Jugoinfo
WHY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE WRONG
Mail version: the complete version, with links, is at
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/human.rights.html
--------------------------------------
A Serbian child who is shot to enforce human rights, suffers just as
much
pain, as an American or British child. Yet the US and British
governments do
not kill or injure their own citizens, to protect their human rights.
That
fate is reserved for East Europeans, Africans, and Asians. The western
human
rights lobby claims, that it is wrong to deny people human rights. They
claim
opposition to human rights is based on 'ethical relativism', and that
their
own 'moral universalism' is superior. Yet they would never subject their
own
fellow citizens to the same treatment as (for instance) the inhabitants
of
Belgrade. Clearly, the 'moral universalism' is itself relative. More
likely,
it is just a propaganda slogan anyway. Increasingly, the doctrine of
human
rights is the cause of suffering, oppression and injustice.
Increasingly, the
argument that superpowers have a 'moral duty' to enforce human rights,
is used
in the same way as the doctrine of the 'civilising mission' once was
used to
justify colonialism. This text presents a clear rejection of human
rights,
without any appeal to cultural relativism / ethical relativism.
The ethical system of rights
-----
In the claims made by advocates of human rights, rights generally have
the
following characteristics...
-- a right is declared by one person or organisation, for another
person
-- usually, a right is declared by one person or organisation, for all
human beings
-- the consent of the other person or persons is not necessary, for the
right
to be declared
-- there are certain actions (or restraint from certain actions) which
constitute 'respect' of the right
-- these actions (or restraint from action) may legitimately be taken
-- there is usually a moral duty to take these actions (or this
restraint
from action)
-- the person with the right has no moral grounds to oppose this action
-
even if they have not consented to the right in the first place
-- therefore there are certain actions which may legitimately be taken
against another, since they fulfil a moral obligation to respect a
right, and
these actions do not constitute a harm
-- since there is a moral obligation to these actions, they are not
wrong,
even if consent for them is explicitly refused, and even if the person
affected considers them a harm
These are the far-reaching claims made by all advocates of rights, and
especially by the human rights lobby. It is obvious, even from this
summary,
that the logic of rights interferes with the principle of moral
autonomy.
Some people in history have indeed claimed the rights that were conceded
to
them - but most have had their rights declared for them by others. They
are
not allowed to renounce these 'declared rights'. The idea that a person
must
accept all rights declared for them (by others), clearly contradicts the
idea
of political freedom. The human-rights tradition includes no element of
consent. 'Declared rights' are by definition authoritarian. It is these
aspects, which make the doctrine of human rights a license for
oppression.
The Prizren water supply
-----
The logic of rights can be illustrated with a familiar example, addition
of
substances to drinking water. Consider these examples...
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to filter the drinking water to
remove bacteria. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask
their consent.
That seems relatively harmless, and indeed desirable. But the moral
logic is
no different in the following examples....
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add chlorine to the
drinking
water, to kill bacteria. It does not inform the residents of the city,
or ask
their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add fluoride to the
drinking
water, to improve dental health. It does not inform the residents of the
city,
or ask their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add contraceptives to the
drinking water, since the high birth rate is overloading the health-care
system. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask their
consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add Prozac to the drinking
water,
to reduce the incidence of post-traumatic depression. It does not inform
the
residents of the city, or ask their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add a genetically modified
HIV
virus to the drinking water, as a form of vaccination against an AIDS
epidemic. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask their
consent.
The list shows how easy it is to extend the range of a right (and indeed
the
UN administration in Kosovo has taken extraordinary steps to control
cultural
and political life there). The United Nations decided, without
consulting me,
that I have a right not to be tortured - and that is considered morally
legitimate. But what is to stop them deciding tomorrow, that I have a
right to
be tortured? The United Nations decided that I have a right to life. But
what
is to stop them deciding tomorrow, that I have a right to death?
But this type of argument - the 'slippery slope ', or 'consequentialism'
- is
rejected anyway by many moral philosophers. They would claim that, just
because a principle has undesirable consequences in certain cases, that
does
not rule it out as a moral principle. But it is the principle itself
which is
wrong here - the principle that certain actions are in effect exempt
from
moral judgment, because they constitute 'respect' of a right.
Human rights: opposing principles
-----
The best way to illustrate this is to look at how rights could be
ethically
acceptable. That could be through these alternative principles...
***
1 "Rights are voluntary. They can not be imposed on a person without
consent."
2 "Every person is free to chose their own rights, if any."
3 "It is not in itself good to respect a right. Every right is itself
subject
to ethical assessment, to moral judgment. It can be wrong to respect a
right,
even a right that has been consented to."
4 "An action done to a person, to respect the rights of that person, can
be a
harm to that person. Each person is morally autonomous in deciding what
constitutes a harm to themselves."
5 "Specifically, the state or international organisations may not
declare
rights for persons, unless those persons participated in the formulation
of
those rights, and expressed their consent."
6 "Rights may be renounced at any time."
7 "There must be an impartial procedure of appeal against rights.
Obviously
this function can not be exercised by pro-rights organisations, such as
the
United Nations."
8 "An agreement on rights can not bind persons, who have not entered
into the agreement."
9 "Objections of conscience to any right are valid."
***
This list only shows how different the present human rights idea is, in
comparison. No supporter of human rights would ever accept anything like
these principles.
The UN-declared human rights
-----
The present debate on human rights and sovereignty is largely concerned
with a
specific set of rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This
Declaration was approved by the United Nations in December 1948. In this
case,
the failure of ethical legitimacy is clear. The human rights lobby
claims,
that this document is morally binding on the whole world, forever. But
what
basis does that have?
-- The document was approved by the diplomatic representatives of UN
member
states. No other persons or organisations participated in the
negotiations on
the text.
-- These states were the victorious allied powers of 1945, and their
allies,
with a few others. They did not even approximate the present membership
of the
United Nations.
-- In many cases, the government and political system in these states
had
been installed in 1944 and 1945 by Allied military action. (In Europe
especially, the Soviet Union and the US manipulated the political
process to
obtain the desired government, inside their new spheres of influence).
Even by
the limited standards of parliamentary elections, they governments did
not
'represent' their inhabitants. In some countries, such as Greece and
China, a
civil war was in progress.
-- Some of the signatory states were, at the time, de facto
protectorates of
Allied powers - such as Persia, Egypt and Iraq. Others were self-ruled
colonies, but with a whites-only government, such as Australia and South
Africa.
-- Several of the states excluded large sections of the population from
any
political influence - such as the remains of the German minorities in
Eastern
Europe at the time. Germany and Japan themselves were under military
occupation, and not represented.
-- Some of the States - Afghanistan, for instance - had no modern
political
system of any kind.
-- Most notably, Africa was 'represented' by colonial powers. At the
time,
most held no elections of any kind, in most of their colonial territory.
Often, all political activity by 'natives' was forbidden.
-- Probably only five governments decided, without outside pressure,
their
position on the Declaration: the United States, Britain, the Soviet
Union,
Sweden, and Mexico. All others were, to a greater or lesser extent,
dependent
on their protecting power (or colonial power).
-- The text was ultimately a compromise, between the United States and
the
Soviet Union. The USA was the initiator in this process, and the Soviet
Union
was on the defensive. The Declaration is, without doubt, a primary
historical
text of the Cold War.
-- Most of the world population never even saw the text, before it was
approved. Probably the majority could not even understand the few
official
languages in which it was written. The text is still not available, in
the
majority of the languages spoken on earth.
-- No election was held in any country, with the text as an election
issue.
-- No referendum, or any other form of test, was held to approve the
text, in
any country. There was no ratification procedure of any kind, since it
was not
a Treaty.
-- No individual ever formally consented to the document as an
individual:
the United Nations never organised such a consent procedure.
-- I am obliged to accept the contents, even though it was approved
before I
was born, and any influence on its contents was therefore impossible.
-- There is no procedure for revision of the declaration.
-- There is no procedure for periodic review, let alone periodic
re-approval,
of the Declaration.
-- The Declaration is therefore considered to apply indefinitely,
beyond the
lifetime of those who drafted it, and without any possibility of
amending it
or annulling it. Their descendants will, apparently, forever be bound by
the Declaration.
-- There is no independent appeal against its contents, or against the
rights
imposed, or against the application of the Declaration by the United
Nations
-- Specifically, there is no independent appeal procedure, against
military
action to enforce it. If the UN decides tomorrow, that it is necessary
to
destroy Beijing with a nuclear weapon, to enforce human rights, then
no-one
can take any legal steps against this decision. Neither the individual
residents, nor the Chinese government, nor any organisation, can appeal
-
certainly not to the International Court. The Universal Declaration of
Human
Rights is considered beyond appeal, in fact beyond all legal procedure.
For a document conferring such powers, this is a very weak ethical
basis. Even
more so, because it is now treated as the basic document of the United
Nations
(in contrast to the UN Charter, which guarantees national sovereignty).
If the
United States recolonises Africa over the next 15 years, then it will
almost
certainly refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - as the
legal
basis for its actions. And since the United States is now the only
superpower
capable of doing this, and no other power can successfully oppose it,
the
temptation will be great. Because of its claimed universal and absolute
force,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an emergent license for
global
conquest, in a uni-polar world.
Human rights are clearly political
-----
There is no doubt, that the doctrine of human rights belongs within a
specific
political tradition: the broad European liberal tradition. Human rights
have
also become a central element, in recent Anglo-American democratic
liberalism
(the type of political philosophy represented by John Rawls). But the
liberal
tradition is only one section of European political thought. Not only
are
human rights not universal, they are not even 'western' or 'European'.
This
text completely rejects human rights, but from a background which is as
European as liberalism. It is certainly not an African (or Asian, or
Slavic)
cultural or philosophical viewpoint. Human rights are not culturally
specific,
they are politically specific. The human rights doctrine is a classic
political ideology.
The imposition of human rights on the world, is the imposition of that
political ideology. And with it comes the rest of the liberal package.
The
supporters of human rights are also the supporters of free trade,
democracy,
an open society and the free market. The two recent explicit military
interventions to protect rights, in Timor and Kosovo, have also brought
open
free-market economies to these regions. In organisations like the NATO
or the
OSCE, the free market and human rights are always referred to together,
as if
they were the same thing. And because of that, in practice, they are.
--
Paul Treanor
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Mail version: the complete version, with links, is at
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/human.rights.html
--------------------------------------
A Serbian child who is shot to enforce human rights, suffers just as
much
pain, as an American or British child. Yet the US and British
governments do
not kill or injure their own citizens, to protect their human rights.
That
fate is reserved for East Europeans, Africans, and Asians. The western
human
rights lobby claims, that it is wrong to deny people human rights. They
claim
opposition to human rights is based on 'ethical relativism', and that
their
own 'moral universalism' is superior. Yet they would never subject their
own
fellow citizens to the same treatment as (for instance) the inhabitants
of
Belgrade. Clearly, the 'moral universalism' is itself relative. More
likely,
it is just a propaganda slogan anyway. Increasingly, the doctrine of
human
rights is the cause of suffering, oppression and injustice.
Increasingly, the
argument that superpowers have a 'moral duty' to enforce human rights,
is used
in the same way as the doctrine of the 'civilising mission' once was
used to
justify colonialism. This text presents a clear rejection of human
rights,
without any appeal to cultural relativism / ethical relativism.
The ethical system of rights
-----
In the claims made by advocates of human rights, rights generally have
the
following characteristics...
-- a right is declared by one person or organisation, for another
person
-- usually, a right is declared by one person or organisation, for all
human beings
-- the consent of the other person or persons is not necessary, for the
right
to be declared
-- there are certain actions (or restraint from certain actions) which
constitute 'respect' of the right
-- these actions (or restraint from action) may legitimately be taken
-- there is usually a moral duty to take these actions (or this
restraint
from action)
-- the person with the right has no moral grounds to oppose this action
-
even if they have not consented to the right in the first place
-- therefore there are certain actions which may legitimately be taken
against another, since they fulfil a moral obligation to respect a
right, and
these actions do not constitute a harm
-- since there is a moral obligation to these actions, they are not
wrong,
even if consent for them is explicitly refused, and even if the person
affected considers them a harm
These are the far-reaching claims made by all advocates of rights, and
especially by the human rights lobby. It is obvious, even from this
summary,
that the logic of rights interferes with the principle of moral
autonomy.
Some people in history have indeed claimed the rights that were conceded
to
them - but most have had their rights declared for them by others. They
are
not allowed to renounce these 'declared rights'. The idea that a person
must
accept all rights declared for them (by others), clearly contradicts the
idea
of political freedom. The human-rights tradition includes no element of
consent. 'Declared rights' are by definition authoritarian. It is these
aspects, which make the doctrine of human rights a license for
oppression.
The Prizren water supply
-----
The logic of rights can be illustrated with a familiar example, addition
of
substances to drinking water. Consider these examples...
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to filter the drinking water to
remove bacteria. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask
their consent.
That seems relatively harmless, and indeed desirable. But the moral
logic is
no different in the following examples....
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add chlorine to the
drinking
water, to kill bacteria. It does not inform the residents of the city,
or ask
their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add fluoride to the
drinking
water, to improve dental health. It does not inform the residents of the
city,
or ask their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add contraceptives to the
drinking water, since the high birth rate is overloading the health-care
system. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask their
consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add Prozac to the drinking
water,
to reduce the incidence of post-traumatic depression. It does not inform
the
residents of the city, or ask their consent.
-- The United Nations declares a right to healthy drinking water.
Therefore
the UN administration in Prizren decides to add a genetically modified
HIV
virus to the drinking water, as a form of vaccination against an AIDS
epidemic. It does not inform the residents of the city, or ask their
consent.
The list shows how easy it is to extend the range of a right (and indeed
the
UN administration in Kosovo has taken extraordinary steps to control
cultural
and political life there). The United Nations decided, without
consulting me,
that I have a right not to be tortured - and that is considered morally
legitimate. But what is to stop them deciding tomorrow, that I have a
right to
be tortured? The United Nations decided that I have a right to life. But
what
is to stop them deciding tomorrow, that I have a right to death?
But this type of argument - the 'slippery slope ', or 'consequentialism'
- is
rejected anyway by many moral philosophers. They would claim that, just
because a principle has undesirable consequences in certain cases, that
does
not rule it out as a moral principle. But it is the principle itself
which is
wrong here - the principle that certain actions are in effect exempt
from
moral judgment, because they constitute 'respect' of a right.
Human rights: opposing principles
-----
The best way to illustrate this is to look at how rights could be
ethically
acceptable. That could be through these alternative principles...
***
1 "Rights are voluntary. They can not be imposed on a person without
consent."
2 "Every person is free to chose their own rights, if any."
3 "It is not in itself good to respect a right. Every right is itself
subject
to ethical assessment, to moral judgment. It can be wrong to respect a
right,
even a right that has been consented to."
4 "An action done to a person, to respect the rights of that person, can
be a
harm to that person. Each person is morally autonomous in deciding what
constitutes a harm to themselves."
5 "Specifically, the state or international organisations may not
declare
rights for persons, unless those persons participated in the formulation
of
those rights, and expressed their consent."
6 "Rights may be renounced at any time."
7 "There must be an impartial procedure of appeal against rights.
Obviously
this function can not be exercised by pro-rights organisations, such as
the
United Nations."
8 "An agreement on rights can not bind persons, who have not entered
into the agreement."
9 "Objections of conscience to any right are valid."
***
This list only shows how different the present human rights idea is, in
comparison. No supporter of human rights would ever accept anything like
these principles.
The UN-declared human rights
-----
The present debate on human rights and sovereignty is largely concerned
with a
specific set of rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This
Declaration was approved by the United Nations in December 1948. In this
case,
the failure of ethical legitimacy is clear. The human rights lobby
claims,
that this document is morally binding on the whole world, forever. But
what
basis does that have?
-- The document was approved by the diplomatic representatives of UN
member
states. No other persons or organisations participated in the
negotiations on
the text.
-- These states were the victorious allied powers of 1945, and their
allies,
with a few others. They did not even approximate the present membership
of the
United Nations.
