Informazione
Prenos tela podudara se s 70-om godišnjicom smrti Viktora Emanuela III, koji je sahranjen u Aleksandriji u Egiptu.
Viktor Emanuele III odrekao se u maju 1946. godine prestola u korist sina, Umberta II, a mesec dana nakon toga na referendumu je uspostavljena Italijanska Republika.
Viktor Emanuele umro je u Aleksandriji, Egiptu, godinu nakon odlaska iz Italije, a njegova udovica ostala je u izgnanstvu u Francuskoj.
Kraljica Jelena umrla je u Monpeljeu 1952. godine.
Jelena Petrović Njegoš bila je šesta kćerka crnogorskog kralja Nikole i kraljice Milene.
Imala je petoro dece.
RTCG navodi da su zasluge Jelene Savojske za italijanski narod bile su tolike da je katolički biskup Rišar iz Monpeljea inicirao da se ona proglasi za sveticu.
(Tanjug/Telegraf.rs)
su Il Manifesto del 19.12.2017
Sono poco interessato alla sede sepolcrale che raccolga i resti di Vittorio Emanuele III, detto «Sciaboletta».
Scongiurato il Pantheon o Superga, sono finiti in un santuario piemontese: in fondo una «cristiana sepoltura» non si nega a nessuno.
Ma, come’è ovvio, «la questione è politica»: e un breve ripasso storico ci può aiutare a capire e giudicare.
Davanti alle polemiche sollevate da più parti, si è dovuto constatare qualche difesa d’ufficio, volta a sminuire le responsabilità del «re vittorioso», e della casata sabauda. Sono risonate parole già udite in passato: il buon re Vittorio non era consenziente con le sciagurate iniziative del Duce, anche se, sbagliando, sottoscrisse gesti politici, iniziative diplomatiche, atti giuridici, che sarebbe stato bene non avesse sottoscritto.
E a chi incalza, ricordando che comunque egli fece tutto questo, si risponde che il re lo fece un po’ per quieto vivere, un po’ per debolezza, un po’ per via dell’isolamento in cui era stato confinato da rapporti di forza sfavorevoli con il fascismo.
Insomma, un sovrano più «actus» che «agens», che assomiglia tanto al Mussolini di Renzo De Felice, che «non voleva», che «non era d’accordo», che «venne costretto a…».
A coloro che invece imprecano contro questo ennesimo «ritorno dei Savoia», va ricordato, tuttavia, che le colpe di quel bel tomo che ha trovato infine da ieri l’eterno riposo terreno, sono ben antecedenti alle infami leggi razziali del 1938: in sintesi, la sua intera carriera politica è stata all’insegna del tradimento degli interessi della nazione, della volontà del suo popolo, degli stessi orientamenti politici del Parlamento. Nel maggio 1915 egli firmò l’entrata in guerra dell’Italia, contro il volere della larga maggioranza del Parlamento, d’accordo soltanto con il primo ministro (Salandra) e il responsabile degli Esteri (Sonnino)..
Si trattò di un vero e proprio colpo di Stato: il primo di una serie, come ricordò il grande Luigi Salvatorelli.
Il modo con cui l’esercito – di cui il re era pur sempre il comandante in capo – nella persona del suo capo militare, il generale Luigi Cadorna (poi sostituito da Armando Diaz), affrontò la crisi di Caporetto nell’autunno ’17 fu vergognoso: l’aver dar la colpa ai soldati «vilmente arresisi», costituì un’autentica infamia. Seguirono persecuzioni verso i socialisti, accusati di avere provocato la disfatta, una pessima gestione dei profughi italiani provenienti dalle terre venete invase dal nemico austro-germanico, e via seguitando.
In quella guerra il fascismo affondò le sue radici, ed ecco che si arrivò al secondo colpo di stato di Vittorio: la mancata firma del decreto di stato d’assedio per fronteggiare la Marcia Su Roma, deciso dal Governo Facta, l’ultimo dei ministeri liberali, aprendo così la strada all’avvento mussoliniano al potere.
Un’azione palesemente illegale, un attacco armato alla capitale del Regno, da parte di un partito militare come il Pnf, venne tranquillamente accolto dal sovrano, che non solo ritirò il decreto, ma due giorni dopo accolse in pompa magna Mussolini che sfacciatamente gli sibilò: «Maestà vi porto l’Italia di Vittorio Veneto», e fu preso sul serio.
Nel Ventennio il re, checché ne dicano «storici» compiacenti, appoggiò e sostenne ogni impresa del Duce, al quale concesse addirittura la massima onorificenza della casa regnante, il Collare dell’Annunziata, che rendeva Mussolini «cugino» di Vittorio.
Fra le tante bassezze e illegalità commesse da colui che avrebbe dovuto difendere lo Statuto Albertino – ossia la Costituzione – e lo violò ripetutamente, ricordo la firma del decreto che dichiarava decaduti i deputati aventiniani, nel 1926, e il pacchetto delle leggi fascistissime di Rocco, a cominciare dalla istituzione di un Tribunale Speciale: una incredibile fuoruscita dallo Stato di diritto.
