFJ ALLE NAZIONI UNITE
La RF di Jugoslavia non e' stata mai esclusa dalle
Nazioni Unite e questo fatto non e' controverso per
nessuno al mondo, e quindi nemmeno per gli organismi
e per il Segretariato delle Nazioni Unite. Percio'
non c'e' nessuna ragione di presentare la richiesta
di ammissione alla organizzazione mondiale.
La RF di Jugoslavia e' stata a suo tempo sospesa
dalla partecipazione ai lavori di alcuni organi delle
Nazioni Unite. Percio' si puo' parlare solamente di
richiedere la fine di queste limitate proibizioni,
cosa sulla quale il Partito Socialista della Serbia
ha sempre insistito.
La presentazione della richiesta di ammissione alle
Nazioni Unite rappresenta una infrazione della
Costituzione della RFJ e delle decisioni della
Assemblea Federale con le quali i deputati
popolari eletti della Serbia e del Montenegro hanno
attestato che la RFJ prosegue nella sua associazione
alle Nazioni Unite ed alle altre organizzazioni
internazionali. Questo e' stato approvato e riconosciuto
dalla maggioranza dei membri della organizzazione
mondiale con la prosecuzione delle normali
relazioni diplomatiche e con la incessata validita'
degli accordi internazionali, alcuni dei quali
sono stati stipulati nel secolo scorso. In questi
giorni, la presentazione della richiesta di
ammissione alle Nazioni Unite rappresenta una
concessione alle forze ed agli interessi stranieri
che sviliscono le radici ed i meriti del nostro
Stato e del nostro popolo dinanzi all'Europa ed al
mondo, come se la Jugoslavia fosse l'ultimo dei
nuovi Stati ad essere creati e come se fosse senza
importanza il fatto che la Serbia ed il Montenegro
sono gli Stati piu' antichi dei Balcani.
Questa iniziativa e questa attitudine possono
avere conseguenze inimmaginabili per gli interessi
vitali nazionali e statali del nostro paese.
Belgrado, 8/11/2000
http://www.sps.org.yu/aktuelno/2000/nov/08-1.html
8.11.2000. godine, Beograd
LIST "NEDELJNI TELEGRAF"
Gospodin Momèilo ?orgoviæ, direktor i gl.i
odg.urednik
U skladu sa Zakonom o informisanju
zahtevam da u narednom broju Vašeg lista
objavite sledeæi demanti:
Sve što ste objavili u "Nedeljnom
telegrafu", u broju od 8.11.2000. godine, iz
pera novinara Dejana LJutiæa, a što se
odnosi na mene, predstavlja notornu laž.
Jedino je istina da, kao i mnogi drugi, na
Kopaoniku posedujem plac od 4,3 ara koji
sam, pošto nemam sopstvenih finansijskih
sredstava za realizaciju prava na njemu,
ustupila na korišæenje treæem, pravnom
licu.
Gorica Gajeviæ
---
Questo e' il bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
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").
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid=91979 oppure
> http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
Sito WEB del Coordinamento:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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/ad204567/www.ecircle.it
Il giornale radio di ieri, oggi e domani
1. Buongiorno, apriamo con la prima notizia. Questa mattina è stata
dichiarata la secessione della Lombardia e del Veneto dalla Repubblica
italiana. Il leader del movimento secessionista ha dichiarato “Meglio
essere gli ultimi in Europa che i primi in Italia”.
Le cancellerie europee si sono riunite per decidere la propria
posizione. Ma la Germania non intende aspettare le indecisioni dei
partner comunitari ed ha deciso di riconoscere unilateralmente le due
repubbliche secessioniste. Già negli anni scorsi i contatti tra i
leader tedeschi e quelli della Lombardia e del Veneto erano stati
frequenti. La Germania si è già impegnata per 180 milioni di dollari in
investimenti nelle due repubbliche secessioniste.
L’Unione Europea in un documento inviato al segretario dell’ONU ha
chiesto che Lombardia e Veneto ottengano un seggio alle Nazioni Unite
mentre la Repubblica italiana dovrà essere sospesa da ogni
organizzazione internazionale.
I governi europei e gli Stati Uniti hanno altresì deciso l’embargo
unilaterale per tutti i prodotti da e verso la Repubblica Italiana.
2. Buonasera, il nostro corrispondente da Bolzano, ci informa che la
provincia dell’Alto Adige ha dichiarato oggi la sua indipendenza dal
governo di Roma. La cancelleria austriaca ha già riconosciuto la
secessione della repubblica tirolese dall’Italia.
Gli osservatori dell’Organizzazione per la Sicurezza e la Cooperazione
Europea, in un loro rapporto riservato che giungerà a breve sul tavolo
del Segretario delle Nazioni Unite, denunciano i ripetuti massacri e lo
stato di oppressione degli italiani sulla popolazione altoatesina.
La comunità internazionale ha mandato un chiaro messaggio al governo di
Roma o fermate i massacri in Alto Adige e ritirate le truppe a sud del
Po oppure la risposta delle democrazie occidentali sarà durissima.
3. Buonasera, apriamo il giornale radio con le notizie degli attacchi
aerei della NATO diventati operativi dopo il fallimento dei negoziati
dovuto all’intransigenza del governo di Roma.
Sono stati bombardate Roma, Firenze e Napoli. I ponti sul Tevere e
sull’Arno, gli stabilimenti Fiat di Cassino e Termoli sono stati colpiti
in quanto obiettivi strategici. Da alcune ore stanno bruciando gli
stabilimenti petrolchimici di Gela e Sicuracusa Al momento pare che le
centrali dell’Enel di Civitavecchia e Terni siano state distrutte dai
bombardamenti chirurgici. Due pulman di pellegrini che tornavano dal
Giubileo sono stati colpiti dai missili lanciati da un aereo della NATO.
Il comando NATO ha parlato di spiacevoli effetti collaterali.
4. Buongiorno, ad anno dai bombardamenti si riscalda il clima per le
prossime elezioni presidenziali e politiche nella repubblica italiana.
Ieri sera il Dipartimento di Stato americano le cancellerie dell’Unione
Europea hanno mandato un chiaro messaggio alla popolazione italiana: se
voterete per l’attuale presidente Inciampi, l’Italia verrà sottoposta a
embargo totale. Nel documento è precisato che i prodotti energetici
dall’estero potranno arrivare esclusivamente nelle città governate
dall’opposizione.
La VI flotta statuitense ha inviato una portaerei nel Mar Tirreno mentre
esercitazioni militari congiunte tra forze armate della Lombardia, del
Veneto e della NATO sono in corso nell’oltrepò pavese.
Il New York Times e le Monde rivelano che il Congresso USA e la
Commissione Europea hanno stanziato rispettivamente 80 e 90 milioni di
dollari per la campagna elettorale dell’opposizione guidata dal suo
leader Bernasconi.