-- In many cases, the government and political system in these states
had
been installed in 1944 and 1945 by Allied military action. (In Europe
especially, the Soviet Union and the US manipulated the political
process to
obtain the desired government, inside their new spheres of influence).
Even by
the limited standards of parliamentary elections, they governments did
not
'represent' their inhabitants. In some countries, such as Greece and
China, a
civil war was in progress.
-- Some of the signatory states were, at the time, de facto
protectorates of
Allied powers - such as Persia, Egypt and Iraq. Others were self-ruled
colonies, but with a whites-only government, such as Australia and South
Africa.
-- Several of the states excluded large sections of the population from
any
political influence - such as the remains of the German minorities in
Eastern
Europe at the time. Germany and Japan themselves were under military
occupation, and not represented.
-- Some of the States - Afghanistan, for instance - had no modern
political
system of any kind.
-- Most notably, Africa was 'represented' by colonial powers. At the
time,
most held no elections of any kind, in most of their colonial territory.
Often, all political activity by 'natives' was forbidden.
-- Probably only five governments decided, without outside pressure,
their
position on the Declaration: the United States, Britain, the Soviet
Union,
Sweden, and Mexico. All others were, to a greater or lesser extent,
dependent
on their protecting power (or colonial power).
-- The text was ultimately a compromise, between the United States and
the
Soviet Union. The USA was the initiator in this process, and the Soviet
Union
was on the defensive. The Declaration is, without doubt, a primary
historical
text of the Cold War.
-- Most of the world population never even saw the text, before it was
approved. Probably the majority could not even understand the few
official
languages in which it was written. The text is still not available, in
the
majority of the languages spoken on earth.
-- No election was held in any country, with the text as an election
issue.
-- No referendum, or any other form of test, was held to approve the
text, in
any country. There was no ratification procedure of any kind, since it
was not
a Treaty.
-- No individual ever formally consented to the document as an
individual:
the United Nations never organised such a consent procedure.
-- I am obliged to accept the contents, even though it was approved
before I
was born, and any influence on its contents was therefore impossible.
-- There is no procedure for revision of the declaration.
-- There is no procedure for periodic review, let alone periodic
re-approval,
of the Declaration.
-- The Declaration is therefore considered to apply indefinitely,
beyond the
lifetime of those who drafted it, and without any possibility of
amending it
or annulling it. Their descendants will, apparently, forever be bound by
the Declaration.
-- There is no independent appeal against its contents, or against the
rights
imposed, or against the application of the Declaration by the United
Nations
-- Specifically, there is no independent appeal procedure, against
military
action to enforce it. If the UN decides tomorrow, that it is necessary
to
destroy Beijing with a nuclear weapon, to enforce human rights, then
no-one
can take any legal steps against this decision. Neither the individual
residents, nor the Chinese government, nor any organisation, can appeal
-
certainly not to the International Court. The Universal Declaration of
Human
Rights is considered beyond appeal, in fact beyond all legal procedure.
For a document conferring such powers, this is a very weak ethical
basis. Even
more so, because it is now treated as the basic document of the United
Nations
(in contrast to the UN Charter, which guarantees national sovereignty).
If the
United States recolonises Africa over the next 15 years, then it will
almost
certainly refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - as the
legal
basis for its actions. And since the United States is now the only
superpower
capable of doing this, and no other power can successfully oppose it,
the
temptation will be great. Because of its claimed universal and absolute
force,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an emergent license for
global
conquest, in a uni-polar world.
Human rights are clearly political
-----
There is no doubt, that the doctrine of human rights belongs within a
specific
political tradition: the broad European liberal tradition. Human rights
have
also become a central element, in recent Anglo-American democratic
liberalism
(the type of political philosophy represented by John Rawls). But the
liberal
tradition is only one section of European political thought. Not only
are
human rights not universal, they are not even 'western' or 'European'.
This
text completely rejects human rights, but from a background which is as
European as liberalism. It is certainly not an African (or Asian, or
Slavic)
cultural or philosophical viewpoint. Human rights are not culturally
specific,
they are politically specific. The human rights doctrine is a classic
political ideology.
The imposition of human rights on the world, is the imposition of that
political ideology. And with it comes the rest of the liberal package.
The
supporters of human rights are also the supporters of free trade,
democracy,
an open society and the free market. The two recent explicit military
interventions to protect rights, in Timor and Kosovo, have also brought
open
free-market economies to these regions. In organisations like the NATO
or the
OSCE, the free market and human rights are always referred to together,
as if
they were the same thing. And because of that, in practice, they are.
--
Paul Treanor
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
* SENTENZA CONCLUSIVA E LISTA DEI PARTECIPANTI
alla giornata finale del Tribunale "Clark", New York 10/6/2000
* Un articolo da WORKERS WORLD
* CONCLUSIONI DEI LAVORI DELLE SEZIONI TEDESCA/EUROPEA ED AUSTRIACA
* GLI ADERENTI ALLA SEZIONE ITALIANA (aggiornamento primo giugno 2000)
---
Subject: U.S./NATO found guilty of war crimes against Yugoslavia
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:42:52 -0400
From: iacenter@...
To: "International" <iacenter@...>
GUILTY!
On Saturday, June 10, 2000, the International Tribunal on U.S./NATO
War Crimes Against the People of Yugoslavia found U.S. and
NATO political and military leaders guilty of war crimes. At this
people's tribunal meeting in New York, held before over 500 people, a
panel of 16 judges from 11 countries rendered this verdict regarding
the March 24-June 10, 1999 U.S./NATO assault on Yugoslavia.
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the lead prosecutor at
the International Tribunal on U.S./NATO War Crimes Against
Yugoslavia, urged those present and those they represented from the
21 countries participating to carry out a sentence of organizing a
campaign to abolish the NATO military pact.
Ben Dupuy, former ambassador at large during the Aristide
Administration in Haiti, the Rev. Kiyul Chung of Korea, and auto
worker Martha Grevatt, who heads the AFL-CIO’s official
constituency group Pride at Work, read the three parts of the verdict
(included below).
Participants taking the witness stand included eyewitnesses,
researchers who visited Yugoslavia, renowned political and
economics analysts, historians, physicists, biologists, military
experts,
journalists and lay researchers. (A list of all the judges, and the
witnesses and their topics is included below.)
Many of these witnesses have in the past 15 months presented to
audiences worldwide a complete picture of the war NATO waged
against Yugoslavia. For the tribunal, however, all limited themselves
to a single area of expertise that made up a single part of the
evidence against the political and military leaders of the United States
and the other NATO countries.
Taken together, the judges decided, each single part contributed to
construct a proof that beyond a reasonable doubt proved the guilt of
the accused, just as the proper placing of single tiles can build a
mosaic.
The witnesses described how NATO forces used the media to spread
lies to demonize the Serbs and their leadership in order to prepare
public opinion to prepare for war. Then they showed the real
economic and geopolitical interests of the imperialist powers--the U.S.
and Western Europe—in seizing economic control of the area from
the Balkans to the oil-rich Caspian Sea.
Finally they demonstrated how Washington rigged the “Racak
massacre” and then used the so-called Rambouillet accord—in reality
an ultimatum demanding NATO's military control of all of Yugoslavia-
-to provoke the war. Taken together this all proved a crime against
peace.
They also showed the use of illegal weapons, the purposeful choice of
civilian targets and the destruction of the environment and the civilian
infrastructure that add up to war crimes. And the expulsion of
hundreds of thousands of people from Kosovo and Metohija that
prove crimes against humanity.
The witnesses’ presentations were accompanied in many cases by
slides and videos displayed on a large screen on the stage of the
auditorium at Martin Luther King Jr. High School in Manhattan. This
screen was easily visible both to the judges, who sat on the stage, and
to the hundreds in the audience, many of whom stayed throughout the
nine-hour day.
In addition, pictures and videos were on display in the hall outside the
auditorium, and documentary evidence was offered in books or in
research papers.
The International Action Center, founded by Clark in 1992, organized
this final session of the tribunal. There was also participation by
those
who had organized similar tribunal hearings in Germany, Italy, Austria,
Russia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia and Greece, where thousands declared
U.S. President Clinton a war criminal last November in Athens.
In addition to the witnesses, there were also important guest
presentations from representatives of the governments Yugoslavia
and Cuba. In addition, Ismael Guadalupe from Vieques, Puerto Rico
showed in a powerful speech how the practice runs against his small
island laid the basis for U.S./NATO aggression around the world.
According to the IAC organizers, total registration, including justices,
witnesses and staff was 511. Invited speakers, witnesses and judges
came from Haiti, Spain, Turkey, Korea, Puerto Rico, India, Germany,
United States, Canada, Italy, Yugoslavia, Russia, Britain, Belgium,
Iraq, Greece, Austria, France, and Portugal. The U.S. government
refused visas to four people from Ukraine, whose message was read
from the stage.
There were also representatives of the Roma people—often referred
to by the derisive term "gypsy." Shani Rifati, a Roma witness who
was born in Pristina, capital of Kosovo, told how NATO occupation
has led to the expulsion of 100,000 Romas. He pointed out that the
verdict condemned the persecution of Roma people, the first time this
has happened in any international tribunal.
Five different television crews taped the entire proceedings, including
Serbian television and a three-camera crew from Australia, as well as
alternate media sources in the U.S. like the Peoples Video Network.
FINAL JUDGEMENT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY TO
INVESTIGATE U.S./NATO WAR CRIMES AGAINST THE
PEOPLE OF YUGOSLAVIA
Final Judgement
The Members of the Independent Commission of Inquiry to
Investigate U.S./NATO War Crimes Against the People of
Yugoslavia, meeting in New York, having considered the Initial
Charges and Complaint of the Commission dated July 31, 1999,
against President William J. Clinton, Gen. Wesley Clark, Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor
Gerhard Schroder, President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister
Massimo D’Alema, Prime Minister Jose Maria Azmar, the
Governments of the United States and the other NATO member
states, former Secretary General Javier Solana and other NATO
leaders, and Others with nineteen separate Crimes Against Peace,
War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in violation of the Charter
of the United Nations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, other
international agreements and customary international law;
Having the right and obligation as citizens of the world to sit in
judgement regarding violations of international humanitarian law;
Having heard the testimony from Commissions of Inquiry and
Tribunals held within their own countries during the past year and
having received reports from numerous other Commission hearings
which recite the evidence there gathered;
Having been provided with documentary evidence, eyewitness
statements, photos, videotapes, special reports, expert analyses and
summaries of evidence available to the Commission;
Having access to all evidence, knowledge and expert opinion in the
Commission files or available to the Commission staff;
Having been provided by the Commission, or otherwise obtained,
various books, articles and other written materials on various aspects
of events and conditions in Yugoslavia and other countries in the
Balkans, and in the military and arms establishments;
Having considered newspaper coverage, magazine and periodical
reports, special publications, TV, radio and other media coverage and
public statements by the accused, other public officials and public
materials;
Having heard the presentations of the Commission of Inquiry in public
hearing on June 10, 2000, and the testimony, evidence and summaries
there presented;
And having met, considered and deliberated with each other and with
Commission staff and having considered all the evidence that is
relevant to the nineteen charges of criminal conduct alleged in the
Initial Complaint, make the following findings:
FINDINGS
The Members of the International War Crimes Tribunal find the
accused Guilty on the basis of the evidence against them and that
each of the nineteen separate crimes alleged in the Initial Complaint
has been established to have been committed beyond a reasonable
doubt. These are:
1. Planning and Executing the Dismemberment, Segregation and
Impoverishment of Yugoslavia.
2. Inflicting, Inciting and Enhancing Violence Between and Among
Muslims and Slavs.
3. Disrupting Efforts to Maintain Unity, Peace and Stability in
Yugoslavia.
4. Destroying the Peace-Making Role of the United Nations.
5. Using NATO for Military Aggression Against, and Occupation of,
Non-Compliant Poor Countries.
6. Killing and Injuring a Defenseless Population throughout
Yugoslavia.
7. Planning, Announcing and Executing Attacks Intended to
Assassinate the Head of Government, Other Government Leaders
and Selected Civilians in Yugoslavia.
8. Destroying and Damaging Economic, Social, Cultural, Medical,
Diplomatic -- including the Embassy of the People’s Republic of
China and other embassies -- and Religious Resources, Properties
and Facilities throughout Yugoslavia.
9 Attacking Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Population of
Yugoslavia.
10. Attacking Facilities Containing Dangerous Substances and Forces.
11. Using Depleted Uranium, Cluster Bombs and Other Prohibited
Weapons.
12. Waging War on the Environment.
13. Imposing Sanctions through the United Nations that are a
Genocidal Crime Against Humanity.
14. Creating an Illegal Ad-Hoc Criminal Tribunal to Destroy and
Demonize the Serbian Leadership. The Illegitimacy of this Tribunal is
Further Demonstrated by its Failure to Bring Any Case Regarding the
Oppression of the Romani People, Who Have Suffered the Highest
Rate of Casualties of Any People in the Region.
15. Using Controlled International Media to Create and Maintain
Support for the U.S. Assault and to Demonize Yugoslavia, Slavs,
Serbs and Muslims as Genocidal Murderers.
16. Establishing the Long-Term Military Occupation of Strategic
Parts of Yugoslavia by NATO Forces.
17. Attempting to Destroy the Sovereignty, Right to Self-
Determination, Democracy and Culture of the Slavic, Muslim, Roma
and Other Peoples of Yugoslavia.
18. Seeking to Establish U.S. Domination and Control of Yugoslavia
and to Exploit Its People and Resources.
19. Using the Means of Military Force and Economic Coercion in
Order to Achieve U.S. Domination.
The Members hold NATO, the NATO states and their leaders
accountable for their criminal acts and condemn those found guilty in
the strongest possible terms. The Members condemn the NATO
bombardments, denounce the international crimes and violations of
international humanitarian law committed by the armed attack and
through other means such as economic sanctions. NATO has acted
lawlessly and has attempted to abolish international law.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Members urge the immediate revocation of all embargoes,
sanctions and penalties against Yugoslavia because they constitute a
continuing crime against humanity. The Members call for the
immediate end to the NATO occupation of all Yugoslav territory, the
removal of all NATO and U.S. bases and forces from the Balkans
region, and the cessation of overt and covert operations, including the
“International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia” in the
Hague, aimed at overthrowing the government of Yugoslavia.
The Members further call for full reparations to be paid to the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia for death, injury, economic and environmental
damage resulting from the NATO bombing, economic sanctions and
blockades. Further, other states in the region which have suffered
economic and environmental damage due to the NATO bombing and
economic sanctions on Yugoslavia must also be awarded reparations.
The Members condemn the threat or use of military technology
against life, both civilian and military, as was used by the NATO
powers against the people of Yugoslavia.
The Members urge public action and mobilization to stop new and
continued sanctions and aggressions by the U.S. and other NATO
powers against Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, the countries of Eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union, Puerto Rico, Asia, Sudan,
Colombia and other countries. We ask for the immediate cessation of
overt/covert activities by the U.S. and NATO in such countries.
The Members believe that the interests of peace, justice and human
progress require the abolition of NATO, which has proved itself
beyond any doubt to be an instrument of aggression for the dominant,
colonizing powers, particularly the United States. The Pentagon, the
central and key element of NATO and the greatest single threat to
the people of the world, must be disbanded.
The Members urge the Commission to provide for the permanent
preservation of the reports, evidence and materials gathered to make
them available to others, and to seek ways to provide the widest
possible distribution of the truth about the U.S./NATO war on
Yugoslavia.
We urge all people of the world to act on recommendations developed
by the Commission to hold power accountable and to secure social
justice on which lasting peace must be based.
Done in New York this 10th day of June, 2000
TRIBUNAL SCHEDULE AND LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
10 a.m. Doors open. Registration, if possible, show videos in the
cafeteria or auditorium.