In questa deriva, la firma delle leggi razziali furono la ciliegia sulla torta.
L’arresto di Mussolini, il 26 luglio ’43, dopo giorni di terribili (e vigliacchi) bombardamenti alleati su Roma, lungi dal costituire un gesto riparatorio, fu un nuovo atto illegale: il terzo colpo di Stato del re.
In fondo Mussolini era il capo del governo «legittimo» (reso tale da leggi illegittime), che fino al giorno prima aveva governato col pieno assenso del re. Il cui tardivo risveglio certo non può assolvere Vittorio. La successiva fuga ignominiosa al Sud, mentre l’esercito si squagliava e il Centronord era lasciato in mano ai tedeschi, fu l’ultimo oltraggio alla dignità e alla libertà d’Italia.
Insomma, se questo è un re vittorioso…
Tiziano Tussi
17/12/2017
Questa la dizione perfetta della XIII disposizione finale e transitoria della nostra Costituzione sino alla fine di ottobre del 2002
I membri e i discendenti di Casa Savoia non sono elettori e non possono ricoprire uffici pubblici né cariche elettive.
Agli ex re di Casa Savoia, alle loro consorti e ai loro discendenti maschi sono vietati l\'ingresso e il soggiorno nel territorio nazionale.
I beni, esistenti nel territorio nazionale, degli ex re di Casa Savoia, delle loro consorti e dei loro discendenti maschi, sono avocati allo Stato. I trasferimenti e le costituzioni di diritti reali sui beni stessi, che siano avvenuti dopo il 2 giugno 1946, sono nulli.
Il primo ed il secondo comma sono stati aboliti dalla legge costituzionale del 23 ottobre 2002.
Il tutto fatto senza aver sollevato allora particolari dimostrazioni di protesta, neppure dell\'ANPI. Ora ci ritroviamo sia i discendenti sabaudi che appaiono in troppe trasmissioni televisive, e lasciamo perdere ogni commento alle performances di Emanuele Filiberto, sia alla presenza di un re in pectore che molti anni fa ha sparato con un fucile verso una barca attraccata vicino alla sua, nel mare tra Sardegna e Corsica, uccidendo un giovane tedesco. Omicidio che il re senza trono non ha praticamente pagato dato che è stato condannato ad una pena ridicola, sei mesi, per porto abusivo d\'armi.
Bene, eliminati gli ostacoli personali - ma tenutisi gli averi della corona, almeno quelli che sono stati nelle possibilità di prendersi -, lo stato italiano permette ai resti di Vittorio Emanuele III di ritornare in Italia, come se questo ritorno fosse una riconciliazione storica come un\'altra. Come se il tutto fosse condito nella solita zuppa della pietà per i morti. Strano comportamento questo del governo, che manda un aereo militare in Egitto a prendersi ciò che rimane del re piccolino.
Proprio un deputato del partito che lo mantiene in vita, il governo intendo, il partito del PD, tale Emanuele Fiano, figlio di un deportato nei campi nazisti, è il primo firmatario di una legge che eleva a reato la divulgazione di analisi e posizioni fasciste. Sempre il PD ha convocato recentemente una manifestazione a Como proprio contro i rigurgiti fascisti in quelle zone, e, per estensione, nell\'Italia tutta. Altra istituzione, altro luogo. Il 12 dicembre di quest\'anno in Piazza Fontana, il sindaco Beppe Sala, uomo eletto con i voti del PD a Milano, in piazza richiama \"all\'antifascismo militante\", testuale. Insomma, parrebbe che l\'antifascismo abbia sfondato tutte le porte nel governo di centro sinistra.
Ed adesso ci becchiamo il ritorno della salma di un re che ha aperto le porte al fascismo, al nazismo, alle leggi antisemite del 1938, a ben due guerre mondiali. La prima, utilizzando D\'Annunzio come capopopolo per convincere gli italiani pacifisti, per la seconda assecondando totalmente il duce del \"vincere e vinceremo\". Un sovrano fra i peggiori della già orribile monarchia sabauda - basterebbe vedere le giravolte di alleanze nelle guerre europee del 1700 - per giungere alle sconcezze del 1900. Ed è a questi bei tipi che il governo antifascista e tutto l\'entourage del PD ha aperto l\'inumazione in un sacrario del Piemonte. Aspettiamo la traslazione, tra poco, per carità, a Roma, al Pantheon, cosa che il prode Emanuele Filiberto già reclama.
Questa come ogni altra considerazione e comportamento del nostro spudorato governo che dice una cosa e ne fa un\'altra, cercando con le parole pezze giustificative, delle toppe, alle sue lacerazioni, che il Paese deve poi pagare. E non stiamo ad ascoltare le insulse parole del sindaco del piccolo paese, Vicoforte nella provincia di Cuneo, in cui si trova il mausoleo. La storia ha già dato un giudizio negativo di questo re. Il resto riguarda l\'ignoranza civile e culturale di persone che non hanno capacità di tenere una dirittura morale civile. La difficoltà del dovere essere moralmente retti.