5. Buonasera, ancora teso il clima alla vigilia delle elezioni. I nostri
corrispondenti riportano la notizia che nelle regioni amministrate dai
partiti dell’opposizione non verranno allestiti i seggi elettorali.
I sostenitori dell’attuale governo si stanno organizzando per allestire
dei seggi di fortuna nei negozi o addirittura in case private.
Gli osservatori internazionali rilevano che nonostante tutto ciò in
queste regioni la situazione è tranquilla e tutto si svolgerà
regolarmente mentre è più preoccupante nelle altre città dove esiste il
pericolo dei brogli da parte dei sostenitori dell’attuale presidente
Inciampi.
6. Buonasera per il giornale radio. Sono le ore 20.00. Tra due ore si
chiuderanno i seggi ed inizierà lo spoglio delle schede per le elezioni
politiche e presidenziali nella Repubblica Italiana, ma il leader
dell’opposizione Bernasconi ancora prima delle chiusura dei seggi ha già
dichiarato di aver vinto queste elezioni. Ha convocato già da ora i
suoi sostenitori in Piazza Montecitorio per impedire che i brogli
producano un risultato diverso da quello previsto e già annunciato in
tutte le capitali europee.
7. Buongiorno, lo scrutinio delle schede elettorali si è concluso questa
notte e i risultati non sembrano poter assegnare la vittoria al primo
turno a nessuno dei due candidati. Si andrà dunque al ballottaggio.
Si registra però una dichiarazione rilasciata dal leader
dell’opposizione nella conferenza stampa appena conclusa, secondo cui il
risultato è chiaro e dimostra che è lui ad aver vinto e che non c’è
bisogno di andare al ballottaggio.
Intorno alle ore 15.00 i sostenitori di Bernasconi sono riusciti ad
entrare in massa dentro Montecitorio vincendo la resistenza del cordone
di carabinieri posti a presidio del Parlamento. I corrispondenti della
CNN affermano che alcuni carabinieri hanno cominciato a fraternizzare
con i manifestanti.
Il dipartimento di Stato americano e la Commissione Europea riconoscono
il risultato dichiarato dal leader dell’opposizione Bernasconi e
affermano che l’attuale presidente Inciampi deve dare immediatamente le
dimissioni.
In un documento approvato al vertice europeo in corso a Parigi, i
ministri degli esteri dell’Unione Europea hanno dichiarato che nella
Repubblica Italiana è tornata la democrazia.
8. Buongiorno per l’appuntamento del giornale radio. Il nuovo corso
democratico nella Repubblica italiana comincia già a prendere le prime
iniziative. L’ex leader dell’opposizione e attuale presidente ha
invitato i Savoia a rientrare in Italia. Il paese ha bisogno di
riconciliazione nazionale ha dichiarato alla stampa.
Ieri si erano riuniti gli economisti fino a pochi giorni fa costretti
all’opposizione ed oggi nella nuova maggioranza di governo. Dalle
indiscrezioni trapelate, i consiglieri economici della nuova presidenza
affermano la necessità di una terapia d’urto per riportare l’Italia
dentro la comunità internazionale e il mercato mondiale.
E’ stata annunciata la vendita della Fiat alla Renault. Il piano
d’impresa prevede la riduzione degli organici di almeno 23.000
dipendenti.
E’ stata approvata la legge che consente l’apertura totale agli
investimenti esteri, mentre in accordo con il Fondo Monetario
Internazionale è stata decisa la privatizzazione degli ospizi, degli
argini e dei ponti sul Tevere e delle scuole materne con meno di 800
bambini.
E’ stato inoltre affidato alla banca d’affari Goldman Sachs l’incarico
di trovare acquirenti per la gestione del Colosseo e del Foro Romano.
Per gli scavi di Ostia Antica si è già fatta sotta una cordata
internazionale guidata dalla banca d’affari Lehman Brothers in cui ha un
peso rilevante il finanziere benefattore George Soros.
9. Buonasera per il giornale radio. Oggi sono passati dieci anni dalla
svolta democratica della Repubblica Italiana avvenuta dopo anni di
guerra e di isolamento da parte della comunità internazionale.
Questa mattina a Parigi la Banca Europea per la Ricostruzione e lo
Sviluppo ha reso noto un rapporto sull’andamento del PIL italiano negli
ultimi dieci anni: la ricchezza prodotta dal paese è diminuita del 19%.
Il numero di disoccupati è salito a circa 6milioni mentre le
organizzazioni del volontariato denunciano il boom dei bambini di strada
che sfiorano ormai i 400.000 facendo la gioia dei pedofili in tutta
Europa. In questi dieci anni quasi 4 milioni di italiani sono emigrati
all’estero.
In una nota aggiuntiva del Commissario europeo Pisher, si rileva come
dieci anni fa in Europa ci fossero 28 stati ed ora ce ne siano 57 ma di
cui solo 11 hanno una popolazione superiore ai 10 milioni di abitanti.
In una intervista al Wall Street Journal, il presidente della
multinazionale tedesca Bekembauer ha dichiarato “Oggi investire in
questi nuovi paesi europei è molto più vantaggioso di dieci anni fa”.
Per il giornale radio è tutto , buona notte a tutti.
TUTTO QUESTO E’ VERAMENTE ACCADUTO; E’ ACCADUTO IN QUESTI MESI A POCHE
CENTINAIA DI CHILOMETRI DA NOI, SULL’ALTRA SPONDA DEL MAR ADRIATIC0 IN
UN PAESE CHE SI CHIAMAVA REPUBBLICA FEDERALE DI JUGOSLAVIA.
Il riferimento a fatti e personaggi è puramente casuale e frutto di
fantasia.
(a cura di Radio Citta' Aperta e Contropiano:
http://www.pplink.org/ )
---
Questo e' il bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
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").
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid=91979 oppure
> http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
Sito WEB del Coordinamento:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Una newsletter personale,
un forum web personale,
una mailing list personale, ...?
Gratis sotto
http://www.ecircle.it/ad308444/www.ecircle.it
1. Buongiorno, apriamo con la prima notizia. Questa mattina è stata
dichiarata la secessione della Lombardia e del Veneto dalla Repubblica
italiana. Il leader del movimento secessionista ha dichiarato “Meglio
essere gli ultimi in Europa che i primi in Italia”.
Le cancellerie europee si sono riunite per decidere la propria
posizione. Ma la Germania non intende aspettare le indecisioni dei
partner comunitari ed ha deciso di riconoscere unilateralmente le due
repubbliche secessioniste. Già negli anni scorsi i contatti tra i
leader tedeschi e quelli della Lombardia e del Veneto erano stati
frequenti. La Germania si è già impegnata per 180 milioni di dollari in
investimenti nelle due repubbliche secessioniste.