11:00 a.m. - 11:30 p.m Catrin Schuetz and Anya Mukarji-Connolly
introduce judges and prosecutors: List of judges for the International
Tribunal on U.S./NATO War Crimes against Yugoslavia--New York,
June 10, 2000
LIST OF 16 JUDGES
1. Ben Dupuy--Haiti--Former Ambassador at Large for Haiti under
the first government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and currently
secretary general of the Popular National Party (PPN) of Haiti.
2. Angeles Maestro Martin--Spain--Elected member of Spanish
parliament from Madrid and a leader in the movement to end
sanctions against Iraq .
3. Cimile Cakir --Turkey; journalist for newspaper serving Kurdish
community and member of Turkish Human Rights Association.
Imprisoned four years in Turkey for human rights activity..
4. Rev. Kiyul Chung--Korea--Rev. Ki Yul Chung, chairperson of the
Executive Committee of the Congress for Korean Unification in
North America.
5. John Nickels--Roma--U.S. representative of the International
Romani Union and also a judge in the Romani community in the U.S.
6. Jorge Farinacci--Puerto Rico--leader of the Socialist Front of
Puerto Rico and a long-time leader of the independence movement in
Puerto Rico.
7. Ray Laforest--Haitian-American--labor unionist in the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and a leader of
the Haitian Coalition for Justice, an organization that fights police
brutality in New York.
8. Uma Cutwal -originally from India, Uma Cutwal is president of
Local 375 of the Civil Service Technical Union District Council 37 of
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
9. Dr. Christa Anders--Germany--doctor of medicine and an
organizer of the German/European Tribunal.
10. Raniero La Valle--Italy--Former senator who has served 14 years
in the Italian parliament and an anti-war leader in Catholic circles and
spokesperson for the Italian War Crimes Tribunal movement.
11. Dr. Wolfgang Richter--Germany--Chairperson of the Society for
the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity and a leader of the
War Crimes Tribunal movement in Germany.
12. Martha Grevatt--United States--National Secretary of the AFL-
CIO for Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Trans Labor Organization called Pride at
Work, and active in the United Auto Workers.
13. Michael Ratner--United States--Civil Rights Attorney on the
National Board of the Center for Constitutional Rights and he took the
U.S. government to court for violating the War Powers Act in its
undeclared war against Yugoslavia.
14. Yole Stanesic--Yugoslavia, Russia--Montenegrin poet and writer
living in Russia, member of the tribunals in Yaroslav, Kiev and
Belgrade.
15. John Black--United States--retired President of the Health and
Hospital Workers Union in Pennsylvania, responsible for bringing
many thousands of hospital workers into the union. As a teenager in
Germany he was active in the anti-Nazi underground resistance.
16. Dr. Berta Joubert--Puerto Rico--psychiatrist working in public
health and organizer of Puerto Rican and African American anti-
racist activities in Philadelphia.
The Prosecutor team:
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general and founder of the
International Action Center;
Pat Chin--originally from Jamaica, International Action Center
spokesperson for solidarity with Haiti and Yugoslavia and other issues;
Sara Flounders, International Action Center national co-director,
participant in numerous tribunal hearings;
Gloria La Riva, a leader of the Peace for Cuba Committee, producer
of video NATO Targets.
(All were in Yugoslavia either during the war or participating in
seminars or meetings after the war.)
Short opening remarks by Ramsey Clark, who will be lead prosecutor.
Opening greetings from Mikhail Kuznetsov of the International
Peoples Tribunal organized from Russia and Ukraine and other
former Soviet countries.
Part I: Crimes against peace. (11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.)
Our first witness is Lenora Foerstel (Maryland) of Women for Mutual
Security. She has recently edited a book War, Lies and Videotape;
about the control of the media.
Jared Israel (Massachusetts). Jared Israel produced a film called
Judgement showing how the corporate media distorted a picture to
produce a Big Lie.
Jean Hatton (Great Britain), from the anti-war movement in Britain.
Spoke of how massacre stories were used to justify the war.
Christopher Black (Canada), one of a group of Canadian attorney’s
who filed a suit charging NATO with war crimes at what is called the
International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia at the Hague.
Speaks on ICFTY, how the Hague Tribunal was a part of the
preparation for war.
Monica Moorehead (U.S.) of Millions for Mumia and contributing
editor to Workers World newspaper, an expert on the prison-industrial
complex in the United States.
Michel Collon, (Belgium) author of two books on the Balkans, Liar’s
Poker, and Monopoly; and contributor to the weekly newspaper,
Solidaire, on the geo-political aims of the war, the Caspian pipelines.
Kadouri Al Kaysi an Iraqi American who has organized to expose the
impact of sanctions on Iraq.
Stratis Kounias, vice-president of the Greek Committee for Peace
and Professor at the University of Athens on NATO’s role in Greece
and the Greek anti-war movement.
John Catalinotto (New York), journalist and researcher who has
represented the International Action Center at tribunals in Vienna and
Belgrade, on Washington’s premeditated plan regarding NATO and
the attack on Yugoslavia.
Roland Keith (Canada), a monitor for the Observer Mission that was
supposed to maintain the peace in Kosovo in 1998, before the war, on
the real role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe’s Observer mission in Kosovo and Metohija.
Preston Wood (California), who participated in hearings in Novi Sad
and who organized opposition to the war in Los Angeles, especially in
the Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Trans community to present to the tribunal the
truth about the supposed massacre in Racak, Kosovo, used to justify
the attack on Yugoslavia.
Richard Becker (California), who has written and spoken extensively
on the role of the talks held in Rambouillet, France in February and
March 1999. Rambouillet ultimatum as provocation.
Gregor Kneussel (Austria), from the Austrian tribunal about the role
of Constitutionally neutral Austria regarding Yugoslavia and in
delivering this NATO ultimatum.
Part II. War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity
La Riva, Gloria Prosecutor (California), used the video she produced,
NATO Targets, to show how the U.S./NATO bombs hit civilian
targets, from hospitals to bridges to factories.
Sarah Sloan (New York), IAC Commission of Inquiry researcher on
NATO claim it tried to minimize damage to civilian facilities in
Yugoslavia. She used a March 15, 2000 Newsweek article that
exposed that NATO hit very few military targets.
Ellen Catalinotto (New York) is a midwife who has delivered over
1,200 babies to mostly poor women in the New York City. She also
cares for HIV infected women and is involved in research on ways to
prevent the transmission of HIV from pregnant women to their
babies. She reported on NATO’s bombing of 33 hospitals including
damage to the maternity ward at Dragisa Micovic hospital in
Belgrade.
Prof. Ivan Yatsenko (Russia), former Soviet officer and foreign
representative, now teaches law in Moscow. He described damage to
Yugoslav industrial infrastructure and how it cost a half-million jobs.
Admiral Elmar Schmaehling (Germany), former admiral and leading
spokesperson for the German tribunal movement. He spoke on the
aggressive posture of NATO since the collapse of the USSR and its
illegal attack on Yugoslavia.
Judi Cheng (New Jersey), IAC researcher. She showed how
unreasonable it was to believe that the bombing of Chinese embassy
in Belgrade was an accident.
Dr. Janet Eaton (Canada), biologist and environment expert Dr. Janet
Eaton to the stand, on destruction of the environment in Yugoslavia,
especially the damage from attacks on the petrochemical plant at
Pancevo and other industrial targets.
Dr. Carlo Pona (Italy) A physicist who attended a conference in
Belgrade about depleted uranium and has written about this subject,
Pona explained why DU is dangerous to humans and how it was used
in Yugoslavia.
Fulvio Grimaldi (Italy), video maker and journalist. Grimaldi, who has
just completed edited a film on sanctions in Iraq and Yugoslavia,
described the combined impact of impact of bombing and sanctions on
the population of Yugoslavia.
Deirdre Griswold (New York) has recently visited sites of U.S. war
crimes in south Korea, is editor in chief of Workers World
newspaper. She spoke about the pattern of criminal conduct of the
U.S. military and how the 1950 war crimes led to a continuing 50-
year occupation of Korea.
Shani Rifati (Roma), originally from the Romani community in
Kosovo, publishes an English-language newsletter about Romani
affairs named Voice of Roma. He spoke of the horrors the Roma
people faced in Kosovo under K-FOR and KLA occupation.
Milos Raickovich Serb-American composer and anti-war activist,
spoke on the destruction of churches and cultural sites in occupied
Kosovo and Metohija.
Professor Michel Chossudovsky (Canada), an expert historian and
economist, showed the role of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army
and its ties to U.S. and German intelligence services, ties to NATO
and the United Nations Rep. Bernard Kouchner.
Scott Taylor (Canada), former soldier, who now publishes the Ottawa-
based magazine, Espirit de Corps, celebrated for its unflinching
scrutiny of the Canadian military. He also appears regularly in the
Canadian media as a military analyst. He witnessed the expulsion of
the Serb population from the Krajina in Croatia by an army led by
KLA General Ceku.
Professor Barry Lituchy (New York), who has recently returned
from a trip to Yugoslavia, described how the NATO occupying forces
known as K-FOR have participated in expelling parts of the
population from Kosovo.
Professor Greg Elich (United States), has recently visited the
Balkans. He spoke on the un-humanitarian nature of . NATO’s
occupation of Kosovo.
Gilles Troude (France), on the editorial board of Balkans-Info, a pro-
Yugoslavia, anti-NATO monthly published in Paris, France since
1996. He described France’s role in the war and in suppressing
dissent at home.
Professor Jorge Cadima (Portugal), a regular contributor on NATO-
related subjects to to Avante, the weekly newspaper of the
Portuguese Communist Party, spoke on the role of NATO in Portugal
since 1949 and on popular resistance to the war.
5:30-6:15 Messages of solidarity and struggle
Ismael Guadalupe (Puerto Rico) The Committee for the Rescue and
Development of Vieques on the relationship of Vieques to
Yugoslavia. He showed how the U.S. used Vieques for target
practice to prepare for the war against Yugoslavia, and they do so for
all foreign aggression.
Representative of Cuban Interest Section, spoke on Cuba’s suit
against U.S. for the costs of the embargo.
UN Ambassador Jovanovic of Yugoslavia, gave evidence of his own
government’s charges against the U.S. and NATO for war crimes.
His talk was in fact a summary of much of the day’s proceedings.
Brian Becker, co-director of the IAC, spoke on the need to form a
worldwide movement to abolish NATO.
Ramsey Clark reiterated some of the main points developed during
the day and stressed the need to come to a unified conclusion that
would find NATO guilty over a broad spectrum of charges—the 19
charges included in the original indictment—and lead to a struggle to
abolish NATO.
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@...
web: www.iacenter.org
CHECK OUT THE NEW SITE www.mumia2000.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
---
http://www.workers.org
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the June 15, 2000
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
Hague tribunal denounced for exonerating NATO war criminals
By John Catalinotto
Anti-war organizations and individuals around the world reacted in
indignation to the announcement June 2 that the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was exonerating NATO of all charges
of war crimes committed against Yugoslavia.
Carla Del Ponte, chief prosecutor for the tribunal at The Hague, said
that the court had examined charges brought against NATO by various
forces. She said that after considerable study the court decided there
was no reason to pursue any of these charges.
Lawyers' groups in Canada, Russia, Greece, France, Yugoslavia and the
United States had brought charges before the court. Charges included the
use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons, as well as dropping
bombs on civilian targets. The civilian targets included the Serb
television station, the Chinese Embassy, a train crossing a bridge and a
convoy of refugees in Kosovo--most of which have been reported in the
mainstream media.
International Action Center co-director Sara Flounders said Del Ponte's
announcement shows that "a people's court has to bring charges against
U.S. and NATO leaders if we want to preserve the truth of this war for
history."
The IAC initiated such a people's tribunal on July 31, 1999, and will
hold its final hearing this June 10 in New York. Flounders said anti-war
activists, elected representatives and prominent personalities from 18
nations will participate in the International Tribunal on U.S./NATO War
Crimes against Yugoslavia.
Flounders noted that "Del Ponte made her announcement just as people's
tribunals were taking place in Rome and Berlin that were finding NATO
leaders guilty of war crimes. And we were preparing our final tribunal
for the following week. In the Netherlands, lawyers are bringing charges
against government leaders on June 9.
"There is no doubt U.S. and NATO leaders planned the aggressive war
against Yugoslavia over a long period, that they purposely bombed
civilian targets, and that they used weapons illegal under international
treaties. And there is no doubt Del Ponte was told to make this
announcement now in an attempt to counter the success of these people's
tribunals in bringing U.S./NATO crimes to the light of day," charged
Flounders.
"We note that the article in the June 3 New York Times on Del Ponte's
announcement described the lawyers who brought charges to the ICTFY
court as 'paid by Yugoslavia.' We know for a fact that the lawyers in
many different countries--including Canada, France, Russia and
Greece--do their work out of their personal conviction. They often do
this at great personal sacrifice, and they have succeeded in exposing
the ICTFY as a corrupt court in the pay of the U.S. and other NATO
powers."
'A corrupt tribunal is worse
than none at all'
Workers World spoke with Prof. Michael Mandel, one of a group of
Canadian attorneys who had brought charges to the ICTFY court.
Mandel said that Del Ponte's decision was no surprise to him, and that
his group had denounced the tribunal as a farce and a disgrace in March.
"The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is a
corrupt institution," said Mandel. "It declared its own corruption with
the announcement by the prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, that she is
completely satisfied that NATO did not commit war crimes in Yugoslavia
and for that reason is not going to open an inquiry.
"You might want to ask how she became satisfied of their innocence
without an inquiry.
"NATO committed every crime from mass murder on down in front of the
world and it confessed its guilt in every press conference of Jamie
Shea," said Mandel.
"A corrupt tribunal is worse than no tribunal at all. This one should be
shut down and Del Ponte fired, to find work in some other department of
the Pentagon," said Mandel. He noted that the first prosecutor of the
tribunal, Canadian Louise Arbour, was rewarded with a life appointment
to the Supreme Court of Canada by Premier Jean Chretien.
In Italy, former senator and religious philosopher Raniero La Valle
denounced the ICTFY as a "victor's tribunal" that was set up
specifically to persecute the Milosevic government in Yugoslavia. La
Valle said that "it is important that justice be found also outside of
its traditional seats and be proclaimed before the tribunal of public
opinion." He was referring specifically to the tribunals to be held June
3 in Rome and June 10 in the U.S. inspired by former U.S. Attorney
General Ramsey Clark.
La Valle will participate at the June 10 tribunal in New York, which
will take place from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. at the Martin Luther King High
School Auditorium at 66th Street and Amsterdam Ave. in Manhattan. The
doors open at 10 a.m.
---
Subject: Berliner Tribunal gegen die NATO
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:56:01 +0200
From: Jug Öster Solibeweg <joesb@...>
To: <joesb@...>
„Die Tribunalbewegung fortsetzen“
Vorstellungsbeitrag der JÖSB beim Europäischen Tribunal gegen die Nato
in
Berlin am 2./3. Juni 2000
Die 90er Jahre wurden als der Beginn des Zeitalters der Menschenrechte,
der
Freiheit und der Demokratie ausgerufen, eben als Anfang einer „Neuen
Weltordnung“.
Doch sehr schnell stellte sich diese als ihr genaues Gegenteil heraus.
Das
Jahrzehnt begann mit einer gewaltigen Krieg gegen den Irak, einer
Aggression
die bis heute andauern und bereits Millionen das Leben gekostet hat. Und
das
Jahrzehnt endete wie es begonnen hatte, nämlich abermals mit einem
Bombenkrieg, diesmal gegen Jugoslawien. Dieser Krieg war nur der
vorläufige
Höhepunkt einer Aggression zur Zerschlagung Jugoslawiens, die ebenso
bereits
Jahre andauert.
Viele werden sich fragen woher diese Aggressivität kommt? Es ist
unmodern
geworden den Grund auf den Punkt, auf den Begriff zu bringen. Man muss
sich
gefallen lassen, als Dinosaurier bezeichnet zu werden. Doch es gibt
keinen
Begriff, der den Sachverhalt besser darstellen könnte – es handelt sich
schicht und einfach um Imperialismus! [anhaltender Applaus] Und die NATO
ist
die Speerspitze dieses Imperialismus.