\n
[Il 2017 si chiude con la notizia che il \"Tribunale ad hoc\" dell\'Aia ha scagionato de facto, per la seconda volta, Slobodan Milošević dalla accusa di avere \"partecipato a una impresa criminale congiunta\" in Bosnia-Erzegovina. Questa nuova sentenza di assoluzione è nascosta tra gli incartamenti della sentenza contro Ratko Mladić, laddove la prima era nascosta negli incartamenti della sentenza contro Radovan Karadzić. Con questa presa d\'atto ingloriosa, che non è registrata nelle cronache di regime, si chiude lo stesso \"Tribunale ad hoc\", che dopo avere operato per un ventennio contro la pace e contro la giustizia in relazione alle guerre di spartizione della Jugoslavia, \"passa le carte\" a una nuova istituzione \"ad hoc\" – il Meccanismo ONU per i Tribunali Internazionali – che proseguirà con una scrittura della storia ad uso e consumo delle potenze imperialiste.
Ricordiamo che sull\'operato del \"Tribunale ad hoc\" Jugocoord Onlus ha bandito un concorso per saggi scientifici che ne ricostruiscano il ruolo e l\'operato effettivo:
“Giuseppe Torre” Prizes for Critical Studies about the Tribunal for the ex Yugoslavia
https://www.cnj.it/home/en/international-law/8685-giuseppe-torre-prizes.html
(a cura di Italo Slavo)]
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg_aw113017.htm
Hague Tribunal Exonerates Slobodan Milosevic Again
Eleven years after his death, a second trial chamber at the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague has concluded that Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
www.slobodan-milosevic.org - November 30, 2017
Written by: Andy Wilcoxson
More than eleven years after his death, a second trial chamber at the UN War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague has concluded that former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic was not responsible for war crimes committed in Bosnia where the worst atrocities associated with the break-up of Yugoslavia took place.
Buried in a footnote deep in the fourth volume of the judgment against Bosnian-Serb General Ratko Mladic the judges unanimously conclude that “The evidence received by the trial chamber did not show that Slobodan Milosevic, Jovica Stanisic, Franko Simatovic, Zeljko Raznatovic, or Vojislav Seselj participated in the realization of the common criminal objective” to establish an ethnically-homogenous Bosnian-Serb entity through the commission of crimes alleged in the indictment.[1]
This is an important admission because practically the entire Western press corps and virtually every political leader in every Western country has spent the last 25 years telling us that Slobodan Milosevic was a genocidal monster cut from the same cloth as Adolf Hitler. We were told that he was the “Butcher of the Balkans,” but there was never any evidence to support those accusations. We were lied to in order to justify economic sanctions and NATO military aggression against the people of Serbia – just like they lied to us to justify the Iraq war.
This is the second successive trial chamber at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to conclude that Slobodan Milosevic was not guilty of the most serious crimes he was accused of.
Last year, the Radovan Karadzic trial chamber also concluded that “the Chamber is not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence presented in this case to find that Slobodan Milosevic agreed with the common plan” to permanently remove Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb claimed territory.[2]
The Tribunal has done nothing to publicize these findings despite the fact that Slobodan Milosevic was accused of 66 counts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity by the Tribunal.
Milosevic died in the Tribunal’s custody before the conclusion of his own trial. He was found dead in his cell after suffering a heart attack in the UN Detention Unit two weeks after the Tribunal denied his request for provisional release so that he could have heart surgery that would have saved his life.[3]
Dr. Leo Bokeria, the coronary specialist who would have overseen Milosevic’s treatment at the Bakulev Medical Center, said: “If Milosevic was taken to any specialized Russian hospital, the more so to such a stationary medical institution as ours, he would have been subjected to coronographic examination, two stents would be made, and he would have lived for many long years to come. A person has died in our contemporary epoch, when all the methods to treat him were available and the proposals of our country and the reputation of our medicine were ignored. As a result, they did what they wanted to do.”[4]
Less than 72 hours before his death, Milosevic’s lawyer delivered a letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in which Milosevic expressed fear that he was being poisoned.[5]
The Tribunal’s inquiry into Milosevic’s death confirmed that Rifampicin (an unprescribed drug that would have compromised the efficacy of his high blood pressure medication) was found in one of his blood tests, but that that he was not informed of the results until months later “because of the difficult legal position in which Dr. Falke (the Tribunal’s chief medical officer) found himself by virtue of the Dutch legal provisions concerning medical confidentiality.”[6]
There are no Dutch legal provisions that prohibit a doctor from telling a patient the result of their own blood test, and U.S. diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks show that the Tribunal had zero regard for medical confidentiality laws when they gave detailed information about Slobodan Milosevic’s health and medical records to personnel at the US embassy in The Hague without his consent.[7]