L’Unione Europea in un documento inviato al segretario dell’ONU ha
chiesto che Lombardia e Veneto ottengano un seggio alle Nazioni Unite
mentre la Repubblica italiana dovrà essere sospesa da ogni
organizzazione internazionale.
I governi europei e gli Stati Uniti hanno altresì deciso l’embargo
unilaterale per tutti i prodotti da e verso la Repubblica Italiana.
2. Buonasera, il nostro corrispondente da Bolzano, ci informa che la
provincia dell’Alto Adige ha dichiarato oggi la sua indipendenza dal
governo di Roma. La cancelleria austriaca ha già riconosciuto la
secessione della repubblica tirolese dall’Italia.
Gli osservatori dell’Organizzazione per la Sicurezza e la Cooperazione
Europea, in un loro rapporto riservato che giungerà a breve sul tavolo
del Segretario delle Nazioni Unite, denunciano i ripetuti massacri e lo
stato di oppressione degli italiani sulla popolazione altoatesina.
La comunità internazionale ha mandato un chiaro messaggio al governo di
Roma o fermate i massacri in Alto Adige e ritirate le truppe a sud del
Po oppure la risposta delle democrazie occidentali sarà durissima.
3. Buonasera, apriamo il giornale radio con le notizie degli attacchi
aerei della NATO diventati operativi dopo il fallimento dei negoziati
dovuto all’intransigenza del governo di Roma.
Sono stati bombardate Roma, Firenze e Napoli. I ponti sul Tevere e
sull’Arno, gli stabilimenti Fiat di Cassino e Termoli sono stati colpiti
in quanto obiettivi strategici. Da alcune ore stanno bruciando gli
stabilimenti petrolchimici di Gela e Sicuracusa Al momento pare che le
centrali dell’Enel di Civitavecchia e Terni siano state distrutte dai
bombardamenti chirurgici. Due pulman di pellegrini che tornavano dal
Giubileo sono stati colpiti dai missili lanciati da un aereo della NATO.
Il comando NATO ha parlato di spiacevoli effetti collaterali.
4. Buongiorno, ad anno dai bombardamenti si riscalda il clima per le
prossime elezioni presidenziali e politiche nella repubblica italiana.
Ieri sera il Dipartimento di Stato americano le cancellerie dell’Unione
Europea hanno mandato un chiaro messaggio alla popolazione italiana: se
voterete per l’attuale presidente Inciampi, l’Italia verrà sottoposta a
embargo totale. Nel documento è precisato che i prodotti energetici
dall’estero potranno arrivare esclusivamente nelle città governate
dall’opposizione.
La VI flotta statuitense ha inviato una portaerei nel Mar Tirreno mentre
esercitazioni militari congiunte tra forze armate della Lombardia, del
Veneto e della NATO sono in corso nell’oltrepò pavese.
Il New York Times e le Monde rivelano che il Congresso USA e la
Commissione Europea hanno stanziato rispettivamente 80 e 90 milioni di
dollari per la campagna elettorale dell’opposizione guidata dal suo
leader Bernasconi.
5. Buonasera, ancora teso il clima alla vigilia delle elezioni. I nostri
corrispondenti riportano la notizia che nelle regioni amministrate dai
partiti dell’opposizione non verranno allestiti i seggi elettorali.
I sostenitori dell’attuale governo si stanno organizzando per allestire
dei seggi di fortuna nei negozi o addirittura in case private.
Gli osservatori internazionali rilevano che nonostante tutto ciò in
queste regioni la situazione è tranquilla e tutto si svolgerà
regolarmente mentre è più preoccupante nelle altre città dove esiste il
pericolo dei brogli da parte dei sostenitori dell’attuale presidente
Inciampi.
6. Buonasera per il giornale radio. Sono le ore 20.00. Tra due ore si
chiuderanno i seggi ed inizierà lo spoglio delle schede per le elezioni
politiche e presidenziali nella Repubblica Italiana, ma il leader
dell’opposizione Bernasconi ancora prima delle chiusura dei seggi ha già
dichiarato di aver vinto queste elezioni. Ha convocato già da ora i
suoi sostenitori in Piazza Montecitorio per impedire che i brogli
producano un risultato diverso da quello previsto e già annunciato in
tutte le capitali europee.
7. Buongiorno, lo scrutinio delle schede elettorali si è concluso questa
notte e i risultati non sembrano poter assegnare la vittoria al primo
turno a nessuno dei due candidati. Si andrà dunque al ballottaggio.
Si registra però una dichiarazione rilasciata dal leader
dell’opposizione nella conferenza stampa appena conclusa, secondo cui il
risultato è chiaro e dimostra che è lui ad aver vinto e che non c’è
bisogno di andare al ballottaggio.
Intorno alle ore 15.00 i sostenitori di Bernasconi sono riusciti ad
entrare in massa dentro Montecitorio vincendo la resistenza del cordone
di carabinieri posti a presidio del Parlamento. I corrispondenti della
CNN affermano che alcuni carabinieri hanno cominciato a fraternizzare
con i manifestanti.
Il dipartimento di Stato americano e la Commissione Europea riconoscono
il risultato dichiarato dal leader dell’opposizione Bernasconi e
affermano che l’attuale presidente Inciampi deve dare immediatamente le
dimissioni.
In un documento approvato al vertice europeo in corso a Parigi, i
ministri degli esteri dell’Unione Europea hanno dichiarato che nella
Repubblica Italiana è tornata la democrazia.
8. Buongiorno per l’appuntamento del giornale radio. Il nuovo corso
democratico nella Repubblica italiana comincia già a prendere le prime
iniziative. L’ex leader dell’opposizione e attuale presidente ha
invitato i Savoia a rientrare in Italia. Il paese ha bisogno di
riconciliazione nazionale ha dichiarato alla stampa.
Ieri si erano riuniti gli economisti fino a pochi giorni fa costretti
all’opposizione ed oggi nella nuova maggioranza di governo. Dalle
indiscrezioni trapelate, i consiglieri economici della nuova presidenza
affermano la necessità di una terapia d’urto per riportare l’Italia
dentro la comunità internazionale e il mercato mondiale.
E’ stata annunciata la vendita della Fiat alla Renault. Il piano
d’impresa prevede la riduzione degli organici di almeno 23.000
dipendenti.
E’ stata approvata la legge che consente l’apertura totale agli
investimenti esteri, mentre in accordo con il Fondo Monetario
Internazionale è stata decisa la privatizzazione degli ospizi, degli
argini e dei ponti sul Tevere e delle scuole materne con meno di 800
bambini.
E’ stato inoltre affidato alla banca d’affari Goldman Sachs l’incarico
di trovare acquirenti per la gestione del Colosseo e del Foro Romano.