Solange die NATO und der Imperialismus existiert wird es den Frieden,
für
den wir uns alle einsetzen, niemals geben.
Darum ist das Ziel des Wiener Tribunals nicht nur die öffentliche
Verurteilung der Regierung für den Bruch der in der Verfassung
festgelegten
Neutralität, sondern die Verhinderung des Beitritts Österreichs zur NATO
und
der Erhalt unserer Neutralität. Wir kämpfen für die Auflösung der NATO,
was
angesichts des zu erwartenden Widerstands nichts anderes als ihre
Zerschlagung bedeuten kann.
*******
DAS URTEIL DES EUROPAEISCHEN TRIBUNAL
(http://www.jungewelt.de/2000/06-05/012.shtml)
sowie eine umfangreiche Dokumentation kann in der Berliner
Tageszeitung "JUNGE WELT" abgerufen werden.
Die Ergebnisse des Wiener Tribunal können auf der Netzseite der JÖSB
eingesehen werden: http://www.vorstadtzentrum.net/joesb
****************************
INDICTMENT BY THE VIENNA TRIBUNAL
(submitted to the international tribunal against NATO war crimes in New
York
on the fortcoming weekend)
I Preamble
1) NATO, the United States of America, the Federal Republic of Germany,
the
United Kingdom, Turkey, Spain, the Netherlands, Croatia, Hungary, Italy,
France and others - after failing to force the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia at the so-called "peace negotiations" in Paris and
Rambouillet to
accept an extortionate ultimatum which in fact aimed at the occupation
of
the entire territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and had been
declared a condition sine qua non - without a declaration of war and
without
a resolution by the United Nations Security Council launched warlike
rocket
and bombing attacks against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
deliberately
murdering Serbs, Kosovo-Albanians, Roma, Muslims, Orthodox-Christians,
Catholics and foreign nationals.
By doing this they destroyed and damaged economic, social, cultural,
medical, diplomatic and religious resources.
In the course of their criminal war of aggression, NATO and the
above-mentioned states cut off the population of Yugoslavia from food,
water, electric energy, food production, medicines and medical services.
By
means of rocket and aerial bombing attacks they systematically destroyed
and
damaged waterworks and agricultural irrigation installations, factories,
fertilisers and vegetation, pharmaceutical production works, hospitals
and
health service installations as well as other objects needed for human
survival. The aggressors attack chemical factories, oil refineries,
petrol
and natural gas stores, fertiliser plants, installations and localities
with
the aim of releasing, on a wide scale, radioactive and other dangerous
substances into the atmosphere, the soil, the ground-water and the
foodchain, poison the environment and harm the population. They employed
banned arms, attacked the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with rockets,
bombs
and missiles which contained Depleted Uranium (DU) and released
radioactive
substances into the atmosphere the soil, the ground-water, the foodchain
as
well as into solid objects, thus exposing the Yugoslav population to
health
hazards for generations to come.
2) With these actions NATO and the above-mentioned states violated
International Law, especially art. 2 chapter 7 of the UN-Charter; the
Declaration on Non-intervention; the Resolution on the Definition of
Aggression, 1997 UNGA 3314; articles 52 and 53 of the Convention on the
Law
of Treaties of 23 May, 1969; the Treaty on the Banning of War, the
Briand-Kelog-Pact of Paris, 1928, articles 1 and 2; the Hague
Conventions,
especially the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October, 1907; the Geneva
Convention on the Protection of Civilians in Times of War, 1949; the
Statutes of the Nuremberg Tribunal, principles VI a, b and c; the Geneva
Additional Protocol 1977, articles 48 and 51; the Geneva Protocol on the
Use
of Asphyxiating, Poisonous and Similar Gases as well as of
Bacteriological
Substances in Wars, of 1925; the European Convention on the Peaceful
Settlement of conflicts, of 29 April, 1957 and also violated national
penal
codes concerning murder, duresse, dangerous threat, wilful destruction,
arson, damage to the environment, formation of gangs for the purpose of
carrying out criminal plots and genocide.
II THE VIENNA TRIBUNAL BRINGS A POLITICAL INDICTMENT AGAINST:
The Federal Government of the Republic of Austria
Chancellor Mag. Victor Klima
Vice Chancellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Wolfgang Schüssel
Minister of Defence Dr. Werner Fasslabend
Former EU-Special Representative Dr. Wolfgang Petritsch, present High
Representative for Bosnia
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Alois Mock
a) in particular against former minister of foreign affairs Dr. Alois
Mock
on the basis of the well-founded suspicion of openly taking position
(politically, economically and logistically) and intervening in a civil
war - thereby violating neutrality - by abetting the destruction of the
sovereign Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, through furthering -
in
contravention of international law - and politically supporting the
secession by force of member republics of the SFR of Yugoslavia by way
of
the official recognition - in violation of international law and the
status
of neutrality - of member republics of the SFR of Yugoslavia which had
seceded with the use of force.
(Violation of the neutrality law; of the UN-Charter; of the principle
regarding the obligation of non-intervention in matters which, according
to
the Charter, pertain to the national competence of a state; Declaration
of
the United Nations)
b) in particular against the former EU-Special Representative Dr.
Wolfgang
Petritsch on the basis of his collaboration in the "peace accords"
elaborated in the course of the so-called "peace negotiations" in Paris
and
Rambouillet, including Annex B which contains an extortionate occupation
diktat postulating, as conditio sine qua non, the occupation of the
entire
national territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with the
threat, in
case of non-compliance, of immediate war actions through bombing attacks
against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
(Jeopardizing of neutrality according to Austrian penal code, paragraph
320;
violation of chapter 1 art. 2 and chapter 7 of the UN-Charter; the
Declaration on Non-intervention of 24 October, 1970; the
Briand-Kelog-Pact
of 27 August, 1928; of art. 52 and 53 of the Convention on the Law of
Treaties; violation of paragraphs 105, 106 of the Austrian penal code
/severe duresse/)
c) against the Austrian Federal Government and the above-mentioned
statesmen
on the grounds of the well-founded suspicion of having abetted the
aggressive actions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (see above
I/1)
which, having mandated itself, without decision or mandate by the
Security
Council, by violating the obligation under international law to renounce
on
the use of force in international relations and in relations among
states,
waged a war of aggression against the territory of a sovereign state,
and
thus, on the well-founded suspicion of having violated Austria's
Everlasting
Neutrality, enshrined in international law, by not adhering to the
obligations of an everlastingly neutral state to always comport itself
in
times of war and of peace in a manner that excludes favouring one side
of a
conflict and also on the grounds of the well-founded suspicion of openly
taking sides - politically, economically and logistically - in a civil
war.
c2) and in particular against Federal Chancellor Mag. Victor Klima and
foreign Minister Dr. Wolfgang Schüssel on the basis of their open
support
for and abetting of the NATO war of aggression - violating international
law - at the EU-summit in Berlin and the 50th anniversary NATO-summit in
Washington.
(accessory to the violation of the UN-Charter; the Briand-Kelog-Pact;
the
Declaration on Non-intervention; the Declaration on Non-interference;
the
Resolution on the Definition of Aggression; art. 22 and 23 of the fourth
Hague Concention as well as of the other norms of international law set
out
under I/2, and of the violation of the law on neutrality)
d) on the basis of the well-founded suspicion of abetting the violation
of
the ban on waging "ecological war" carried out by NATO - see I/1 on the
perpetration of criminal actions (i.e. bombing of oil refineries,
chemical
factories and others, damaging and destroying installations, thereby
causing
negative effects on the environment, locally and regionally) as well as
the
use of banned weapons (cluster bombs and munition made of depleted
uranium,
DU)
(Violation of the UN-Charter and the other norms of international law
listed
under I/2, in particular the 1925 Geneva Agreement on the Banning of
Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases; the Convention on the Banning of
the
Use of Means Affecting the Environment, 1977; the Geneva Convention of
12
August, 1949 on the Protection of Civilians in Times of War)
e) on the basis of the well-founded suspicion that at the time of war
the
Austrian Federal Government did not verify violations of the Austrian
air
space by NATO-airforces with regard to their armaments not did it
protest
against such violations, although it would have been obliged to do so
according to international law as well as according to Austrian
neutrality
law - violations which, although not authorised in this case by Austria,
increased massively during that period, according to information
provided by
Austrian air traffic control (which fact does not elucidate how many of
these overflights possibly took place in support of the NATO air war);
based
also on the fact repeated transits through Austria by NATO vehicles to
bases
in Hungary for a long time previously, which can be assumed to have been
not
solely "humanitarian" transports.
(Violation of the 1965 Declaration on Non-intervention; of the Agreement
on
the Peaceful Settlement of International conflicts - First Hague
Convention
on the Outbreak of Hostilities; of the Third Hague Convention of 18
October,
1907; of the Austrian Neutrality Law; of the Austrian Federal Law of 18
October, 1977 on the import, export and transit of war material)
f) based on a well-founded suspicion of transmitting perceptions,
regardless
of their content of truth, pertaining to the intelligence department,
regarding activities on the territory of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia,
by Austrian authorities to NATO services, which fact must lead to the
assumption of violation of neutrality obligations by Austria.
(Violation of the Declaration of Non-interference; of the
Briand-Kelog-Pact
of 1928; of the UN-Charter; of the Austrian law on neutrality)
g) based on the well-founded suspicion of restraining the effectuation
of
non-military and non-violent possibilities of conflict resolution; such
as
the prevention by neutral Austria of tasks ascribed to the OSCE,
possibly by
means of a "withdrawal order" addressed to NATO; of handing over, for
the
first time ever, of a mandate to a US-representative, in this case US
Ambassador William Walker (during whose period as US Ambassador in El
Salvador the dirty war in El Salvador, carried out with the complicity
of
the USA, reached its climax); failure on the part of the Federal
Government
to oppose the - improper - use of the OSCE in the strategic preparation
of
the War against Yugoslavia and the logistic support of NATO as well as
failure to eliminate the suspension of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia as
member of the organisation with a view to favour attempts at bringing
about
negotiated settlements.
(Violation of the stipulations of the CSCE and OSCE; of the Austrian law
on
neutrality; violation of the agreement on protection and compromise
procedures within the OSCE, Stockholm, 15 December, 1992)
h) on the basis of the well-founded suspicion of at least tacitly
consenting
to inflammatory reporting, especially regarding the Serbian sector of
the
population of the Yugoslav Republic; on the well-founded suspicion of
inciting population groups on the territory of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia against each other, especially in media subjected to public
law
and of omitting - on the part of the Federal Government of Austria - to
intervene in order to insist on publishing denials, thus raising doubts
regarding Austria's everlasting neutrality.
(Violation of the braodcasting law and the Austrian neutrality law)
III
On the basis of the suspicion outlined above, the representatives of the
preparatory committee of the Vienna Tribunal demand that the Vienna
Tribunal
of 4 December, 1999 indict the Federal Government of Austria and the
statesmen listed above on the grounds of favouring and supporting the
NATO
aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and of being
accessory
to a conspicuous violation of international law; as well as on the
well-founded suspicion of approval (which has to be rejected out of
political, moral and humanist convictions) of a "New World Order" which
was
a consequence of this war and which contains a continuously proclaimed
right
of "humanitarian intervention" on the part of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO) that is to be carried out with the force of arms and
the
backing - on a global scale - of the strongest military power.
The verdict will be placed at the disposal of the International
Tribunal,
represented by Mr. Ramsey Clark, for the general indictment before the
International Court of Justice in The Hague.
*****
The Vienna tribual on December 4th, 1999 has judged the persons and
institutions named above to be guilty for the crimes stated.
****************************
Jugoslawisch-Österreichische Solidaritätsbewegung (JÖSB)
PF 217, A-1040 Wien, Österreich
Tel/Fax +43 1 924 31 61
joesb@...
www.vorstadtzentrum.net/joesb
Kto-Nr. 9282, RB Schwechat, BLZ 32823
---
TRIBUNALE ITALIANO CONTRO I CRIMINI DELLA NATO IN YUGOSLAVIA
065181048- FAX 068174010
E-MAIL: s.deangelis@... ponac@...
ADESIONI AGGIORNATE AL I° GIUGNO
FALCO ACCAME
GRUPPO DIRITTO E GIUSTIZIA DELLA FED. ROMANA DI RIF.COMUNISTA
Ti invio l'adesione all'assemblea del 3 giugno del Coordinamento
Nazionale
delle delegate e dei delegati RSU (il nostro sito è
<http://www.ecn.org/coord.rsu/>
Aderisco fermamente all'iniziativa
Sergio Mauri - Associazione Culturale Telematica Sottovoce: le parole
sono importanti
Chers Camarades
Nous vous prions de ne pas oublier que nous ausi, le Front
anti-imperialiste, se
joint à votre initiative.
Salutations communistes
Alexandre Moumbaris, président FAI
Roberto Sacco University of Edinburgh
CERN-EP Geneva
ADERIAMO CON ASSOLUTA CONVINZIONE ALL'INIZIATIVA DEL TRIBUNALE CONTRO I
CRIMINI DELLA NATO IN JUGOSLAVIA.
VINCA LA VERITA' DEI POPOLI CONTRO LA MENZOGNA E LA PROTERVIA DEI
POTENTI.
MARISA MANTOVANI, GUIDO CRISTINI - MANTOVA
Donatella Cavani Bologna
Adriana Samaritani Bologna
Marco Palmieri Bologna
Rita Zappa Bologna
Jonhatan Palmieri Bologna
Elena Rainaldi Bologna
Leonardo Trozzi Bologna
Ilaria Bussoni Roma
Alberto Burgio Bologna
Aderiamo molto volentieri al Tribunale Internazionale per i crimini
della
Guerra NATO in Jugoslavia consapevoli che il proseguimento della
battaglia
perchè giustizia e informazione siano fatte è la condizione necessaria
per
avviare uno sbocco positivo alla storia recente della Jugoslavia, e per
una
rimessa in discussione dell'attuale sistema di "sicurezza" NATO.
Cobas scuola sardegna
Aderisco all'iniziativa, anche se non potrò parteciparvi personalmente.
Gli errori ed orrori che una fantomatica sinistra legittima in nome di
una democrazia dei cannoni si pagano, anche in termini elettorali,
preoccupazione principe della sinistra che non governa pur stando al
governo.
Con l'augurio di buon lavoro
umberta torti
Chiara Giorgi Bologna
Roberto Bui Roma
Elio Pagani Venegono Inf. VA
Marco Tambolini Varese
Angelo Sacco Varese
Dino De Simone Varese
Eugenia Gioia Varese
Vincenzo Scalia Bologna
Giovanni Turbanti S. Pietro in Casale BO
Simona Galeotti Bologna
Felice Minicozzi Bologna
Giancarlo Gaeta Bologna
Fabio Rizzoli Bologna
Guido Bartolucci Bologna
Paola Maiardi Bologna
Giovanni Giuseppe Nicosia Bologna
Mirella Agostini Budrio BO
Silvia Scatena Pescia PT
Comitato Sardo Gettiamo le Basi
Aderiamo all'appello,
Obiettori Caritas di Fidenza (pr)
Aderiamo all'appello contenente i capi d'accusa contro le massime
autorità
istituzionali del nostro paese, pur non potendeo partecipare
personalmente
alla sessione del tribunale che si terrà il 3 giugno. La verità verrà
alla
luce e alla coscienza dei popoli.
Giuliana Beltrame , Antonino Morvillo - Padova
nel comunicarvi che abbiamo girato a tutta la nostra rete l'appello per
il 3
giugno, vi comunichiamo la nostra adesione e cercheremo anche di esserci
.
DONNE IN NERO ROMA----
condividendo i punti di accusa contro la Nato aderisco all'appello
promosso
dal Tribunale Internazionale contro i crimini della Nato in Yugoslavia
carla francone, direttore periodico comunista nuova unità
La Lega per i diritti dei popoli aderisce all'iniziativa
Luciano Ardesi
segretario nazionale
-Lega per i Diritti dei Popoli
Le Donne in Nero contro la guerra di Firenze aderiscono all'appello
contro
i crimini commessi dalla Nato durante la guerra in Kosovo.