Milosevic’s trial had been going badly for the prosecution. It was glaringly obvious to any fair-minded observer that he was innocent of the crimes he was accused of. James Bissett, Canada’s former ambassador to Yugoslavia, said Milosevic’s trial “had taken on all the characteristics of a Stalinist show trial.” George Kenny, who manned the U.S. State Department’s Yugoslavia desk, also denounced the Milosevic trial proceedings as “inherently unfair, amounting to little more than a political show trial”.[8]
The trial was a public relations disaster for the Tribunal. Midway through the Prosecution’s case, the London Times published an article smearing Slobodan Milosevic’s wife and lamenting the fact that “One of the ironies of Slobodan’s trial is that it has bolstered his popularity. Hours of airtime, courtesy of the televised trial, have made many Serbs fall in love with him again.”[9]
While the trial enhanced Milosevic’s favorability, it destroyed the Tribunal’s credibility with the Serbian public. The Serbian public had been watching the trial on television, and when the Serbian Human Rights Ministry conducted a public opinion poll three years into the trial it found that “three quarters of Serbian citizens believe that The Hague Tribunal is a political rather than a legal institution.”[10]
Tim Judah, a well-known anti-Milosevic journalist and author, was dismayed as he watched the trial unfold. He wrote that “the trial of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic at The Hague is going horribly wrong, turning him in the eyes of the public from a villain charged with war crimes into a Serbian hero.”[11]
By late 2005, Milosevic’s detractors wanted the live broadcasts of the trial yanked off the air because it was not having the political effect that they had hoped it would. Political analyst Daniel Cveticanin wrote, “It seems that the coverage benefits more those it was supposed to expose than the Serbian public. [The] freedom-loving and democratic intentions of the live coverage have not produced [the] planned effects.”[12]
Milosevic’s supporters, on the other hand, were emphatic. They wanted the live broadcasts to continue because they knew he was innocent and they wanted the public to see that for themselves.[13]
Slobodan Milosevic’s exoneration, by the same Tribunal that killed him eleven years ago, is cold comfort for the people of Serbia. The Serbian people endured years of economic sanctions and a NATO bombing campaign against their country because of the unfounded allegations against their president.
Although the Tribunal eventually admitted that it didn’t have evidence against Slobodan Milosevic, its disreputable behavior should make you think twice before accepting any of its other findings.
[1] ICTY, Mladic Judgment, Vol. IV, 22 November 2017, Pg. 2090, Footnote 15357
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/mladic/tjug/en/171122-4of5_1.pdf
[2] ICTY, Karadzic Judgment, 24 March 2016, Para. 3460
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tjug/en/160324_judgement.pdf
[3] ICTY Case No. IT-02-54 Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic, Decision on Assigned Counsel Request for Provisional Release, February 23, 2006
[4] “Milosevic Could Be Saved if He Was Treated in Russia - Bokeria,” Itar-Tass (Russia), March 15, 2006
[5] Text of Slobodan Milosevic’s Letter to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/sm030806.htm
[6] Judge Kevin Parker (Vice-President of the ICTY), Report to the President of the ICTY: Death of Slobodan Milosevic, May 2006; ¶ 31, 76
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/custom2/en/parkerreport.pdf
[7] U.S. State Dept. Cable #03THEHAGUE2835_a, “ICTY: An Inside Look Into Milosevic’s Health and Support Network”
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/03THEHAGUE2835_a.html
[8] “Milosevic trial delayed as witnesses refuse to testify,” The Irish Times, September 18, 2004
[9] “Listening to Lady Macbeth,” Sunday Times (London), January 5, 2003
[10] “Public Opinion Firmly Against Hague,” B92 News (Belgrade), August 2, 2004
[11] Tim Judah, “Serbia Backs Milosevic in Trial by TV - Alarm as Former President Gains the Upper Hand in War Crimes Tribunal,” The Observer (London), March 3, 2002
[12] “Debate Opens in Serbia Over Live Coverage of Milosevic War Crimes Trial,” Associated Press Worldstream, September 22, 2005
[13] “Serbian NGO Opposes Decision to Drop Live Broadcast of Milosevic Trial,” BBC Monitoring International Reports, October 8, 2003; Source: FoNet news agency, Belgrade, in Serbian 1300 gmt 8 Oct 03; See Also: “Serbia: Milosevic Sympathisers Protest Inadequate Coverage of Trial,” BBC Worldwide Monitoring, June 10, 2002; Source: RTS TV, Belgrade, in Serbo-Croat 1730 gmt 10 Jun 02
\n
Dietmar Hartwig’s warning letters to Angela Merkel
Global Research, December 19, 2017
It seems that the recent developments in Europe, and in particular the rising secessionism (Catalonia, Flandreau, Corsica, Veneto, Scotland), rings a bell, or rather is reminiscent of certain events. The ensuing ones are shedding more light on the roles of the EU (EEC), the USA, Great Britain and Germany. One wonders to what extent those democracies have been guided by the principles of international law and democracy pertaining to the Kosovo crisis.
How much did they appreciate the reports of their (expensive) missions in Kosovo and Metohija (КDОМ, КVМ, ЕCMM) depicting the realities on the ground?