Per gli scavi di Ostia Antica si è già fatta sotta una cordata
internazionale guidata dalla banca d’affari Lehman Brothers in cui ha un
peso rilevante il finanziere benefattore George Soros.
9. Buonasera per il giornale radio. Oggi sono passati dieci anni dalla
svolta democratica della Repubblica Italiana avvenuta dopo anni di
guerra e di isolamento da parte della comunità internazionale.
Questa mattina a Parigi la Banca Europea per la Ricostruzione e lo
Sviluppo ha reso noto un rapporto sull’andamento del PIL italiano negli
ultimi dieci anni: la ricchezza prodotta dal paese è diminuita del 19%.
Il numero di disoccupati è salito a circa 6milioni mentre le
organizzazioni del volontariato denunciano il boom dei bambini di strada
che sfiorano ormai i 400.000 facendo la gioia dei pedofili in tutta
Europa. In questi dieci anni quasi 4 milioni di italiani sono emigrati
all’estero.
In una nota aggiuntiva del Commissario europeo Pisher, si rileva come
dieci anni fa in Europa ci fossero 28 stati ed ora ce ne siano 57 ma di
cui solo 11 hanno una popolazione superiore ai 10 milioni di abitanti.
In una intervista al Wall Street Journal, il presidente della
multinazionale tedesca Bekembauer ha dichiarato “Oggi investire in
questi nuovi paesi europei è molto più vantaggioso di dieci anni fa”.
Per il giornale radio è tutto , buona notte a tutti.
TUTTO QUESTO E’ VERAMENTE ACCADUTO; E’ ACCADUTO IN QUESTI MESI A POCHE
CENTINAIA DI CHILOMETRI DA NOI, SULL’ALTRA SPONDA DEL MAR ADRIATIC0 IN
UN PAESE CHE SI CHIAMAVA REPUBBLICA FEDERALE DI JUGOSLAVIA.
Il riferimento a fatti e personaggi è puramente casuale e frutto di
fantasia.
(a cura di Radio Citta' Aperta e Contropiano:
http://www.pplink.org/ )
---
Questo e' il bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
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").
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
Archivio di JUGOINFO:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid=91979 oppure
> http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
Sito WEB del Coordinamento:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Una newsletter personale,
un forum web personale,
una mailing list personale, ...?
Gratis sotto
http://www.ecircle.it/ad308444/www.ecircle.it
This email is being sent on behalf of jaredi@...
as part of the list "emperorsclothes", that you joined.
URL: http://www.emperors-clothes.com
------------------------------------------------------------
The URL for this article is
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-4.htm
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
UNJUST FROM THE START, PART IV: LEARNING FROM THE INQUISITION
By Dr. Kosta Cavoski
[Part IV concludes this series of articles on the War Crimes Tribunal by
Professor Cavoski, the distinguished Yugoslav law scholar.]
MASKED WITNESSES
When in the medieval age the Inquisition wanted to protect an important
witness who was ready to testify that he/she had seen a suspect
communicating with the devil the witness was allowed to appear in court
with a mask, or hood, over the face. This was how the court heard the
"truth", and the witness was protected from the evil eye of the witch
who might take revenge after being burned at the stake.
In its fervent desire to protect the victims and witnesses of war crimes
in the former Yugoslavia from the [Serbian] devil, the makers of the
Rules of Procedure and Evidence similarly undertook to disguise the
identity of these victims and witnesses.
Thus, according to Rule 69 "in exceptional circumstances, the Prosecutor
may apply to a Trial Chamber to order the non-disclosure of the identity
of a victim or witness who may be in danger or at risk until such a
person is brought under the protection of the Tribunal. This type of
temporary concealment of a victim's or witnesses' identity can be
understood, especially as paragraph (C) of this Rule stipulates that
"the identity of the victim or witness shall be disclosed in sufficient
time prior to the trial to allow adequate time for preparation of the
defense".
What should not have been allowed under any circumstances was the
permanent concealment of the identity of victims or witnesses, neither
the allowing of a witness to refuse to answer a question on "grounds of
confidentiality". This is foreseen in Rule 70 paragraphs (B), (C) and
(D). Inasmuch as the Prosecutor obtains information given to him on
condition it remains confidential he can not disclose its source without
the agreement of the person or entity (15) who supplied it. This would
not be so unusual if such information were not used as evidence at the
trial. But the Prosecutor, with the consent of the person or
representative of an entity, may decide to use documents and other
material obtained in this way as evidence at the trial. In this case -
and this is indeed something very new - "the Trial Chamber may not order
either party to produce additional evidence received from the person or
entity providing the initial information, nor may the Trial Chamber, for
the purpose !
of obtaining such additional evidence itself summon that person or a
representative of that entity as a witness or order their attendance".
Still, the Prosecutor may call as a witness a person or entity that has
offered confidential information, but the Trial Chamber may not compel
the witness to answer any question the witness declines to answer on the
grounds of confidentiality.
One can ask what kind of witness gives the Prosecutor confidential
information and then refuses to answer further questions as to how such
information was obtained when the Trial Chamber has no right to insist.
As a rule they are undercover agents who have been operating illegally
in foreign countries in order to collect information that can not be
obtained by regular means. They are also governmental representatives
who have provided The Hague Tribunal with confidential information on
condition that it conceal the source of the information as well as the
manner in which it was obtained. The only remaining question is whether
such "evidence" can be accepted as valid or such clandestine "witnesses"
believed at all.
Another innovation that was introduced by the makers of the Rules was
testimony without the obligation to appear at the trial. According to
Rule 71, at the request of either party, the Trial Chamber "may, in
exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice, order a
deposition be taken for use at trial and appoint for that purpose, a
Presiding Officer". Naturally, it sometimes happens that an important
witness, for health reasons, is unable to leave his home or hospital to
attend a trial. But in such cases a hearing, under the presidency of the
judge, is held in the witness' room where the witness answers the
questions of the prosecution and defense. Allowing a court officer to
take a deposition on his own whenever the Trial Chamber considers it to
be "in the interest of justice", increases the possibility of abuse and
prevents the confrontation of witnesses testifying differently about the
same subject.
The greatest "innovations" introduced by the Rules was the permanent
concealment of the identity of witnesses, victims or anyone related to
or associated with them. Under the guise of preserving privacy and
protecting a witness or victim, according to Rule 75 a judge or trial
chamber can, at a session in camera [i.e., a closed session], take:
"measures to prevent disclosure to the public or the media of the
identity or whereabouts of a victim or a witness, or of persons related
to or associated with him by such means as:
a) expunging names and identifying information from the Chamber's public
record;
b) non-disclosure to the public of any records identifying the victim;
c) giving the testimony through image - or voice-altering devices or
closed circuit television and
d) assignment of a pseudonym."