Vedremo di partecipare a >Roma il 3 giugno 2000 all'ultima sessione
italiana del tribuynale internazionale indipendente contro i crimini
commessi dalla Nato.
DiN - Firenze
Adesione dell'Osservatorio Etico Ambientale all'iniziativa del
Tribunale Internazionale del 3 giugno 2000
Caro Stefano,
Ti comunico la nostra adesione preannunciando la presentazione
della Dichiarazione di Arresto e Mandato di Cattura a carico del
Procuratore capo della Procura di Roma reo di NON aver iniziato
l'azione penale nei confronti dei governanti colpevoli, già denunciati
dal Popolo Sovrano.
Cordiali saluti,
Marco Saba
Osservatorio Etico Ambientale
Mandato di cattura a carico di Vecchione
Milano, 29 maggio 2000
Egregio Avv. Mattina,
facendo riferimento al documento da Lei inviato in rete nel febbraio
scorso contenente tra l'altro il decreto di archiviazione da parte
del Dr. Vecchione in merito alle denunce presentate dal Popolo Sovrano;
L'Osservatorio Etico Ambientale emette una Dichiarazione di
Arresto e Mandato di cattura a carico del Procuratore capo della
Procura di Roma reo di NON aver iniziato l'azione penale nei
confronti dei governanti colpevoli dei reati di tentata modifica
dell'ordinamento costituzionale tramite metodi non consentiti,
reati già denunciati.
Tale Mandato verrà presentato in occasione della riunione del
Tribunale Internazionale il 3 giugno prossimo. Contiamo di
incontrarLa in tale data per decidere assieme l'intervento.
Cordiali saluti,
Marco Saba
Osservatorio Etico Ambientale
Aderisco alla giornata del 3 giugno; in questo momento però non posso
muovermi da Bologna. Appena ho un pò di soldi vi manderò un contributo.
Ma il manifesto e liberazione stanno semplicemente zitti o adducono
ragioni per la non pubblicazione?
A presto
Fabrizio Giuliani
Do la mia personale adesione al testo "Processiamoli"
Paolo Nerozzi
Aderiamo molto volentieri all'appello PAX CHRISTI - PUNTO PACE BOLOGNA
UN Ponte per..
Fabio Alberti
L'Associazione per la Pace aderisce e partecipa al Tribunale Clark e
sarà
presente all'iniziativa del 3 giugno a Roma.
Davide Berruti
Coordinatore Nazionale
Dani Flop
Aderisco all'iniziativa del tribunale contro i crimini NATO in
Jugoslavia di
cui condivido i capi d'accusa.
Il Comitato 7 Dicembre per l'abolizione della legislazione speciale
contro
il terrorismo (già Comitato per la libertà di Sergio Spina -
Bologna)aderisce all'iniziativa del 3 Giugno a Roma.
p. Angelo Cavagna e tutto il GAVCI aderiscono fermamente
al Tribunale Internazionale ed alle sue attivita'.
Purtroppo per diversi impegni non potremo essere a Roma.
Saluti di Pace.
Marco Cervino
fisico / physicist
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, CNR-ISAO, (ex IMGA e FISBAT)
Istituto di Scienze dell'Atmosfera e dell'Oceano
Torino : Enrico Vigna, Associazione SOS Yugoslavia e coordinatore del
Tribunale a Torino.
Ci vediamo a Roma.
Ovviamente io aderisco e con me il "Collettivo Studenti a Sinistra"
dell'Università di Cagliari
A presto
Walter Falgio, Cagliari
aderisco anche se non potro' essere fisicamente presente
============================
Spartaco Vitiello
Con questa lettera aderisco alle attività del "TRIBUNALE
INTERNAZIONALE INDIPENDENTE CONTRO I CRIMINI DELLA NATO IN JUGOSLAVIA",
promosso da Ramsey Clark, con la stesura di 19 punti di accusa contro la
NATO ed i governi occidentali.
Sandro Mazzi.
Desidero aderire alle iniziative del Tribunale Clark, condividendone i
principi ed essendo stato testimone oculare dei crimini della NATO sia
in
Serbia che in Kosovo. Ricordo di essere stato in Kosovo due volte
durante la
guerra, ed altrettante prima e dopo a Pristina, Lipjan e Prizren.
Non posso garantire la mia presenza venerdì prossimo per turno di
servizio
in
ospedale; auguri di buon lavoro
Marino Andolina
Seguiamo con grande interesse le vostre iniziative, ma fino al 29 maggio
siamo molto impegnati contro le multinazionali di tebio qui a Genova
Per favore, continuate a tenerci al corrente!
Grazie-ciao
p. il Centro Ligure di documentazione per la pace
Norma Bertullacelli
Stefano de Angelis
Carlo Pona (ENEA)
Paolo Pioppi
Fulvio Grimaldi
Pasquale Vilardo
Marinella Correggia, Un ponte per...
Giovanni Russo Spena (capogruppo Senato PRC)
Gabriele Cerminara, magistrato
Domenico Gallo
Elettra Deiana
Nella Ginatempo
Forum delle donne del PRC
Fausto Sorini (direzione nazionale PRC)
Lidia Campagnano
prof. Angelo Baracca (università Firenze)
Ambretta Rampelli
Giulia Baroni, università di Roma
Aldo Bernardini, università di Teramo
Luisa Morgantini (parlamentare europea PRC)
Ivan Pavicevac
Anna Kosic
Comitato contro al guerra e la NATO - Ravenna
Coordinamento romagnolo contro la guerra e la NATO
Centro di documentazione "Patrizia Gatto" di Napoli.
Luigi Cortesi, rivista "Giano"
Giovanna Ricoveri, direttrice della rivista telematica Ecologia politica
Giorgio Nebbia, professore emerito università di Bari
Lavoratori autorganizzati Slai-Cobas di Ravenna
Alberto Bernardini (università di Padova)
Alessandra Areni
Eduardo Missoni
Paolo Rosignoli (editore, Ed. Achab)
Daniel Amit (Università di Roma)
Lucio Chiappetti (IFCTR/CNR - Milano)
Daniele Barbieri, cantieri sociali di Imola
Roberto Foco
Patrizio E. Tressoldi (Universita' di Padova)
Francesco Magnocavallo
Giorgio Cortellessa
Cesare ASCOLI (C.N.R. Pisa)
Franco Marenco (Enea)
Comitato contro la guerra di Bologna
Commissione esteri Federazione PRC di Bologna
Christian Fischer
Stefano Corradino
Missoni Eduardo
Fabio Baglioni (Casale Podere Rosa, Roma) -
GianLuca Schiavon
Fabiana Fantinel
Antonino Drago
Fabio Marcelli
Andrea Catone
Gennaro Carotenuto
Daniella Ambrosino
Lucio Triolo (ENEA)
Luca Nencini (ENEA)
Beatrice De Blasi (Pres. SCI)
Vincenzo Caffarelli (ENEA)
Roberto Verdi
Claudio Delbianco
Franco Romanò
Lorenzo Savioli, World Health Organization
Mario Patuzzo - Verona
Enrico Giardino (Forum DAC)
Francesca Lepori
Massimo Zucchetti, politecnico Torino
Marco Spada
Alessandra Filabozzi - LURE Centre Universitaire Paris Sud
Alberto Tarozzi
Libero Vitiello Universita' di Padova
Enrico Peyretti Torino
Vincenzo Brandi ENEA
Archivio Disarmo (Ornella Cacciò)
AIASP (Associazione Internazionale di amicizia e solidarietà con i
Popoli)
Rete Associazioni Popolari
OVD (Operatori volontari Difesa)
Casa dei Popoli di Roma
Coordinamento "Magma/Uscita di Sikurezza"
Most za beograd - un Ponte per Belgrado in terra di Bari
SCI
DP (Democrazia Popolare - Sinistra Unita)
Forum DAC tel. 06-3016877
Coordinamento Romano per la Jugoslavia
La redazione della rivista MAREA
Cipax - Centro Interconfessionale per la Pace - Roma -
Circolo "Puletti" del PRC ENEA Casaccia
Elena Fido e Stefano Minello
Kollettivo Estrella Roja, Cesena
Luigia Spaccamonti, Bologna
Associazione Italia-Nicaragua, Circolo di Viterbo
Andrea Fumagalli (Docente di Economia Politica)
Associazione culturale di solidarietà con la popolazione jugoslava
(BARI)
Andrea Catone
Red Ghost (materiali per la controinformazione e la lotta) - Ravenna,
Spazio Libero Autogestito PelleRossa - Cesena
Gordon Poole
Roberto Sensi
Giulio Sensi
Centro di Comunicazione Antagonista - Cremona
Sergio Ruggieri, Segretaria Federazione di Ancona P.R.C.
Rossana Montecchiani, Comitato Politico Nazionale P.R.C.
Antonio Bruno (Vice Presidente del Consiglio Comunale di Genova)
Fosco Valentini
Michele Melera
Enrico Peyretti, Torino
Maurizio Poletto - della segreteria CGIL -Torino.
Mensile "la nostra lotta"
Mauro Cristaldi
Mariacarla Castagna
Giorgio Cadoni
Valerio Gennaro
Medici per l'Ambiente (ISDE-Genova)
Roberto Spaccia
Antonio Moscato (docente università di Lecce)
Paolo Trezzi
Gruppo KHORAKHANE'
Antonio Onorati, presidente Centro Internazionale Crocevia
John Gilbert Coordinatore Nazionale Lettori Universitari SNUR-CGIL
(Universita' e Ricerca)
Coordinamento Romano per la Jugoslavia
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
alla giornata finale del Tribunale "Clark", New York 10/6/2000
* Un articolo da WORKERS WORLD
* CONCLUSIONI DEI LAVORI DELLE SEZIONI TEDESCA/EUROPEA ED AUSTRIACA
* GLI ADERENTI ALLA SEZIONE ITALIANA (aggiornamento primo giugno 2000)
---
Subject: U.S./NATO found guilty of war crimes against Yugoslavia
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:42:52 -0400
From: iacenter@...
To: "International" <iacenter@...>
GUILTY!
On Saturday, June 10, 2000, the International Tribunal on U.S./NATO
War Crimes Against the People of Yugoslavia found U.S. and
NATO political and military leaders guilty of war crimes. At this
people's tribunal meeting in New York, held before over 500 people, a
panel of 16 judges from 11 countries rendered this verdict regarding
the March 24-June 10, 1999 U.S./NATO assault on Yugoslavia.
Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, the lead prosecutor at
the International Tribunal on U.S./NATO War Crimes Against
Yugoslavia, urged those present and those they represented from the
21 countries participating to carry out a sentence of organizing a
campaign to abolish the NATO military pact.
Ben Dupuy, former ambassador at large during the Aristide
Administration in Haiti, the Rev. Kiyul Chung of Korea, and auto
worker Martha Grevatt, who heads the AFL-CIO’s official
constituency group Pride at Work, read the three parts of the verdict
(included below).
Participants taking the witness stand included eyewitnesses,
researchers who visited Yugoslavia, renowned political and
economics analysts, historians, physicists, biologists, military
experts,
journalists and lay researchers. (A list of all the judges, and the
witnesses and their topics is included below.)
Many of these witnesses have in the past 15 months presented to
audiences worldwide a complete picture of the war NATO waged
against Yugoslavia. For the tribunal, however, all limited themselves
to a single area of expertise that made up a single part of the
evidence against the political and military leaders of the United States
and the other NATO countries.
Taken together, the judges decided, each single part contributed to
construct a proof that beyond a reasonable doubt proved the guilt of
the accused, just as the proper placing of single tiles can build a
mosaic.
The witnesses described how NATO forces used the media to spread
lies to demonize the Serbs and their leadership in order to prepare
public opinion to prepare for war. Then they showed the real
economic and geopolitical interests of the imperialist powers--the U.S.
and Western Europe—in seizing economic control of the area from
the Balkans to the oil-rich Caspian Sea.
Finally they demonstrated how Washington rigged the “Racak
massacre” and then used the so-called Rambouillet accord—in reality
an ultimatum demanding NATO's military control of all of Yugoslavia-
-to provoke the war. Taken together this all proved a crime against
peace.
They also showed the use of illegal weapons, the purposeful choice of
civilian targets and the destruction of the environment and the civilian
infrastructure that add up to war crimes. And the expulsion of
hundreds of thousands of people from Kosovo and Metohija that
prove crimes against humanity.
The witnesses’ presentations were accompanied in many cases by
slides and videos displayed on a large screen on the stage of the
auditorium at Martin Luther King Jr. High School in Manhattan. This
screen was easily visible both to the judges, who sat on the stage, and
to the hundreds in the audience, many of whom stayed throughout the
nine-hour day.
In addition, pictures and videos were on display in the hall outside the
auditorium, and documentary evidence was offered in books or in
research papers.
The International Action Center, founded by Clark in 1992, organized
this final session of the tribunal. There was also participation by
those
who had organized similar tribunal hearings in Germany, Italy, Austria,
Russia, Ukraine, Yugoslavia and Greece, where thousands declared
U.S. President Clinton a war criminal last November in Athens.
In addition to the witnesses, there were also important guest
presentations from representatives of the governments Yugoslavia
and Cuba. In addition, Ismael Guadalupe from Vieques, Puerto Rico
showed in a powerful speech how the practice runs against his small
island laid the basis for U.S./NATO aggression around the world.
According to the IAC organizers, total registration, including justices,
witnesses and staff was 511. Invited speakers, witnesses and judges
came from Haiti, Spain, Turkey, Korea, Puerto Rico, India, Germany,
United States, Canada, Italy, Yugoslavia, Russia, Britain, Belgium,
Iraq, Greece, Austria, France, and Portugal. The U.S. government
refused visas to four people from Ukraine, whose message was read
from the stage.
There were also representatives of the Roma people—often referred
to by the derisive term "gypsy." Shani Rifati, a Roma witness who
was born in Pristina, capital of Kosovo, told how NATO occupation
has led to the expulsion of 100,000 Romas. He pointed out that the
verdict condemned the persecution of Roma people, the first time this
has happened in any international tribunal.
Five different television crews taped the entire proceedings, including
Serbian television and a three-camera crew from Australia, as well as
alternate media sources in the U.S. like the Peoples Video Network.
FINAL JUDGEMENT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY TO
INVESTIGATE U.S./NATO WAR CRIMES AGAINST THE
PEOPLE OF YUGOSLAVIA
Final Judgement
The Members of the Independent Commission of Inquiry to
Investigate U.S./NATO War Crimes Against the People of
Yugoslavia, meeting in New York, having considered the Initial
Charges and Complaint of the Commission dated July 31, 1999,
against President William J. Clinton, Gen. Wesley Clark, Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor
Gerhard Schroder, President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister
Massimo D’Alema, Prime Minister Jose Maria Azmar, the
Governments of the United States and the other NATO member
states, former Secretary General Javier Solana and other NATO
leaders, and Others with nineteen separate Crimes Against Peace,
War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in violation of the Charter
of the United Nations, the 1949 Geneva Conventions, other
international agreements and customary international law;
Having the right and obligation as citizens of the world to sit in
judgement regarding violations of international humanitarian law;
Having heard the testimony from Commissions of Inquiry and
Tribunals held within their own countries during the past year and
having received reports from numerous other Commission hearings
which recite the evidence there gathered;
Having been provided with documentary evidence, eyewitness
statements, photos, videotapes, special reports, expert analyses and
summaries of evidence available to the Commission;
Having access to all evidence, knowledge and expert opinion in the
Commission files or available to the Commission staff;
Having been provided by the Commission, or otherwise obtained,
various books, articles and other written materials on various aspects
of events and conditions in Yugoslavia and other countries in the
Balkans, and in the military and arms establishments;
Having considered newspaper coverage, magazine and periodical
reports, special publications, TV, radio and other media coverage and
public statements by the accused, other public officials and public
materials;
Having heard the presentations of the Commission of Inquiry in public
hearing on June 10, 2000, and the testimony, evidence and summaries
there presented;
And having met, considered and deliberated with each other and with
Commission staff and having considered all the evidence that is
relevant to the nineteen charges of criminal conduct alleged in the
Initial Complaint, make the following findings:
FINDINGS
The Members of the International War Crimes Tribunal find the
accused Guilty on the basis of the evidence against them and that
each of the nineteen separate crimes alleged in the Initial Complaint
has been established to have been committed beyond a reasonable
doubt. These are:
1. Planning and Executing the Dismemberment, Segregation and
Impoverishment of Yugoslavia.