To what extent have they been defending the right to self-determination and human rights and to what extent using separatism for expansion of their geopolitical interests?
As strategies are slow to evolve, recollections of the past may help better understanding of the interests and roles of the USA, Germany, NATO, EU and other geopolitical players in the ongoing Kosovo negotiations in Brussels paired with Serbia’s accession to the EU.
Over a longer period of time, the leading members of both, NATO and the EU, have been supporting the terrorist KLA[1] by political, financial and logistic means. This was particularly visible in 1998. In June that year USA abandoned previous position that KLA was terrorist organization and proclaimed it as liberation force[2]. OSCE Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM) with personnel of about 1.300[3], from October 1998 to March 1999 was just an imposed and imported umbrella for preparation of the ensuing military aggression. This period was particularly exploited for recuperation and equipping KLA with modern NATO equipment. Subsequently, NATO treated KLA as its ground force in launching military aggression against Serbia (FRY), country which in no way was threatening any other country or organization.
The aggression in clear breach of the UN Charter, without even trying to get consent of the UN Security Council, was a turning point in the world relations towards globalization of the interventionism without authorization of UN SC. To sum it up, the countries and integrations whose highest representatives swear that they have always been upholding the principles and rule-based policies, back in 1999 had provoked the strongest blow to the global legal order and to the United Nations since the end of World War II.
The policies pursued by governments of those countries and by integrations thereof during the Yugoslav and the Kosovo crises have provoked the spread of secession movements, expansion of Islamic extremism and terrorism. Double standards policy toward separatism and terrorism backfire today in Europe and beyond.
By violating the basic principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, in the UN Charter and in international conventions and treaties, NATO and EU member countries have induced a lasting instability in the Balkans as the most vulnerable part of Europe. Siding with the extremist, terrorist and criminals of KLA, in one hand, and condemning, satanizing and even bombing Serbia, in other hand, had been anything but token of democratic, humanistic, law based, anti extremist or anti terrorist policy. Such EU and NATO key members’ policy ought to be invoked today if we have a will and courage to explain at least some causes of the current spread of extremism, terrorism, organized crimes and separatism in Europe and beyond. If we are ready to face extremists and terrorist in proper way.
Presently, USA, Germany and Great Britain are exerting pressure against Serbia, the one they have been demolishing, deceiving and humiliating by recognizing the forcible capture of her state territory in the form of an engineered unilateral and illegal secession of Kosovo, and requesting that Serbia erases it all from track-record and forgets it all “for the sake of her European future”! What kind of future could it possibly be built upon such foundations!?
The separatist and terrorist genie that the leading countries of NATO and the EU have unleashed from the battle in Kosovo and Metohija back in 1998/99 for the purpose of furthering the geopolitical goals of the USA, Germany and the UK keeps spreading over Europe, while the EU and NATO believe they would be able to push it back into the bottle clearing they names and revive their dented unity by scarifying once again (interests of) Serbia! The real tragedy for Europe is the reasoning that truth is only what the EU commissioners declare to be the truth! The dominance of such reasoning is preventing the genuine understanding of historical maelstrom that has engulfed the Old Continent!
“War on the FRY was waged to rectify an erroneous decision of General Eisenhower from the Second World War. Therefore, due to strategic reasons, the U.S. soldiers have to be stationed there.” This was the explanation given by American representatives at a NATO conference held in late April 2000 in Bratislava, noted by Willy Wimmer, former State Secretary in the German ministry of Defense, in his report to Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder dated 2 May 2000.
The first point in this report is an explicit U.S. request that NATO members and candidate members recognize ‘independent state of Kosovo’ as soon as possible, whereas the tenth, last point, reads that ‘the right to self-determination takes precedence over all others”. Should one be surprised now by the present referendum on secession of Catalonia? Or, to save their faces, Europeans should continue to keep repeating USA false, shortsighted claim that “Kosovo is unique case”?
Wimmer’s report also notes the U.S. declared position at the Bratislava Conference was that the 1999 NATO attack on Yugoslavia without UN SC authorization is “a precedent to be invoked by anyone at any time, and which is going to be invoked”. This renders any allegations of a principled and rule-based policy utterly dubious: if the military aggression launched in violation of the UN Charter is declared to be a precedent then unilateral secession being direct result of such aggression can hardly be claimed “unique case”! Normally, if the logic and principles have any place in NATO&EU geo-policies!
In the eve of NATO 1999 aggression on Yugoslavia two major international missions had been actively engaged in the Province of Kosovo and Metohija. One under auspices of OSCE known as Kosovo Verification Mission (KVM), headed by American diplomat William Walker and the other under the auspices of EEC (EU) known as European Community Monitoring Mission (ECMM), headed by German diplomat and army officer Dietmar Hartwig. The author had opportunity to meet Mr. Hartwig in 2002 in Belgrade, on his request. This was about three years following the end of his EU assignment in Kosovo and Metohija. He demanded consultations on his intention to be witness in ICTY process against former President Slobodan Milosevic. In the prolonged talks during his stay in Belgrade, Mr. Hartwig stated several times that during his assignment in Kosovo and Metohija before the NATO attack his KVM counterpart ambassador Walker surprised him by his harsh, highly provocative behavior and aggressive instructions to his subordinates. “You should all know that there is no such thing as high cost to deploy NATO in Kosovo. Any cost is acceptable” – was one of apparently Walker’s typical instruction to his subordinates before the aggression started on March 24rth, 1999, according to Hartwig.