Even this was not enough for the makers of these Rules and so they added
the possibility of closed sessions and appropriate measures to
facilitate the testimony of vulnerable victims and witnesses, such as
one-way closed circuit television.
JUDICATURE WITHOUT SOVEREIGNTY
There is no doubt whatsoever that the measures for the protection of a
witness which the Holy Inquisition was capable of offering were a
child's game compared to those provided by the Ruler of The Hague
Tribunal. The Inquisition was only able to offer a frightened witness
the possibility to enter the court by a side door under cover of night
and with a hood over the head. Possibly, and very probably, the
Inquisition would have taken the same measures as The Hague Tribunal
Rules had it been able to use the technology at the disposal of The
Hague judges today.
So as to understand more easily the "singularity" and also the
exceptional possibilities of violation of the aforementioned measures
for protecting a victim or witness, we will present a hypothetical
example. Let us suppose that in an American city with disturbed and very
strained inter-racial relations the sexual assault of a member of one
race group by a member of another takes place. Terrified by the possible
revenge of the relations and neighbors of the attacker, the victim asks
the court to be allowed to testify under a pseudonym using image- and
voice- altering devices. Would the American court allow this? Certainly
not. And one of the reasons would be that such "testimony" would prevent
a fair trial.
After such a convincing example, it is necessary to ask the following
question. Why can American courts refuse this type of testimony and The
Hague Tribunal accepts it when both are concerned with the protection of
a victim or witness from possible reprisal by the accused, his relatives
or friends? The answer is surprising: the American court firmly believes
that the American judicature, including the police, is capable of
offering such protection. And as a rule it is, except in the rare cases
of organized crime. The Hague Tribunal is well aware that it is not up
to this and justifiably assumes that the so-called international
community, as embodied by the Security Council, has no intention
whatsoever of protecting any victim or witness from the Balkan cauldron.
So, if no-one is ready to protect the victims or witnesses, then at
least their identity can be hidden.
Had they taken one more step in forming this judgment, the Hague judges
would have had to ask themselves whether, under such conditions, they
should have taken on the job of judging at all if in order to protect
victims and witnesses they had to use measures that were implemented by
the Holy Inquisition. Had they any idea of the concept of sovereignty,
they would have asked the Security Council how it thought they could
take to court anyone if they were unable to provide the conditions
necessary for the execution of judicature. When in his famous work
"Leviathan" Thomas Hobbes demonstrated the essential traits of
sovereignty, he included
"the Right of Judicature, that is to say, of hearing and deciding all
Controversies which may arise concerning Law, either Civil or Natural or
concerning Fact".(16)
In the execution of judicature it is most important that sovereignty
provides general and complete protection of all subjects from injustice
by others. Because otherwise
"to every man remainth, from the natural and necessary appetite of his
own conservation, the right of protecting himself by his private
strength, which is the condition of War, and contrary to the end for
which every Common-wealth is instituted".(17)
In other words, he who would judge and is able to do so, is sovereign;
and as sovereign is bound to offer all subjects staunch protection from
violence and the injustice of others. Who is unable of offering the
second should not stand in judgment because he is not sovereign. The
members of the Security Council, particularly the permanent members,
wanted the first - to judge - without being capable of providing the
second - reliable protection. This resulted in the concealment of the
victims' and witnesses' identities and other measures as a clumsy
attempt to achieve what must be provided by a well instituted and
effective sovereign power.
Due to these important failings on the part of the Security Council and
The Hague Tribunal, a whole series of other unusual regulations to the
ridicule and shame of this Tribunal and its founders were created.
Particularly characteristic is Rule 99 which allows the arrest of a
suspect who has been acquitted. Truly a contradiction! However, this
contradiction came about for practical reasons. When the jury of an
American court of first instance brings a verdict of not guilty the
accused leaves the court room a free man, able to go where he will. The
prosecution can, of course, appeal against the first instance verdict
but it can not demand that an acquitted person stay in detention until a
second instance verdict is given. Sometimes the second instance court
revokes the first instance verdict and demands a retrial. Since the
suspect is free it may happen that he will not answer a summons by the
first instance court This, however, does not cause much worry as it is
assumed that !
the police, as an organ of sovereignty, must be capable of carrying out
every court order and bringing the person in question to trial.
The judges of The Hague Tribunal know very well although they are unable
to admit this publicly, that their sovereignty applies only to the court
room in which they judge and the prison where witnesses, suspects and
the accused are held. This forced them to make these contradictory
rules. In paragraph (A) of Rule 99, they stipulate that "in case of
acquittal the accused shall be released immediately". Then in paragraph
(B) they recant this rule by allowing the Trial Chamber, at the mere
hint of the Prosecutor submitting an appeal to "issue a warrant for the
arrest of the accused to take effect immediately". Thanks to this
sophistry, the accused can be freed and arrested at one stroke. Had The
Hague judges the ability to think logically, they would have otherwise
formulated the rule applied here: the Prosecutor shall decide on the
freeing or detaining of a person acquitted by a first instance Trial
Chamber. Truly in the spirit of the aforesaid Ottoman proverb: "The Cadi
prosecu!
tes, and the Cadi sentences".
To those well acquainted with constitutional and criminal law the rule
that allows for a witness to testify against himself is a real surprise.
Modern criminal law explicitly forbids this and a witness can refuse to
answer incriminating questions. For a long time this important legal
guarantee has been represented by the Fifth Amendment of the US
Constitution of 1787 whereby "no person .... shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself ".
The authors of The Hague Tribunal Rules did not pay much attention to
this great example and wrote Rule 90 paragraph (E) which allows for
forced self-incrimination:
"A witness may object to making any statement which might tend to
incriminate him. The Chamber may, however, compel the witness to answer
the question. Testimony compelled in this way shall not be used as
evidence in a subsequent prosecution against the witness for any offense
other than perjury".
It is worthwhile asking why the rule makers allowed for the forced
self-incrimination of a witness if such evidence would not be used
against him. They were probably presuming that war crimes are most often
carried out by groups of people who, if they are forced to do so, will
implicate each other. Supposing The Hague Tribunal had the opportunity
of imprisoning two persons suspected of committing the same war crime
without either knowing the fate of the other. One could be forced to
testify against the other with the assurance that his testimony would
not be used against him, and vice versa. In this way the Prosecutor can
obtain evidence against them both without there formally having been any
self- incrimination. To our great surprise the rule makers were very
perfidious in this matter, with no concern for the fact that their
resourcefulness and ingeniousness was in direct contradiction to the
principle of modern criminal law that self-incriminating cannot be
exacted.
Finally, the above mentioned rules contain a series of undefined
concepts which allow for whimsicality and caprice. A characteristic
example is given by Rule 79 which permits the exclusion of the media and
public from court proceedings or part of the proceedings for the
following reasons:
1) public order or morality;
2) safety, security or non-disclosure of the identity of a victim or
witness, or
3) the protection of the interests of justice.