2. Inflicting, Inciting and Enhancing Violence Between and Among
Muslims and Slavs.
3. Disrupting Efforts to Maintain Unity, Peace and Stability in
Yugoslavia.
4. Destroying the Peace-Making Role of the United Nations.
5. Using NATO for Military Aggression Against, and Occupation of,
Non-Compliant Poor Countries.
6. Killing and Injuring a Defenseless Population throughout
Yugoslavia.
7. Planning, Announcing and Executing Attacks Intended to
Assassinate the Head of Government, Other Government Leaders
and Selected Civilians in Yugoslavia.
8. Destroying and Damaging Economic, Social, Cultural, Medical,
Diplomatic -- including the Embassy of the People’s Republic of
China and other embassies -- and Religious Resources, Properties
and Facilities throughout Yugoslavia.
9 Attacking Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Population of
Yugoslavia.
10. Attacking Facilities Containing Dangerous Substances and Forces.
11. Using Depleted Uranium, Cluster Bombs and Other Prohibited
Weapons.
12. Waging War on the Environment.
13. Imposing Sanctions through the United Nations that are a
Genocidal Crime Against Humanity.
14. Creating an Illegal Ad-Hoc Criminal Tribunal to Destroy and
Demonize the Serbian Leadership. The Illegitimacy of this Tribunal is
Further Demonstrated by its Failure to Bring Any Case Regarding the
Oppression of the Romani People, Who Have Suffered the Highest
Rate of Casualties of Any People in the Region.
15. Using Controlled International Media to Create and Maintain
Support for the U.S. Assault and to Demonize Yugoslavia, Slavs,
Serbs and Muslims as Genocidal Murderers.
16. Establishing the Long-Term Military Occupation of Strategic
Parts of Yugoslavia by NATO Forces.
17. Attempting to Destroy the Sovereignty, Right to Self-
Determination, Democracy and Culture of the Slavic, Muslim, Roma
and Other Peoples of Yugoslavia.
18. Seeking to Establish U.S. Domination and Control of Yugoslavia
and to Exploit Its People and Resources.
19. Using the Means of Military Force and Economic Coercion in
Order to Achieve U.S. Domination.
The Members hold NATO, the NATO states and their leaders
accountable for their criminal acts and condemn those found guilty in
the strongest possible terms. The Members condemn the NATO
bombardments, denounce the international crimes and violations of
international humanitarian law committed by the armed attack and
through other means such as economic sanctions. NATO has acted
lawlessly and has attempted to abolish international law.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Members urge the immediate revocation of all embargoes,
sanctions and penalties against Yugoslavia because they constitute a
continuing crime against humanity. The Members call for the
immediate end to the NATO occupation of all Yugoslav territory, the
removal of all NATO and U.S. bases and forces from the Balkans
region, and the cessation of overt and covert operations, including the
“International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia” in the
Hague, aimed at overthrowing the government of Yugoslavia.
The Members further call for full reparations to be paid to the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia for death, injury, economic and environmental
damage resulting from the NATO bombing, economic sanctions and
blockades. Further, other states in the region which have suffered
economic and environmental damage due to the NATO bombing and
economic sanctions on Yugoslavia must also be awarded reparations.
The Members condemn the threat or use of military technology
against life, both civilian and military, as was used by the NATO
powers against the people of Yugoslavia.
The Members urge public action and mobilization to stop new and
continued sanctions and aggressions by the U.S. and other NATO
powers against Iraq, Cuba, North Korea, the countries of Eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union, Puerto Rico, Asia, Sudan,
Colombia and other countries. We ask for the immediate cessation of
overt/covert activities by the U.S. and NATO in such countries.
The Members believe that the interests of peace, justice and human
progress require the abolition of NATO, which has proved itself
beyond any doubt to be an instrument of aggression for the dominant,
colonizing powers, particularly the United States. The Pentagon, the
central and key element of NATO and the greatest single threat to
the people of the world, must be disbanded.
The Members urge the Commission to provide for the permanent
preservation of the reports, evidence and materials gathered to make
them available to others, and to seek ways to provide the widest
possible distribution of the truth about the U.S./NATO war on
Yugoslavia.
We urge all people of the world to act on recommendations developed
by the Commission to hold power accountable and to secure social
justice on which lasting peace must be based.
Done in New York this 10th day of June, 2000
TRIBUNAL SCHEDULE AND LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
10 a.m. Doors open. Registration, if possible, show videos in the
cafeteria or auditorium.
11:00 a.m. - 11:30 p.m Catrin Schuetz and Anya Mukarji-Connolly
introduce judges and prosecutors: List of judges for the International
Tribunal on U.S./NATO War Crimes against Yugoslavia--New York,
June 10, 2000
LIST OF 16 JUDGES
1. Ben Dupuy--Haiti--Former Ambassador at Large for Haiti under
the first government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and currently
secretary general of the Popular National Party (PPN) of Haiti.
2. Angeles Maestro Martin--Spain--Elected member of Spanish
parliament from Madrid and a leader in the movement to end
sanctions against Iraq .
3. Cimile Cakir --Turkey; journalist for newspaper serving Kurdish
community and member of Turkish Human Rights Association.
Imprisoned four years in Turkey for human rights activity..
4. Rev. Kiyul Chung--Korea--Rev. Ki Yul Chung, chairperson of the
Executive Committee of the Congress for Korean Unification in
North America.
5. John Nickels--Roma--U.S. representative of the International
Romani Union and also a judge in the Romani community in the U.S.
6. Jorge Farinacci--Puerto Rico--leader of the Socialist Front of
Puerto Rico and a long-time leader of the independence movement in
Puerto Rico.
7. Ray Laforest--Haitian-American--labor unionist in the American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and a leader of
the Haitian Coalition for Justice, an organization that fights police
brutality in New York.
8. Uma Cutwal -originally from India, Uma Cutwal is president of
Local 375 of the Civil Service Technical Union District Council 37 of
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
9. Dr. Christa Anders--Germany--doctor of medicine and an
organizer of the German/European Tribunal.
10. Raniero La Valle--Italy--Former senator who has served 14 years
in the Italian parliament and an anti-war leader in Catholic circles and
spokesperson for the Italian War Crimes Tribunal movement.
11. Dr. Wolfgang Richter--Germany--Chairperson of the Society for
the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity and a leader of the
War Crimes Tribunal movement in Germany.
12. Martha Grevatt--United States--National Secretary of the AFL-
CIO for Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Trans Labor Organization called Pride at
Work, and active in the United Auto Workers.
13. Michael Ratner--United States--Civil Rights Attorney on the
National Board of the Center for Constitutional Rights and he took the
U.S. government to court for violating the War Powers Act in its
undeclared war against Yugoslavia.
14. Yole Stanesic--Yugoslavia, Russia--Montenegrin poet and writer
living in Russia, member of the tribunals in Yaroslav, Kiev and
Belgrade.
15. John Black--United States--retired President of the Health and
Hospital Workers Union in Pennsylvania, responsible for bringing
many thousands of hospital workers into the union. As a teenager in
Germany he was active in the anti-Nazi underground resistance.
16. Dr. Berta Joubert--Puerto Rico--psychiatrist working in public
health and organizer of Puerto Rican and African American anti-
racist activities in Philadelphia.
The Prosecutor team:
Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general and founder of the
International Action Center;
Pat Chin--originally from Jamaica, International Action Center
spokesperson for solidarity with Haiti and Yugoslavia and other issues;
Sara Flounders, International Action Center national co-director,
participant in numerous tribunal hearings;
Gloria La Riva, a leader of the Peace for Cuba Committee, producer
of video NATO Targets.
(All were in Yugoslavia either during the war or participating in
seminars or meetings after the war.)
Short opening remarks by Ramsey Clark, who will be lead prosecutor.
Opening greetings from Mikhail Kuznetsov of the International
Peoples Tribunal organized from Russia and Ukraine and other
former Soviet countries.
Part I: Crimes against peace. (11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.)
Our first witness is Lenora Foerstel (Maryland) of Women for Mutual
Security. She has recently edited a book War, Lies and Videotape;
about the control of the media.
Jared Israel (Massachusetts). Jared Israel produced a film called
Judgement showing how the corporate media distorted a picture to
produce a Big Lie.
Jean Hatton (Great Britain), from the anti-war movement in Britain.
Spoke of how massacre stories were used to justify the war.
Christopher Black (Canada), one of a group of Canadian attorney’s
who filed a suit charging NATO with war crimes at what is called the
International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia at the Hague.
Speaks on ICFTY, how the Hague Tribunal was a part of the
preparation for war.
Monica Moorehead (U.S.) of Millions for Mumia and contributing
editor to Workers World newspaper, an expert on the prison-industrial
complex in the United States.
Michel Collon, (Belgium) author of two books on the Balkans, Liar’s
Poker, and Monopoly; and contributor to the weekly newspaper,
Solidaire, on the geo-political aims of the war, the Caspian pipelines.
Kadouri Al Kaysi an Iraqi American who has organized to expose the
impact of sanctions on Iraq.
Stratis Kounias, vice-president of the Greek Committee for Peace
and Professor at the University of Athens on NATO’s role in Greece
and the Greek anti-war movement.
John Catalinotto (New York), journalist and researcher who has
represented the International Action Center at tribunals in Vienna and
Belgrade, on Washington’s premeditated plan regarding NATO and
the attack on Yugoslavia.
Roland Keith (Canada), a monitor for the Observer Mission that was
supposed to maintain the peace in Kosovo in 1998, before the war, on
the real role of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe’s Observer mission in Kosovo and Metohija.
Preston Wood (California), who participated in hearings in Novi Sad
and who organized opposition to the war in Los Angeles, especially in
the Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Trans community to present to the tribunal the
truth about the supposed massacre in Racak, Kosovo, used to justify
the attack on Yugoslavia.
Richard Becker (California), who has written and spoken extensively
on the role of the talks held in Rambouillet, France in February and
March 1999. Rambouillet ultimatum as provocation.
Gregor Kneussel (Austria), from the Austrian tribunal about the role
of Constitutionally neutral Austria regarding Yugoslavia and in
delivering this NATO ultimatum.
Part II. War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity
La Riva, Gloria Prosecutor (California), used the video she produced,
NATO Targets, to show how the U.S./NATO bombs hit civilian
targets, from hospitals to bridges to factories.
Sarah Sloan (New York), IAC Commission of Inquiry researcher on
NATO claim it tried to minimize damage to civilian facilities in
Yugoslavia. She used a March 15, 2000 Newsweek article that
exposed that NATO hit very few military targets.
Ellen Catalinotto (New York) is a midwife who has delivered over
1,200 babies to mostly poor women in the New York City. She also
cares for HIV infected women and is involved in research on ways to
prevent the transmission of HIV from pregnant women to their
babies. She reported on NATO’s bombing of 33 hospitals including
damage to the maternity ward at Dragisa Micovic hospital in
Belgrade.
Prof. Ivan Yatsenko (Russia), former Soviet officer and foreign
representative, now teaches law in Moscow. He described damage to
Yugoslav industrial infrastructure and how it cost a half-million jobs.
Admiral Elmar Schmaehling (Germany), former admiral and leading
spokesperson for the German tribunal movement. He spoke on the
aggressive posture of NATO since the collapse of the USSR and its
illegal attack on Yugoslavia.
Judi Cheng (New Jersey), IAC researcher. She showed how
unreasonable it was to believe that the bombing of Chinese embassy
in Belgrade was an accident.
Dr. Janet Eaton (Canada), biologist and environment expert Dr. Janet
Eaton to the stand, on destruction of the environment in Yugoslavia,
especially the damage from attacks on the petrochemical plant at
Pancevo and other industrial targets.
Dr. Carlo Pona (Italy) A physicist who attended a conference in
Belgrade about depleted uranium and has written about this subject,
Pona explained why DU is dangerous to humans and how it was used
in Yugoslavia.
Fulvio Grimaldi (Italy), video maker and journalist. Grimaldi, who has
just completed edited a film on sanctions in Iraq and Yugoslavia,
described the combined impact of impact of bombing and sanctions on
the population of Yugoslavia.
Deirdre Griswold (New York) has recently visited sites of U.S. war
crimes in south Korea, is editor in chief of Workers World
newspaper. She spoke about the pattern of criminal conduct of the
U.S. military and how the 1950 war crimes led to a continuing 50-
year occupation of Korea.
Shani Rifati (Roma), originally from the Romani community in
Kosovo, publishes an English-language newsletter about Romani
affairs named Voice of Roma. He spoke of the horrors the Roma
people faced in Kosovo under K-FOR and KLA occupation.
Milos Raickovich Serb-American composer and anti-war activist,
spoke on the destruction of churches and cultural sites in occupied
Kosovo and Metohija.
Professor Michel Chossudovsky (Canada), an expert historian and
economist, showed the role of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army
and its ties to U.S. and German intelligence services, ties to NATO
and the United Nations Rep. Bernard Kouchner.
Scott Taylor (Canada), former soldier, who now publishes the Ottawa-
based magazine, Espirit de Corps, celebrated for its unflinching
scrutiny of the Canadian military. He also appears regularly in the
Canadian media as a military analyst. He witnessed the expulsion of
the Serb population from the Krajina in Croatia by an army led by
KLA General Ceku.
Professor Barry Lituchy (New York), who has recently returned
from a trip to Yugoslavia, described how the NATO occupying forces
known as K-FOR have participated in expelling parts of the
population from Kosovo.
Professor Greg Elich (United States), has recently visited the
Balkans. He spoke on the un-humanitarian nature of . NATO’s
occupation of Kosovo.
Gilles Troude (France), on the editorial board of Balkans-Info, a pro-
Yugoslavia, anti-NATO monthly published in Paris, France since
1996. He described France’s role in the war and in suppressing
dissent at home.
Professor Jorge Cadima (Portugal), a regular contributor on NATO-
related subjects to to Avante, the weekly newspaper of the
Portuguese Communist Party, spoke on the role of NATO in Portugal
since 1949 and on popular resistance to the war.
5:30-6:15 Messages of solidarity and struggle
Ismael Guadalupe (Puerto Rico) The Committee for the Rescue and
Development of Vieques on the relationship of Vieques to
Yugoslavia. He showed how the U.S. used Vieques for target
practice to prepare for the war against Yugoslavia, and they do so for
all foreign aggression.
Representative of Cuban Interest Section, spoke on Cuba’s suit
against U.S. for the costs of the embargo.
UN Ambassador Jovanovic of Yugoslavia, gave evidence of his own
government’s charges against the U.S. and NATO for war crimes.
His talk was in fact a summary of much of the day’s proceedings.
Brian Becker, co-director of the IAC, spoke on the need to form a
worldwide movement to abolish NATO.
Ramsey Clark reiterated some of the main points developed during
the day and stressed the need to come to a unified conclusion that
would find NATO guilty over a broad spectrum of charges—the 19
charges included in the original indictment—and lead to a struggle to
abolish NATO.
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@...
web: www.iacenter.org
CHECK OUT THE NEW SITE www.mumia2000.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
---
http://www.workers.org
-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the June 15, 2000
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
Hague tribunal denounced for exonerating NATO war criminals
By John Catalinotto
Anti-war organizations and individuals around the world reacted in
indignation to the announcement June 2 that the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was exonerating NATO of all charges
of war crimes committed against Yugoslavia.
Carla Del Ponte, chief prosecutor for the tribunal at The Hague, said
that the court had examined charges brought against NATO by various
forces. She said that after considerable study the court decided there
was no reason to pursue any of these charges.