NATO aggression – illegitimate act
After Kosovo Albanian leadership declared unilateral illegal secession in 2006, Dietmar Hartwig in 2007 sent four letters to the German Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her that Germany should not recognize such unilateral illegal act. In his letter of October 26, 2007 Hartwig says:
“Not a single report (of ЕCMM) submitted from late November 1998 up to the evacuation (of ЕCMM, KVM) just before the war broke out (March 24rth, 1999), contains any account of Serbs having committed any major or systematic crimes against Albanians, and not a single report refers to any genocide or similar crimes… Quite the contrary, my (ECMM) reports have repeatedly communicated that, considering the increasingly more frequent KLA attacks against the Serbian executive authorities, their law enforcement kept demonstrating remarkable restraint and discipline. This was a clear and persistently reiterated goal of the Serbian administration – to abide to the Milošević-Holbrooke Agreement (of October 13, 1998) to the letter so not to provide any excuse to the international community for an intervention. In the phase of taking over the Regional Office in Priština, colleagues from various other missions – KDOM, U.S., British, Russian, etc. – confirmed that there were huge ‘discrepancies in perception’ between what said missions (and, to a certain degree, embassies as well) have been reporting to their respective governments and what the latter thereafter chose to release to the media and the public of their respective countries. This discrepancy could, ultimately, only be understood as an input to general preparations for war against Kosovo/Yugoslavia. The fact is that, until the time of my departure from Kosovo, there has never happened anything of what have been relentlessly claimed by the media and, with no less intensity, the politics, too. Accordingly, until 20 March (1999) there was no reason for military intervention, which renders illegitimate any measures undertaken thereafter by the international community.”
“Kosovo place of restlessness”
“The collective behavior of the EU Member States prior to, and after the war broke out, certainly gives rise to a serious concern, because the truth was lacking, and the credibility of the international community was damaged. However, the matter of my concern is exclusively the role of the FR of Germany and its role in this war and its political objective to separate Kosovo from Serbia…”
“The daily political news reporting over the previous months (before October 2007) made it progressively more evident that Germany not only supports the American desire to see Kosovo independent, but also actively engages on its own in dividing the Serbs…You are to be considered responsible for this. The same goes for your foreign minister, in particular, who knows perfectly well what is going on in Kosovo, and is presently pursuing your political directives by tirelessly advocating Kosovo’s independence and, thus, its secession from Serbia. Instruct him, rather, to promote a durable solution for the Kosovo issue which is in line with the international law… It is only if all states choose to observe the applicable rights, we can have the foundations for the common life of all nations. Should Kosovo become independent, it will be perpetuated as the place of restlessness… Contribute to achieving the solution for Kosovo on the basis of the endorsed UNSC Resolution 1244 pursuant to which Kosovo remains a province of Serbia. American wishes and active efforts to see Kosovo secede from Serbia and see Kosovo and Kosovo Albanians achieve full independence, are contrary to the international law, politically deprecated and, on top of all, irresponsibly expensive…”
Others to claim “Kosovo solution”
“Kosovo’s secession from Serbia guided by ethnic criterion would constitute a dangerous precedent and a signal for other ethnic communities in other countries, including in EU Member States, who could rightfully request the ‘Kosovo solution’” – says Dietmar Hartwig in concluding his letter to Chancellor Merkel.
Enough said about the ‘humanitarian intervention’ and the concerns for the protection of rights of the Albanian population as the features of the “uniqueness of the Kosovo case”. American Military base “Bondsteel” in the vicinity of the town of Uroševac, surely by a pure chance, happens to be among the largest U.S. military bases outside the USA! Perhaps their anxiety over being potentially spied on from the Serbian-Russian Humanitarian Center in the City of Niš uncovers awareness that “Bondsteel” is illegally built there?!
It was the U.S.A, the EU and NATO, not Serbia, who froze the conflict following the armed aggression of 1999. They and kept it frozen for the past 18 years by not allowing complete implementation of UN SC resolution 1244. They pressed Serbia to fulfill all its commitments insisting on the legally obliging character of the resolution while exempting them and the Albanians from any obligation therein. They realized that full implementation of UNSCR 1244 means preservation of sovereignty and integrity of Serbia, values which do not suit their geopolitical objective of expanding to the East (Russia) and South-East (Mediterranean).
At present the West, primarily Germany, insist that Serbia ‘unfreezes’ Kosovo “independence process”. How? By compelling Serbia to sign a ‘legally binding agreement’ with Pristine, to recognize a illegal unilateral secession, legalize illegal 1999 aggression, permanently accept over 250.000 dislocated Serbs and other non-Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija and essentially assume responsibility for all what has happened or may happen in the future!