In a well founded legal system only public order and morality are
considered to be valid reasons for the partial or complete exclusion of
the public from court proceedings, and this only under strictly defined
circumstances. The secrecy of court proceedings through concealment of
the identity of a victim or witness is inadmissible, as already shown,
while the "interests of justice" as a reason for the exclusion of the
public, is yet another innovation whereby The Hague Tribunal "enriched"
legal theory and practice. Justice is the supreme legal value and since
law and judicature exist for the realization of justice, the provision
of "interests of justice" as one of the reasons for the exclusion of the
public was done in order to create a blanket discretionary norm which
would allow the Trial Chamber to do what it wanted under the umbrella of
expediency. The term was also introduced as an excuse for the taking of
depositions for later use at a trial (Rule 71 paragraph A) and acc!
eptance of evidence of a consistent pattern of conduct relevant to
serious violations of international humanitarian law (Rule 93 paragraph
A).
Finally, Prosecutor Richard Goldstone did not want to miss the chance of
possibly using or abusing the very elastic norms containing the loose
term "interests of justice". This is why he included in the regulations
regarding his own power (being his own legislator), the stipulation that
in certain circumstances he could grant any concessions to persons who
participated in alleged offenses in order to secure their evidence in
the prosecution of others (for example, by refraining from prosecuting
an accomplice in return for the testimony of the accomplice against
another offender), and that this "may be appropriate in the interests of
justice".(18) He hereby made it known that he would be acting on his own
will and not in his official capacity, and that certain executors of
alleged crimes could be acquitted in return for cooperation, i.e. if
they were willing to blame their accomplices. This kind of trade-off was
what he called justice.
"THE JUSTICE WHICH IS NOT SEEN TO BE DONE"
Justice is taken to infer a certain type of equality, primarily an
elementary equality before the law. It would appear that the members of
the Security Council knew this when they introduced the following
regulation into the Statute of the International Tribunal:
"All persons shall be equal before the International Tribunal" (article
21, paragraph l).
This kind of equality is taken to mean that all detained persons at The
Hague have exactly the same conditions of detention and that no
exceptions will be made. However, The Hague Tribunal judges believed
that justice was what they thought it to be, and so they introduced into
their rules a regulation allowing for important differences in the
conditions of detention. According to Rule 64
"the President of the Tribunal may, on the application of a party,
request modification of the conditions of detention of an accused".
This is as if a Mafia boss in the US were to request of the judge
responsible for trying his case that he be allowed to await trial in his
own villa from where he had previously carried out his "business" on
condition he pay from his own pocket a prison guard to prevent him from
absconding.
However paradoxical this example may seem, this is what happened at The
Hague. While the terminally ill Serb General Djordje Djukic was interned
in a prison cell without adequate medical care, the Croat General
Tihomir Blaskic, through his powerful patrons, made a deal with the
Tribunal President that he await trial in a luxurious villa surrounded
by guards paid by his "friends", instead of in prison. According to
Antonio Cassese this was done in the interests of justice - the kind of
"justice" whereby it is easy "to be a cardinal if your father is the
pope".
There is an English saying: "Justice has not only to be done, but it has
to be seen to be done". What could be seen at The Hague was not justice
but caprice and injustice.
***
Footnotes
(15) Being a state, one of its institutions or some organization.
(16) Thomas Hobbes, "Leviathan", edited by C.B. Macpherson,
Harmondsworth. Penguin Books 1982, p. 234
(17) Ibid.
(18) Regulation No. 1 of 1994, as amended 17 May 1995.
***
We get by with a little help from our friends...
We receive all our funding from individuals like you, that is, from
people who have a critical attitude toward the Official Truth. We would
like everyone to read Emperor's Clothes whether they can afford to
contribute financially or not, but if you can make a contribution,
please do. Recently we were shut down for almost a week by a hacker. We
are taking steps to improve our security and also to increase the number
of people who hear about Emperor's Clothes. These improvements cost
money.
Small contributions help and so do big ones.
To make a donation, please mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box
610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. (USA)
Or click here to use our secure server.
Or call 617 916-1705 between 9:30 AM and 5:30 PM, Eastern Time (USA) and
ask for Bob. He we will take your credit card information over the
phone.
Thanks for reading Emperor's Clothes.
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
---
Bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"
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")
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
Sito WEB : http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Una newsletter personale,
un forum web personale,
una mailing list personale, ...?
Gratis sotto
http://www.ecircle.it/ad201158/www.ecircle.it
as part of the list "emperorsclothes", that you joined.
URL: http://www.emperors-clothes.com
------------------------------------------------------------
The URL for this article is
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/cavoski/c-4.htm
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
UNJUST FROM THE START, PART IV: LEARNING FROM THE INQUISITION
By Dr. Kosta Cavoski
[Part IV concludes this series of articles on the War Crimes Tribunal by
Professor Cavoski, the distinguished Yugoslav law scholar.]
MASKED WITNESSES
When in the medieval age the Inquisition wanted to protect an important
witness who was ready to testify that he/she had seen a suspect
communicating with the devil the witness was allowed to appear in court
with a mask, or hood, over the face. This was how the court heard the
"truth", and the witness was protected from the evil eye of the witch
who might take revenge after being burned at the stake.
In its fervent desire to protect the victims and witnesses of war crimes
in the former Yugoslavia from the [Serbian] devil, the makers of the
Rules of Procedure and Evidence similarly undertook to disguise the
identity of these victims and witnesses.
Thus, according to Rule 69 "in exceptional circumstances, the Prosecutor
may apply to a Trial Chamber to order the non-disclosure of the identity
of a victim or witness who may be in danger or at risk until such a
person is brought under the protection of the Tribunal. This type of
temporary concealment of a victim's or witnesses' identity can be
understood, especially as paragraph (C) of this Rule stipulates that
"the identity of the victim or witness shall be disclosed in sufficient
time prior to the trial to allow adequate time for preparation of the
defense".
What should not have been allowed under any circumstances was the
permanent concealment of the identity of victims or witnesses, neither
the allowing of a witness to refuse to answer a question on "grounds of
confidentiality". This is foreseen in Rule 70 paragraphs (B), (C) and
(D). Inasmuch as the Prosecutor obtains information given to him on
condition it remains confidential he can not disclose its source without
the agreement of the person or entity (15) who supplied it. This would
not be so unusual if such information were not used as evidence at the
trial. But the Prosecutor, with the consent of the person or
representative of an entity, may decide to use documents and other
material obtained in this way as evidence at the trial. In this case -
and this is indeed something very new - "the Trial Chamber may not order
either party to produce additional evidence received from the person or
entity providing the initial information, nor may the Trial Chamber, for
the purpose !
of obtaining such additional evidence itself summon that person or a
representative of that entity as a witness or order their attendance".