Lawyers' groups in Canada, Russia, Greece, France, Yugoslavia and the
United States had brought charges before the court. Charges included the
use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons, as well as dropping
bombs on civilian targets. The civilian targets included the Serb
television station, the Chinese Embassy, a train crossing a bridge and a
convoy of refugees in Kosovo--most of which have been reported in the
mainstream media.
International Action Center co-director Sara Flounders said Del Ponte's
announcement shows that "a people's court has to bring charges against
U.S. and NATO leaders if we want to preserve the truth of this war for
history."
The IAC initiated such a people's tribunal on July 31, 1999, and will
hold its final hearing this June 10 in New York. Flounders said anti-war
activists, elected representatives and prominent personalities from 18
nations will participate in the International Tribunal on U.S./NATO War
Crimes against Yugoslavia.
Flounders noted that "Del Ponte made her announcement just as people's
tribunals were taking place in Rome and Berlin that were finding NATO
leaders guilty of war crimes. And we were preparing our final tribunal
for the following week. In the Netherlands, lawyers are bringing charges
against government leaders on June 9.
"There is no doubt U.S. and NATO leaders planned the aggressive war
against Yugoslavia over a long period, that they purposely bombed
civilian targets, and that they used weapons illegal under international
treaties. And there is no doubt Del Ponte was told to make this
announcement now in an attempt to counter the success of these people's
tribunals in bringing U.S./NATO crimes to the light of day," charged
Flounders.
"We note that the article in the June 3 New York Times on Del Ponte's
announcement described the lawyers who brought charges to the ICTFY
court as 'paid by Yugoslavia.' We know for a fact that the lawyers in
many different countries--including Canada, France, Russia and
Greece--do their work out of their personal conviction. They often do
this at great personal sacrifice, and they have succeeded in exposing
the ICTFY as a corrupt court in the pay of the U.S. and other NATO
powers."
'A corrupt tribunal is worse
than none at all'
Workers World spoke with Prof. Michael Mandel, one of a group of
Canadian attorneys who had brought charges to the ICTFY court.
Mandel said that Del Ponte's decision was no surprise to him, and that
his group had denounced the tribunal as a farce and a disgrace in March.
"The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is a
corrupt institution," said Mandel. "It declared its own corruption with
the announcement by the prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, that she is
completely satisfied that NATO did not commit war crimes in Yugoslavia
and for that reason is not going to open an inquiry.
"You might want to ask how she became satisfied of their innocence
without an inquiry.
"NATO committed every crime from mass murder on down in front of the
world and it confessed its guilt in every press conference of Jamie
Shea," said Mandel.
"A corrupt tribunal is worse than no tribunal at all. This one should be
shut down and Del Ponte fired, to find work in some other department of
the Pentagon," said Mandel. He noted that the first prosecutor of the
tribunal, Canadian Louise Arbour, was rewarded with a life appointment
to the Supreme Court of Canada by Premier Jean Chretien.
In Italy, former senator and religious philosopher Raniero La Valle
denounced the ICTFY as a "victor's tribunal" that was set up
specifically to persecute the Milosevic government in Yugoslavia. La
Valle said that "it is important that justice be found also outside of
its traditional seats and be proclaimed before the tribunal of public
opinion." He was referring specifically to the tribunals to be held June
3 in Rome and June 10 in the U.S. inspired by former U.S. Attorney
General Ramsey Clark.
La Valle will participate at the June 10 tribunal in New York, which
will take place from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. at the Martin Luther King High
School Auditorium at 66th Street and Amsterdam Ave. in Manhattan. The
doors open at 10 a.m.
---
Subject: Berliner Tribunal gegen die NATO
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:56:01 +0200
From: Jug Öster Solibeweg <joesb@...>
To: <joesb@...>
„Die Tribunalbewegung fortsetzen“
Vorstellungsbeitrag der JÖSB beim Europäischen Tribunal gegen die Nato
in
Berlin am 2./3. Juni 2000
Die 90er Jahre wurden als der Beginn des Zeitalters der Menschenrechte,
der
Freiheit und der Demokratie ausgerufen, eben als Anfang einer „Neuen
Weltordnung“.
Doch sehr schnell stellte sich diese als ihr genaues Gegenteil heraus.
Das
Jahrzehnt begann mit einer gewaltigen Krieg gegen den Irak, einer
Aggression
die bis heute andauern und bereits Millionen das Leben gekostet hat. Und
das
Jahrzehnt endete wie es begonnen hatte, nämlich abermals mit einem
Bombenkrieg, diesmal gegen Jugoslawien. Dieser Krieg war nur der
vorläufige
Höhepunkt einer Aggression zur Zerschlagung Jugoslawiens, die ebenso
bereits
Jahre andauert.
Viele werden sich fragen woher diese Aggressivität kommt? Es ist
unmodern
geworden den Grund auf den Punkt, auf den Begriff zu bringen. Man muss
sich
gefallen lassen, als Dinosaurier bezeichnet zu werden. Doch es gibt
keinen
Begriff, der den Sachverhalt besser darstellen könnte – es handelt sich
schicht und einfach um Imperialismus! [anhaltender Applaus] Und die NATO
ist
die Speerspitze dieses Imperialismus.
Solange die NATO und der Imperialismus existiert wird es den Frieden,
für
den wir uns alle einsetzen, niemals geben.
Darum ist das Ziel des Wiener Tribunals nicht nur die öffentliche
Verurteilung der Regierung für den Bruch der in der Verfassung
festgelegten
Neutralität, sondern die Verhinderung des Beitritts Österreichs zur NATO
und
der Erhalt unserer Neutralität. Wir kämpfen für die Auflösung der NATO,
was
angesichts des zu erwartenden Widerstands nichts anderes als ihre
Zerschlagung bedeuten kann.
*******
DAS URTEIL DES EUROPAEISCHEN TRIBUNAL
(http://www.jungewelt.de/2000/06-05/012.shtml)
sowie eine umfangreiche Dokumentation kann in der Berliner
Tageszeitung "JUNGE WELT" abgerufen werden.
Die Ergebnisse des Wiener Tribunal können auf der Netzseite der JÖSB
eingesehen werden: http://www.vorstadtzentrum.net/joesb
****************************
INDICTMENT BY THE VIENNA TRIBUNAL
(submitted to the international tribunal against NATO war crimes in New
York
on the fortcoming weekend)
I Preamble
1) NATO, the United States of America, the Federal Republic of Germany,
the
United Kingdom, Turkey, Spain, the Netherlands, Croatia, Hungary, Italy,
France and others - after failing to force the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia at the so-called "peace negotiations" in Paris and
Rambouillet to
accept an extortionate ultimatum which in fact aimed at the occupation
of
the entire territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and had been
declared a condition sine qua non - without a declaration of war and
without
a resolution by the United Nations Security Council launched warlike
rocket
and bombing attacks against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
deliberately
murdering Serbs, Kosovo-Albanians, Roma, Muslims, Orthodox-Christians,
Catholics and foreign nationals.
By doing this they destroyed and damaged economic, social, cultural,
medical, diplomatic and religious resources.
In the course of their criminal war of aggression, NATO and the
above-mentioned states cut off the population of Yugoslavia from food,
water, electric energy, food production, medicines and medical services.
By
means of rocket and aerial bombing attacks they systematically destroyed
and
damaged waterworks and agricultural irrigation installations, factories,
fertilisers and vegetation, pharmaceutical production works, hospitals
and
health service installations as well as other objects needed for human
survival. The aggressors attack chemical factories, oil refineries,
petrol
and natural gas stores, fertiliser plants, installations and localities
with
the aim of releasing, on a wide scale, radioactive and other dangerous
substances into the atmosphere, the soil, the ground-water and the
foodchain, poison the environment and harm the population. They employed
banned arms, attacked the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with rockets,
bombs
and missiles which contained Depleted Uranium (DU) and released
radioactive
substances into the atmosphere the soil, the ground-water, the foodchain
as
well as into solid objects, thus exposing the Yugoslav population to
health
hazards for generations to come.
2) With these actions NATO and the above-mentioned states violated
International Law, especially art. 2 chapter 7 of the UN-Charter; the
Declaration on Non-intervention; the Resolution on the Definition of
Aggression, 1997 UNGA 3314; articles 52 and 53 of the Convention on the
Law
of Treaties of 23 May, 1969; the Treaty on the Banning of War, the
Briand-Kelog-Pact of Paris, 1928, articles 1 and 2; the Hague
Conventions,
especially the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October, 1907; the Geneva
Convention on the Protection of Civilians in Times of War, 1949; the
Statutes of the Nuremberg Tribunal, principles VI a, b and c; the Geneva
Additional Protocol 1977, articles 48 and 51; the Geneva Protocol on the
Use
of Asphyxiating, Poisonous and Similar Gases as well as of
Bacteriological
Substances in Wars, of 1925; the European Convention on the Peaceful
Settlement of conflicts, of 29 April, 1957 and also violated national
penal
codes concerning murder, duresse, dangerous threat, wilful destruction,
arson, damage to the environment, formation of gangs for the purpose of
carrying out criminal plots and genocide.
II THE VIENNA TRIBUNAL BRINGS A POLITICAL INDICTMENT AGAINST:
The Federal Government of the Republic of Austria
Chancellor Mag. Victor Klima
Vice Chancellor and Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Wolfgang Schüssel
Minister of Defence Dr. Werner Fasslabend
Former EU-Special Representative Dr. Wolfgang Petritsch, present High
Representative for Bosnia
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs Dr. Alois Mock
a) in particular against former minister of foreign affairs Dr. Alois
Mock
on the basis of the well-founded suspicion of openly taking position
(politically, economically and logistically) and intervening in a civil
war - thereby violating neutrality - by abetting the destruction of the
sovereign Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, through furthering -
in
contravention of international law - and politically supporting the
secession by force of member republics of the SFR of Yugoslavia by way
of
the official recognition - in violation of international law and the
status
of neutrality - of member republics of the SFR of Yugoslavia which had
seceded with the use of force.
(Violation of the neutrality law; of the UN-Charter; of the principle
regarding the obligation of non-intervention in matters which, according
to
the Charter, pertain to the national competence of a state; Declaration
of
the United Nations)
b) in particular against the former EU-Special Representative Dr.
Wolfgang
Petritsch on the basis of his collaboration in the "peace accords"
elaborated in the course of the so-called "peace negotiations" in Paris
and
Rambouillet, including Annex B which contains an extortionate occupation
diktat postulating, as conditio sine qua non, the occupation of the
entire
national territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with the
threat, in
case of non-compliance, of immediate war actions through bombing attacks
against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
(Jeopardizing of neutrality according to Austrian penal code, paragraph
320;
violation of chapter 1 art. 2 and chapter 7 of the UN-Charter; the
Declaration on Non-intervention of 24 October, 1970; the
Briand-Kelog-Pact
of 27 August, 1928; of art. 52 and 53 of the Convention on the Law of
Treaties; violation of paragraphs 105, 106 of the Austrian penal code
/severe duresse/)
c) against the Austrian Federal Government and the above-mentioned
statesmen
on the grounds of the well-founded suspicion of having abetted the
aggressive actions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (see above
I/1)
which, having mandated itself, without decision or mandate by the
Security
Council, by violating the obligation under international law to renounce
on
the use of force in international relations and in relations among
states,
waged a war of aggression against the territory of a sovereign state,
and
thus, on the well-founded suspicion of having violated Austria's
Everlasting
Neutrality, enshrined in international law, by not adhering to the
obligations of an everlastingly neutral state to always comport itself
in
times of war and of peace in a manner that excludes favouring one side
of a
conflict and also on the grounds of the well-founded suspicion of openly
taking sides - politically, economically and logistically - in a civil
war.
c2) and in particular against Federal Chancellor Mag. Victor Klima and
foreign Minister Dr. Wolfgang Schüssel on the basis of their open
support
for and abetting of the NATO war of aggression - violating international
law - at the EU-summit in Berlin and the 50th anniversary NATO-summit in
Washington.
(accessory to the violation of the UN-Charter; the Briand-Kelog-Pact;
the
Declaration on Non-intervention; the Declaration on Non-interference;
the
Resolution on the Definition of Aggression; art. 22 and 23 of the fourth
Hague Concention as well as of the other norms of international law set
out
under I/2, and of the violation of the law on neutrality)
d) on the basis of the well-founded suspicion of abetting the violation
of
the ban on waging "ecological war" carried out by NATO - see I/1 on the
perpetration of criminal actions (i.e. bombing of oil refineries,
chemical
factories and others, damaging and destroying installations, thereby
causing
negative effects on the environment, locally and regionally) as well as
the
use of banned weapons (cluster bombs and munition made of depleted
uranium,
DU)
(Violation of the UN-Charter and the other norms of international law
listed
under I/2, in particular the 1925 Geneva Agreement on the Banning of
Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases; the Convention on the Banning of
the
Use of Means Affecting the Environment, 1977; the Geneva Convention of
12
August, 1949 on the Protection of Civilians in Times of War)
e) on the basis of the well-founded suspicion that at the time of war
the
Austrian Federal Government did not verify violations of the Austrian
air
space by NATO-airforces with regard to their armaments not did it
protest
against such violations, although it would have been obliged to do so
according to international law as well as according to Austrian
neutrality
law - violations which, although not authorised in this case by Austria,
increased massively during that period, according to information
provided by
Austrian air traffic control (which fact does not elucidate how many of
these overflights possibly took place in support of the NATO air war);
based
also on the fact repeated transits through Austria by NATO vehicles to
bases
in Hungary for a long time previously, which can be assumed to have been
not
solely "humanitarian" transports.
(Violation of the 1965 Declaration on Non-intervention; of the Agreement
on
the Peaceful Settlement of International conflicts - First Hague
Convention
on the Outbreak of Hostilities; of the Third Hague Convention of 18
October,
1907; of the Austrian Neutrality Law; of the Austrian Federal Law of 18
October, 1977 on the import, export and transit of war material)
f) based on a well-founded suspicion of transmitting perceptions,
regardless
of their content of truth, pertaining to the intelligence department,
regarding activities on the territory of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia,
by Austrian authorities to NATO services, which fact must lead to the
assumption of violation of neutrality obligations by Austria.
(Violation of the Declaration of Non-interference; of the
Briand-Kelog-Pact
of 1928; of the UN-Charter; of the Austrian law on neutrality)
g) based on the well-founded suspicion of restraining the effectuation
of
non-military and non-violent possibilities of conflict resolution; such
as
the prevention by neutral Austria of tasks ascribed to the OSCE,
possibly by
means of a "withdrawal order" addressed to NATO; of handing over, for
the
first time ever, of a mandate to a US-representative, in this case US
Ambassador William Walker (during whose period as US Ambassador in El
Salvador the dirty war in El Salvador, carried out with the complicity
of
the USA, reached its climax); failure on the part of the Federal
Government
to oppose the - improper - use of the OSCE in the strategic preparation
of
the War against Yugoslavia and the logistic support of NATO as well as
failure to eliminate the suspension of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia as
member of the organisation with a view to favour attempts at bringing
about
negotiated settlements.
(Violation of the stipulations of the CSCE and OSCE; of the Austrian law
on
neutrality; violation of the agreement on protection and compromise
procedures within the OSCE, Stockholm, 15 December, 1992)
h) on the basis of the well-founded suspicion of at least tacitly
consenting
to inflammatory reporting, especially regarding the Serbian sector of
the
population of the Yugoslav Republic; on the well-founded suspicion of
inciting population groups on the territory of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia against each other, especially in media subjected to public
law
and of omitting - on the part of the Federal Government of Austria - to
intervene in order to insist on publishing denials, thus raising doubts
regarding Austria's everlasting neutrality.