The German case
French General Pierre Marie Galois, close assistant to the late French President General De Gaulle, is very interesting and reliable witness of the Germany’s politics toward Yugoslavia, particularly toward Serbia and Serbs. In his address to the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals on occasion of the 10thanniversary of NATO aggression he recalls that “dismantling of Yugoslavia was an operation that had been planned in Germany for a long time. They were not just waiting for the death of President Tito in 1980, but were preparing succession and profiting from his departure by reorganizing this territory[4].” To explain and support this assessment, General Galois considers three key motives behind such German geopolitics:
First, “there was obvious (Germany’s, aut.) desire to exert revenge on the Serbs who twice, from 1914 to 1918 and from 1939 to 1945 joined with allies against Germany”…“Second, Germans wanted to reward the Croats and the Bosnian Moslems who had joined Nazi Germany”…Third, they wanted Slovenia and Croatia in the sphere of Germany’s interests (EEC) as well as access to the Mediterranean via Adriatic.
Historians will certainly judge objectively the validity of General Galois’ arguments, but it is beyond any doubt that he was exceptionally capable and highly respected military and political strategist in the post WWII France, with access to very important sources of information. Also, his assessment does not contradict other available information. Let it be noted, for instance, that in the eve of civil wars in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina at the beginning of 90-ies of the last Century thousands of tones of military hardware from former GDR was illegally exported from Germany to Croatia arming its paramilitary forces. In addition, Germany was the first country to recognize unilateral secessions of Slovenia and Croatia. It was done December 23rd, 1991 by Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher who disregarded call of UN SG Perez de Cuellar who urged Germany to wait for recognition to be part of the peace plan. The rest of the 12 EEC members followed Genscher’s step.
In the period of 90-es of the last Century Germany was the source of financing separatists and terrorists in Kosovo and Metohija (KLA). So called “Kosovo government in exile” headed by Bujar Bukosi had an office and network of collecting funds in Germany and other West European countries (Belgium, Switzerland, Italy) for recruiting, training and arming the terrorists. In various occasions and on various diplomatic levels this problem was presented to German authorities in order that they stop anti Serbian (FRY) activities from their territory and comply with the diplomatic rules, national and international laws, including specific decisions of the UN Security council. Unfortunately, these interventions had no effects.
On December 9-10th, 1997,the Council of the Peace Implementation in Bosnia and Herzegovina was convened in Bon (Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement). The Yugoslav Delegation, headed by Political Director of the Federal Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Dragomir Vucicevic was well prepared for participation, particularly having regard that FR of Yugoslavia was one of the guarantors of the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement. However, German Minister for Foreign Affairs Claus Kinkel,after opening the Conference, insisted that the agenda of the Conference be expanded to include consideration of the issue of Kosovo and Metohija which had no relevance to the Dayton-Paris Peace Agreement. Kinkel’s method of fait-a-complie, naturally, was unacceptable from the point of the framework of the Conference, practice applied at the preceding conferences and principle of transparent preparations. In addition, Serbia (FRY) had maintained position that Kosovo and Metohija is an issue of internal nature which will be resolved by political methods respecting territorial integrity and sovereignty of Serbia (FRY). Therefore Yugoslav Delegation abandoned Bon Conference.
Unitarization of Bosnia and fragmentation of Serbia
Interestingly, Bon’s final document is one of the most extensive of all Council’s documents and so called “Bon’s Full Powers” made the High Representative the ultimate legislative and executive authority in Bosnia and Herzegovina – above the Parliamentary Assembly, Presidency, governments. So called Bon’s 1997 principles made the whole Dayton-Paris system deformed, non-functional, non-delivering, and so up today. If there is a single or key cause for Bosnia and Herzegovina being dysfunctional and unstable today, than it is Bon’s “Full Powers” originating from Germany’s Foreign Ministry and its geopolitics. Using and abusing Bon’s “Full Powers” the High Representative had been imposing laws systematically curbing authority of the entities and transferring the power to Sarajevo thus reopening process of centralization and unitarization, destabilizing political system as laid down in Dayton. This process has been particularly directed to deprive the powers of Serbian entity Republica Srpska entrusted to it by Deyton-Paris Peace Agreement.
Aforesaid, perhaps, would not be of much use if today we wouldn’t be faced with similar German geopolitics and demands. Serbia, naturally, does not recognize illegal unilateral secession of its Province. Under UNSCR 1244 and under current Constitution Kosovo and Metohija makes integral part of sovereign Serbian state territory. Nevertheless, Germany insists that Serbia signs “legally binding document on normalization and good neighborliness” with Kosovo! In fact, such “legally binding” document would equal recognition of the illegal secession. This would also mean that Serbia will not object Kosovo’s membership to the UN, UNESCO, OSCE, CE and other international organizations. Finally, by signing such a document, Serbia would “a posteriori” grant amnesty to NATO for its 1999 military aggression, i.e. for all human victims, enormous destruction and war damages. Interestingly, German diplomats have already prepared the draft of such an agreement which most likely will be presented in the way “take it or leave”. Perhaps, the authors of the draft agreement are the same who in 1997 drafted Bon’s “full powers” for High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina? The same ones who initiated Kosovo and Metohija to be part of Agenda of the Bon’s Peace Implementation Council’s meeting convened to consider implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina, in December 1997?