Still, the Prosecutor may call as a witness a person or entity that has
offered confidential information, but the Trial Chamber may not compel
the witness to answer any question the witness declines to answer on the
grounds of confidentiality.
One can ask what kind of witness gives the Prosecutor confidential
information and then refuses to answer further questions as to how such
information was obtained when the Trial Chamber has no right to insist.
As a rule they are undercover agents who have been operating illegally
in foreign countries in order to collect information that can not be
obtained by regular means. They are also governmental representatives
who have provided The Hague Tribunal with confidential information on
condition that it conceal the source of the information as well as the
manner in which it was obtained. The only remaining question is whether
such "evidence" can be accepted as valid or such clandestine "witnesses"
believed at all.
Another innovation that was introduced by the makers of the Rules was
testimony without the obligation to appear at the trial. According to
Rule 71, at the request of either party, the Trial Chamber "may, in
exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice, order a
deposition be taken for use at trial and appoint for that purpose, a
Presiding Officer". Naturally, it sometimes happens that an important
witness, for health reasons, is unable to leave his home or hospital to
attend a trial. But in such cases a hearing, under the presidency of the
judge, is held in the witness' room where the witness answers the
questions of the prosecution and defense. Allowing a court officer to
take a deposition on his own whenever the Trial Chamber considers it to
be "in the interest of justice", increases the possibility of abuse and
prevents the confrontation of witnesses testifying differently about the
same subject.
The greatest "innovations" introduced by the Rules was the permanent
concealment of the identity of witnesses, victims or anyone related to
or associated with them. Under the guise of preserving privacy and
protecting a witness or victim, according to Rule 75 a judge or trial
chamber can, at a session in camera [i.e., a closed session], take:
"measures to prevent disclosure to the public or the media of the
identity or whereabouts of a victim or a witness, or of persons related
to or associated with him by such means as:
a) expunging names and identifying information from the Chamber's public
record;
b) non-disclosure to the public of any records identifying the victim;
c) giving the testimony through image - or voice-altering devices or
closed circuit television and
d) assignment of a pseudonym."
Even this was not enough for the makers of these Rules and so they added
the possibility of closed sessions and appropriate measures to
facilitate the testimony of vulnerable victims and witnesses, such as
one-way closed circuit television.
JUDICATURE WITHOUT SOVEREIGNTY
There is no doubt whatsoever that the measures for the protection of a
witness which the Holy Inquisition was capable of offering were a
child's game compared to those provided by the Ruler of The Hague
Tribunal. The Inquisition was only able to offer a frightened witness
the possibility to enter the court by a side door under cover of night
and with a hood over the head. Possibly, and very probably, the
Inquisition would have taken the same measures as The Hague Tribunal
Rules had it been able to use the technology at the disposal of The
Hague judges today.
So as to understand more easily the "singularity" and also the
exceptional possibilities of violation of the aforementioned measures
for protecting a victim or witness, we will present a hypothetical
example. Let us suppose that in an American city with disturbed and very
strained inter-racial relations the sexual assault of a member of one
race group by a member of another takes place. Terrified by the possible
revenge of the relations and neighbors of the attacker, the victim asks
the court to be allowed to testify under a pseudonym using image- and
voice- altering devices. Would the American court allow this? Certainly
not. And one of the reasons would be that such "testimony" would prevent
a fair trial.
After such a convincing example, it is necessary to ask the following
question. Why can American courts refuse this type of testimony and The
Hague Tribunal accepts it when both are concerned with the protection of
a victim or witness from possible reprisal by the accused, his relatives
or friends? The answer is surprising: the American court firmly believes
that the American judicature, including the police, is capable of
offering such protection. And as a rule it is, except in the rare cases
of organized crime. The Hague Tribunal is well aware that it is not up
to this and justifiably assumes that the so-called international
community, as embodied by the Security Council, has no intention
whatsoever of protecting any victim or witness from the Balkan cauldron.
So, if no-one is ready to protect the victims or witnesses, then at
least their identity can be hidden.
Had they taken one more step in forming this judgment, the Hague judges
would have had to ask themselves whether, under such conditions, they
should have taken on the job of judging at all if in order to protect
victims and witnesses they had to use measures that were implemented by
the Holy Inquisition. Had they any idea of the concept of sovereignty,
they would have asked the Security Council how it thought they could
take to court anyone if they were unable to provide the conditions
necessary for the execution of judicature. When in his famous work
"Leviathan" Thomas Hobbes demonstrated the essential traits of
sovereignty, he included
"the Right of Judicature, that is to say, of hearing and deciding all
Controversies which may arise concerning Law, either Civil or Natural or
concerning Fact".(16)
In the execution of judicature it is most important that sovereignty
provides general and complete protection of all subjects from injustice
by others. Because otherwise
"to every man remainth, from the natural and necessary appetite of his
own conservation, the right of protecting himself by his private
strength, which is the condition of War, and contrary to the end for
which every Common-wealth is instituted".(17)
In other words, he who would judge and is able to do so, is sovereign;
and as sovereign is bound to offer all subjects staunch protection from
violence and the injustice of others. Who is unable of offering the
second should not stand in judgment because he is not sovereign. The
members of the Security Council, particularly the permanent members,
wanted the first - to judge - without being capable of providing the
second - reliable protection. This resulted in the concealment of the
victims' and witnesses' identities and other measures as a clumsy
attempt to achieve what must be provided by a well instituted and
effective sovereign power.
Due to these important failings on the part of the Security Council and
The Hague Tribunal, a whole series of other unusual regulations to the
ridicule and shame of this Tribunal and its founders were created.
Particularly characteristic is Rule 99 which allows the arrest of a
suspect who has been acquitted. Truly a contradiction! However, this
contradiction came about for practical reasons. When the jury of an
American court of first instance brings a verdict of not guilty the
accused leaves the court room a free man, able to go where he will. The
prosecution can, of course, appeal against the first instance verdict
but it can not demand that an acquitted person stay in detention until a
second instance verdict is given. Sometimes the second instance court
revokes the first instance verdict and demands a retrial. Since the
suspect is free it may happen that he will not answer a summons by the
first instance court This, however, does not cause much worry as it is
assumed that !
the police, as an organ of sovereignty, must be capable of carrying out
every court order and bringing the person in question to trial.