Objective – to bind Serbia only
UNSCR 1244 (1999) is legally binding document of the highest rank in the hierarchy of international public law. It provides guaranty for sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia as well as substantial autonomy for the Province of Kosovo and Metohija within Serbia. Serbia has long ago fulfilled all her obligations from this legally binding document. The others, including UNMIK, KFOR and particularly Kosovo Albanian leaders have not. For example, about 250.000 of displaced Serbs and other non-Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija 18 years after have no possibility as yet to freely and safely return to their homes and lands in the Province! Why? Many Serbs, including school children, harvesters, bus passengers and others have been abducted, or killed in the period since the Province got under the UN mandate. Nobody has been found guilty. Why?
In the Brussels negotiations process under EU auspices in the last several years a number of agreements have been reached. Again, Serbia has fully complied with all its obligations, the others have not.
So, even if Serbia would sign any new legally binding document which what in the opinion of the author Serbia should not do, it would bind only Serbia, not anybody else. All who supposedly would offer guaranty that this time it would be different have lost their credibility long ago, EU including.
Accepting legally binding agreement with Kosovo Serbia would be permitted to come to the door step of EU by 2025. Mere signature would not be enough for EU membership. Full implementation is required before. What happens if Serbia signs such an agreement and EU, or any of 27 member countries come with new demands and preconditions which Serbia would not be able to fulfill? Let us not be mistaken – the history of Serbia’s relations with EU and with a number of neighboring countries abound such examples. Who is enough credible to guaranty to Serbia that this is excluded? Is it possible that Serbia delivers everything that she is required now and finally gets nothing?
Kosovo and Metohija, birthplace of Serbian state, culture, religion, and identity should not be considered commodity to exchange for EU membership.
German diplomacy evokes “Germany’s case” wherein both, West and East Germany (GDR) had been UN members while not formally recognizing each other. This reference is meant to be only face saving for the government in Belgrade, which keeps giving in substantial concessions and at the same time declaring it will never recognize Kosovo as sovereign state. It is, however, quite clear that there are no similarities to compare between FR Germany and GDR, in one hand, and Serbia and Kosovo, on the other.
On April 12, 2007, German ambassador to Serbia Andreas Coble at the European Forum’s conference in Belgrade stated that “if Serbian Government continues to insist that Kosovo is integral part of Serbia, it is possible that the question of Vojvodina[5] may be opened. Hungary might insist on Vojvodina. And not only that. There would be possibility for opening of the question of Sandzak (Raska)”[6]. Could really such elaborated statement be just of personal invention of visionary, well-intended diplomat, or perhaps he has learned about those “possibilities” in the course of preparations for his Belgrade ambassadorial post?
His successor Ambassador Andreas Mass in December 2011 gave astonishing public advice to Serbian nation to teach their children to love NATO because NATO bombed Serbia in 1999 for good of Serbia. Mass did not comment 4000 Serbian citizens killed by NATO, including by German bombers, killing children, train passengers, hospital patients. He did not mention use of missiles with depleted uranium, destroyed schools, hospitals, monuments. Nevertheless he was certain that Serbia will be member of NATO anyway.
“The question is not whether but when Serbia will become NATO member” – said Mass.
Present German ambassador Aksel Ditman in the interview to the Belgrade weekly “NIN” on November 11th, 2017, stated that Germany supports membership of unilaterally conceded Kosovo to the UN and other international organizations. In fact, Ambassador does not even pretend to respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the receiving country which is all but diplomatic.
It is long time since Dietrich Genscher and Claus Kinkel were ministers of foreign affairs of Germany. But the same “good geopolitics” concerning the Balkans and especially Serbs and Serbia, remain firmly implanted in Berlin.
Notes
[1] Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs of FR of Yugoslavia 1998-2000. Chairman of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals
[2] Head of EU (EEC) Monitoring Mission in Kosovo and Metohija (ECMM) from 1998 until March 20th, 1999
[3] Kosovo Liberation Army
[4] Special USA representative Richard Holbrook met KLA commanders June 20th, 1998, in Junik, Kosovo and Metohija, Serbia
[5] Of 2000 planned
[6] Message au People Serbe, Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, p. 36, Belgrade 2009
[7] Another Autonomous Province of Serbia partially populated by members of Hungarian national minority
[8] Populated by Moslems (Bosniaks) ethnic community
The original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Živadin Jovanović, Global Research, 2017
\n
Sottocategorie
RSS Feed
CNJ Feed
VOCE JUGOSLAVA 
JUGOSLAVENSKI GLAS
L'annuncio ed alcune registrazioni nella vecchia sezione del nostro sito