The judges of The Hague Tribunal know very well although they are unable
to admit this publicly, that their sovereignty applies only to the court
room in which they judge and the prison where witnesses, suspects and
the accused are held. This forced them to make these contradictory
rules. In paragraph (A) of Rule 99, they stipulate that "in case of
acquittal the accused shall be released immediately". Then in paragraph
(B) they recant this rule by allowing the Trial Chamber, at the mere
hint of the Prosecutor submitting an appeal to "issue a warrant for the
arrest of the accused to take effect immediately". Thanks to this
sophistry, the accused can be freed and arrested at one stroke. Had The
Hague judges the ability to think logically, they would have otherwise
formulated the rule applied here: the Prosecutor shall decide on the
freeing or detaining of a person acquitted by a first instance Trial
Chamber. Truly in the spirit of the aforesaid Ottoman proverb: "The Cadi
prosecu!
tes, and the Cadi sentences".
To those well acquainted with constitutional and criminal law the rule
that allows for a witness to testify against himself is a real surprise.
Modern criminal law explicitly forbids this and a witness can refuse to
answer incriminating questions. For a long time this important legal
guarantee has been represented by the Fifth Amendment of the US
Constitution of 1787 whereby "no person .... shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself ".
The authors of The Hague Tribunal Rules did not pay much attention to
this great example and wrote Rule 90 paragraph (E) which allows for
forced self-incrimination:
"A witness may object to making any statement which might tend to
incriminate him. The Chamber may, however, compel the witness to answer
the question. Testimony compelled in this way shall not be used as
evidence in a subsequent prosecution against the witness for any offense
other than perjury".
It is worthwhile asking why the rule makers allowed for the forced
self-incrimination of a witness if such evidence would not be used
against him. They were probably presuming that war crimes are most often
carried out by groups of people who, if they are forced to do so, will
implicate each other. Supposing The Hague Tribunal had the opportunity
of imprisoning two persons suspected of committing the same war crime
without either knowing the fate of the other. One could be forced to
testify against the other with the assurance that his testimony would
not be used against him, and vice versa. In this way the Prosecutor can
obtain evidence against them both without there formally having been any
self- incrimination. To our great surprise the rule makers were very
perfidious in this matter, with no concern for the fact that their
resourcefulness and ingeniousness was in direct contradiction to the
principle of modern criminal law that self-incriminating cannot be
exacted.
Finally, the above mentioned rules contain a series of undefined
concepts which allow for whimsicality and caprice. A characteristic
example is given by Rule 79 which permits the exclusion of the media and
public from court proceedings or part of the proceedings for the
following reasons:
1) public order or morality;
2) safety, security or non-disclosure of the identity of a victim or
witness, or
3) the protection of the interests of justice.
In a well founded legal system only public order and morality are
considered to be valid reasons for the partial or complete exclusion of
the public from court proceedings, and this only under strictly defined
circumstances. The secrecy of court proceedings through concealment of
the identity of a victim or witness is inadmissible, as already shown,
while the "interests of justice" as a reason for the exclusion of the
public, is yet another innovation whereby The Hague Tribunal "enriched"
legal theory and practice. Justice is the supreme legal value and since
law and judicature exist for the realization of justice, the provision
of "interests of justice" as one of the reasons for the exclusion of the
public was done in order to create a blanket discretionary norm which
would allow the Trial Chamber to do what it wanted under the umbrella of
expediency. The term was also introduced as an excuse for the taking of
depositions for later use at a trial (Rule 71 paragraph A) and acc!
eptance of evidence of a consistent pattern of conduct relevant to
serious violations of international humanitarian law (Rule 93 paragraph
A).
Finally, Prosecutor Richard Goldstone did not want to miss the chance of
possibly using or abusing the very elastic norms containing the loose
term "interests of justice". This is why he included in the regulations
regarding his own power (being his own legislator), the stipulation that
in certain circumstances he could grant any concessions to persons who
participated in alleged offenses in order to secure their evidence in
the prosecution of others (for example, by refraining from prosecuting
an accomplice in return for the testimony of the accomplice against
another offender), and that this "may be appropriate in the interests of
justice".(18) He hereby made it known that he would be acting on his own
will and not in his official capacity, and that certain executors of
alleged crimes could be acquitted in return for cooperation, i.e. if
they were willing to blame their accomplices. This kind of trade-off was
what he called justice.
"THE JUSTICE WHICH IS NOT SEEN TO BE DONE"
Justice is taken to infer a certain type of equality, primarily an
elementary equality before the law. It would appear that the members of
the Security Council knew this when they introduced the following
regulation into the Statute of the International Tribunal:
"All persons shall be equal before the International Tribunal" (article
21, paragraph l).
This kind of equality is taken to mean that all detained persons at The
Hague have exactly the same conditions of detention and that no
exceptions will be made. However, The Hague Tribunal judges believed
that justice was what they thought it to be, and so they introduced into
their rules a regulation allowing for important differences in the
conditions of detention. According to Rule 64
"the President of the Tribunal may, on the application of a party,
request modification of the conditions of detention of an accused".
This is as if a Mafia boss in the US were to request of the judge
responsible for trying his case that he be allowed to await trial in his
own villa from where he had previously carried out his "business" on
condition he pay from his own pocket a prison guard to prevent him from
absconding.
However paradoxical this example may seem, this is what happened at The
Hague. While the terminally ill Serb General Djordje Djukic was interned
in a prison cell without adequate medical care, the Croat General
Tihomir Blaskic, through his powerful patrons, made a deal with the
Tribunal President that he await trial in a luxurious villa surrounded
by guards paid by his "friends", instead of in prison. According to
Antonio Cassese this was done in the interests of justice - the kind of
"justice" whereby it is easy "to be a cardinal if your father is the
pope".
There is an English saying: "Justice has not only to be done, but it has
to be seen to be done". What could be seen at The Hague was not justice
but caprice and injustice.
***
Footnotes
(15) Being a state, one of its institutions or some organization.
(16) Thomas Hobbes, "Leviathan", edited by C.B. Macpherson,
Harmondsworth. Penguin Books 1982, p. 234
(17) Ibid.
(18) Regulation No. 1 of 1994, as amended 17 May 1995.
***
We get by with a little help from our friends...
We receive all our funding from individuals like you, that is, from
people who have a critical attitude toward the Official Truth. We would
like everyone to read Emperor's Clothes whether they can afford to
contribute financially or not, but if you can make a contribution,
please do. Recently we were shut down for almost a week by a hacker. We
are taking steps to improve our security and also to increase the number
of people who hear about Emperor's Clothes. These improvements cost
money.
Small contributions help and so do big ones.
To make a donation, please mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box
610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321. (USA)
Or click here to use our secure server.
Or call 617 916-1705 between 9:30 AM and 5:30 PM, Eastern Time (USA) and
ask for Bob. He we will take your credit card information over the
phone.
Thanks for reading Emperor's Clothes.
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
---
Bollettino di controinformazione del
Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'"
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")
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Contributi e segnalazioni: <jugocoord@...>
Sito WEB : http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Una newsletter personale,
un forum web personale,
una mailing list personale, ...?
Gratis sotto
http://www.ecircle.it/ad201158/www.ecircle.it