(Violation of the braodcasting law and the Austrian neutrality law)
III
On the basis of the suspicion outlined above, the representatives of the
preparatory committee of the Vienna Tribunal demand that the Vienna
Tribunal
of 4 December, 1999 indict the Federal Government of Austria and the
statesmen listed above on the grounds of favouring and supporting the
NATO
aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and of being
accessory
to a conspicuous violation of international law; as well as on the
well-founded suspicion of approval (which has to be rejected out of
political, moral and humanist convictions) of a "New World Order" which
was
a consequence of this war and which contains a continuously proclaimed
right
of "humanitarian intervention" on the part of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO) that is to be carried out with the force of arms and
the
backing - on a global scale - of the strongest military power.
The verdict will be placed at the disposal of the International
Tribunal,
represented by Mr. Ramsey Clark, for the general indictment before the
International Court of Justice in The Hague.
*****
The Vienna tribual on December 4th, 1999 has judged the persons and
institutions named above to be guilty for the crimes stated.
****************************
Jugoslawisch-Österreichische Solidaritätsbewegung (JÖSB)
PF 217, A-1040 Wien, Österreich
Tel/Fax +43 1 924 31 61
joesb@...
www.vorstadtzentrum.net/joesb
Kto-Nr. 9282, RB Schwechat, BLZ 32823
---
TRIBUNALE ITALIANO CONTRO I CRIMINI DELLA NATO IN YUGOSLAVIA
065181048- FAX 068174010
E-MAIL: s.deangelis@... ponac@...
ADESIONI AGGIORNATE AL I° GIUGNO
FALCO ACCAME
GRUPPO DIRITTO E GIUSTIZIA DELLA FED. ROMANA DI RIF.COMUNISTA
Ti invio l'adesione all'assemblea del 3 giugno del Coordinamento
Nazionale
delle delegate e dei delegati RSU (il nostro sito è
<http://www.ecn.org/coord.rsu/>
Aderisco fermamente all'iniziativa
Sergio Mauri - Associazione Culturale Telematica Sottovoce: le parole
sono importanti
Chers Camarades
Nous vous prions de ne pas oublier que nous ausi, le Front
anti-imperialiste, se
joint à votre initiative.
Salutations communistes
Alexandre Moumbaris, président FAI
Roberto Sacco University of Edinburgh
CERN-EP Geneva
ADERIAMO CON ASSOLUTA CONVINZIONE ALL'INIZIATIVA DEL TRIBUNALE CONTRO I
CRIMINI DELLA NATO IN JUGOSLAVIA.
VINCA LA VERITA' DEI POPOLI CONTRO LA MENZOGNA E LA PROTERVIA DEI
POTENTI.
MARISA MANTOVANI, GUIDO CRISTINI - MANTOVA
Donatella Cavani Bologna
Adriana Samaritani Bologna
Marco Palmieri Bologna
Rita Zappa Bologna
Jonhatan Palmieri Bologna
Elena Rainaldi Bologna
Leonardo Trozzi Bologna
Ilaria Bussoni Roma
Alberto Burgio Bologna
Aderiamo molto volentieri al Tribunale Internazionale per i crimini
della
Guerra NATO in Jugoslavia consapevoli che il proseguimento della
battaglia
perchè giustizia e informazione siano fatte è la condizione necessaria
per
avviare uno sbocco positivo alla storia recente della Jugoslavia, e per
una
rimessa in discussione dell'attuale sistema di "sicurezza" NATO.
Cobas scuola sardegna
Aderisco all'iniziativa, anche se non potrò parteciparvi personalmente.
Gli errori ed orrori che una fantomatica sinistra legittima in nome di
una democrazia dei cannoni si pagano, anche in termini elettorali,
preoccupazione principe della sinistra che non governa pur stando al
governo.
Con l'augurio di buon lavoro
umberta torti
Chiara Giorgi Bologna
Roberto Bui Roma
Elio Pagani Venegono Inf. VA
Marco Tambolini Varese
Angelo Sacco Varese
Dino De Simone Varese
Eugenia Gioia Varese
Vincenzo Scalia Bologna
Giovanni Turbanti S. Pietro in Casale BO
Simona Galeotti Bologna
Felice Minicozzi Bologna
Giancarlo Gaeta Bologna
Fabio Rizzoli Bologna
Guido Bartolucci Bologna
Paola Maiardi Bologna
Giovanni Giuseppe Nicosia Bologna
Mirella Agostini Budrio BO
Silvia Scatena Pescia PT
Comitato Sardo Gettiamo le Basi
Aderiamo all'appello,
Obiettori Caritas di Fidenza (pr)
Aderiamo all'appello contenente i capi d'accusa contro le massime
autorità
istituzionali del nostro paese, pur non potendeo partecipare
personalmente
alla sessione del tribunale che si terrà il 3 giugno. La verità verrà
alla
luce e alla coscienza dei popoli.
Giuliana Beltrame , Antonino Morvillo - Padova
nel comunicarvi che abbiamo girato a tutta la nostra rete l'appello per
il 3
giugno, vi comunichiamo la nostra adesione e cercheremo anche di esserci
.
DONNE IN NERO ROMA----
condividendo i punti di accusa contro la Nato aderisco all'appello
promosso
dal Tribunale Internazionale contro i crimini della Nato in Yugoslavia
carla francone, direttore periodico comunista nuova unità
La Lega per i diritti dei popoli aderisce all'iniziativa
Luciano Ardesi
segretario nazionale
-Lega per i Diritti dei Popoli
Le Donne in Nero contro la guerra di Firenze aderiscono all'appello
contro
i crimini commessi dalla Nato durante la guerra in Kosovo.
Vedremo di partecipare a >Roma il 3 giugno 2000 all'ultima sessione
italiana del tribuynale internazionale indipendente contro i crimini
commessi dalla Nato.
DiN - Firenze
Adesione dell'Osservatorio Etico Ambientale all'iniziativa del
Tribunale Internazionale del 3 giugno 2000
Caro Stefano,
Ti comunico la nostra adesione preannunciando la presentazione
della Dichiarazione di Arresto e Mandato di Cattura a carico del
Procuratore capo della Procura di Roma reo di NON aver iniziato
l'azione penale nei confronti dei governanti colpevoli, già denunciati
dal Popolo Sovrano.
Cordiali saluti,
Marco Saba
Osservatorio Etico Ambientale
Mandato di cattura a carico di Vecchione
Milano, 29 maggio 2000
Egregio Avv. Mattina,
facendo riferimento al documento da Lei inviato in rete nel febbraio
scorso contenente tra l'altro il decreto di archiviazione da parte
del Dr. Vecchione in merito alle denunce presentate dal Popolo Sovrano;
L'Osservatorio Etico Ambientale emette una Dichiarazione di
Arresto e Mandato di cattura a carico del Procuratore capo della
Procura di Roma reo di NON aver iniziato l'azione penale nei
confronti dei governanti colpevoli dei reati di tentata modifica
dell'ordinamento costituzionale tramite metodi non consentiti,
reati già denunciati.
Tale Mandato verrà presentato in occasione della riunione del
Tribunale Internazionale il 3 giugno prossimo. Contiamo di
incontrarLa in tale data per decidere assieme l'intervento.
Cordiali saluti,
Marco Saba
Osservatorio Etico Ambientale
Aderisco alla giornata del 3 giugno; in questo momento però non posso
muovermi da Bologna. Appena ho un pò di soldi vi manderò un contributo.
Ma il manifesto e liberazione stanno semplicemente zitti o adducono
ragioni per la non pubblicazione?
A presto
Fabrizio Giuliani
Do la mia personale adesione al testo "Processiamoli"
Paolo Nerozzi
Aderiamo molto volentieri all'appello PAX CHRISTI - PUNTO PACE BOLOGNA
UN Ponte per..
Fabio Alberti
L'Associazione per la Pace aderisce e partecipa al Tribunale Clark e
sarà
presente all'iniziativa del 3 giugno a Roma.
Davide Berruti
Coordinatore Nazionale
Dani Flop
Aderisco all'iniziativa del tribunale contro i crimini NATO in
Jugoslavia di
cui condivido i capi d'accusa.
Il Comitato 7 Dicembre per l'abolizione della legislazione speciale
contro
il terrorismo (già Comitato per la libertà di Sergio Spina -
Bologna)aderisce all'iniziativa del 3 Giugno a Roma.
p. Angelo Cavagna e tutto il GAVCI aderiscono fermamente
al Tribunale Internazionale ed alle sue attivita'.
Purtroppo per diversi impegni non potremo essere a Roma.
Saluti di Pace.
Marco Cervino
fisico / physicist
Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, CNR-ISAO, (ex IMGA e FISBAT)
Istituto di Scienze dell'Atmosfera e dell'Oceano
Torino : Enrico Vigna, Associazione SOS Yugoslavia e coordinatore del
Tribunale a Torino.
Ci vediamo a Roma.
Ovviamente io aderisco e con me il "Collettivo Studenti a Sinistra"
dell'Università di Cagliari
A presto
Walter Falgio, Cagliari
aderisco anche se non potro' essere fisicamente presente
============================
Spartaco Vitiello
Con questa lettera aderisco alle attività del "TRIBUNALE
INTERNAZIONALE INDIPENDENTE CONTRO I CRIMINI DELLA NATO IN JUGOSLAVIA",
promosso da Ramsey Clark, con la stesura di 19 punti di accusa contro la
NATO ed i governi occidentali.
Sandro Mazzi.
Desidero aderire alle iniziative del Tribunale Clark, condividendone i
principi ed essendo stato testimone oculare dei crimini della NATO sia
in
Serbia che in Kosovo. Ricordo di essere stato in Kosovo due volte
durante la
guerra, ed altrettante prima e dopo a Pristina, Lipjan e Prizren.
Non posso garantire la mia presenza venerdì prossimo per turno di
servizio
in
ospedale; auguri di buon lavoro
Marino Andolina
Seguiamo con grande interesse le vostre iniziative, ma fino al 29 maggio
siamo molto impegnati contro le multinazionali di tebio qui a Genova
Per favore, continuate a tenerci al corrente!
Grazie-ciao
p. il Centro Ligure di documentazione per la pace
Norma Bertullacelli
Stefano de Angelis
Carlo Pona (ENEA)
Paolo Pioppi
Fulvio Grimaldi
Pasquale Vilardo
Marinella Correggia, Un ponte per...
Giovanni Russo Spena (capogruppo Senato PRC)
Gabriele Cerminara, magistrato
Domenico Gallo
Elettra Deiana
Nella Ginatempo
Forum delle donne del PRC
Fausto Sorini (direzione nazionale PRC)
Lidia Campagnano
prof. Angelo Baracca (università Firenze)
Ambretta Rampelli
Giulia Baroni, università di Roma
Aldo Bernardini, università di Teramo
Luisa Morgantini (parlamentare europea PRC)
Ivan Pavicevac
Anna Kosic
Comitato contro al guerra e la NATO - Ravenna
Coordinamento romagnolo contro la guerra e la NATO
Centro di documentazione "Patrizia Gatto" di Napoli.
Luigi Cortesi, rivista "Giano"
Giovanna Ricoveri, direttrice della rivista telematica Ecologia politica
Giorgio Nebbia, professore emerito università di Bari
Lavoratori autorganizzati Slai-Cobas di Ravenna
Alberto Bernardini (università di Padova)
Alessandra Areni
Eduardo Missoni
Paolo Rosignoli (editore, Ed. Achab)
Daniel Amit (Università di Roma)
Lucio Chiappetti (IFCTR/CNR - Milano)
Daniele Barbieri, cantieri sociali di Imola
Roberto Foco
Patrizio E. Tressoldi (Universita' di Padova)
Francesco Magnocavallo
Giorgio Cortellessa
Cesare ASCOLI (C.N.R. Pisa)
Franco Marenco (Enea)
Comitato contro la guerra di Bologna
Commissione esteri Federazione PRC di Bologna
Christian Fischer
Stefano Corradino
Missoni Eduardo
Fabio Baglioni (Casale Podere Rosa, Roma) -
GianLuca Schiavon
Fabiana Fantinel
Antonino Drago
Fabio Marcelli
Andrea Catone
Gennaro Carotenuto
Daniella Ambrosino
Lucio Triolo (ENEA)
Luca Nencini (ENEA)
Beatrice De Blasi (Pres. SCI)
Vincenzo Caffarelli (ENEA)
Roberto Verdi
Claudio Delbianco
Franco Romanò
Lorenzo Savioli, World Health Organization
Mario Patuzzo - Verona
Enrico Giardino (Forum DAC)
Francesca Lepori
Massimo Zucchetti, politecnico Torino
Marco Spada
Alessandra Filabozzi - LURE Centre Universitaire Paris Sud
Alberto Tarozzi
Libero Vitiello Universita' di Padova
Enrico Peyretti Torino
Vincenzo Brandi ENEA
Archivio Disarmo (Ornella Cacciò)
AIASP (Associazione Internazionale di amicizia e solidarietà con i
Popoli)
Rete Associazioni Popolari
OVD (Operatori volontari Difesa)
Casa dei Popoli di Roma
Coordinamento "Magma/Uscita di Sikurezza"
Most za beograd - un Ponte per Belgrado in terra di Bari
SCI
DP (Democrazia Popolare - Sinistra Unita)
Forum DAC tel. 06-3016877
Coordinamento Romano per la Jugoslavia
La redazione della rivista MAREA
Cipax - Centro Interconfessionale per la Pace - Roma -
Circolo "Puletti" del PRC ENEA Casaccia
Elena Fido e Stefano Minello
Kollettivo Estrella Roja, Cesena
Luigia Spaccamonti, Bologna
Associazione Italia-Nicaragua, Circolo di Viterbo
Andrea Fumagalli (Docente di Economia Politica)
Associazione culturale di solidarietà con la popolazione jugoslava
(BARI)
Andrea Catone
Red Ghost (materiali per la controinformazione e la lotta) - Ravenna,
Spazio Libero Autogestito PelleRossa - Cesena
Gordon Poole
Roberto Sensi
Giulio Sensi
Centro di Comunicazione Antagonista - Cremona
Sergio Ruggieri, Segretaria Federazione di Ancona P.R.C.
Rossana Montecchiani, Comitato Politico Nazionale P.R.C.
Antonio Bruno (Vice Presidente del Consiglio Comunale di Genova)
Fosco Valentini
Michele Melera
Enrico Peyretti, Torino
Maurizio Poletto - della segreteria CGIL -Torino.
Mensile "la nostra lotta"
Mauro Cristaldi
Mariacarla Castagna
Giorgio Cadoni
Valerio Gennaro
Medici per l'Ambiente (ISDE-Genova)
Roberto Spaccia
Antonio Moscato (docente università di Lecce)
Paolo Trezzi
Gruppo KHORAKHANE'
Antonio Onorati, presidente Centro Internazionale Crocevia
John Gilbert Coordinatore Nazionale Lettori Universitari SNUR-CGIL
(Universita' e Ricerca)
Coordinamento Romano per la Jugoslavia
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
PAROLE-CHIAVE E TECNICHE DEL DIS-ORDINE PUBBLICO
http://www.ilrestodelcarlino.it/chan/24/14:1008312:/2000/06/12
Il Resto del Carlino del 12 Giu 2000 04:01
Addestrati per intercettare i contestatori
m. t.
La sicurezza per la Conferenza dell'Ocse non è solo quella visibile,
fatta da reparti mobili di polizia e carabinieri in assetto
antiguerriglia. Dietro l'apparato composto da migliaia di uomini pronti
ad intervenire (sono state installate in moltissimi punti della città
decine di microtelecamere grandi come un pennarello), c'è un sistema
raffinatissimo, ma invisibile, fatto da uomini dell'intelligence del
ministero dell'Interno e dei carabinieri.
Di cosa si tratta è presto detto. Quando, alcune settimane fa, si tenne
al Viminale un vertice sul problema dell'Ocse, era presente un team
addestrato ad ascoltare le frequenze delle radio e ad intercettare le
conversazioni dei telefoni mobili. Tra questi uomini, diversi
provenivano dalle questure delle città italiane più "calde" in fatto di
ordine pubblico. In ogni centro importante (come Milano, Padova,
Mestre) ogni gruppetto di autonomi e di contestatori usa un particolare
linguaggio fatto spesso di frasi e termini dietro i quali si nasconde
un messaggio, un avvertimento, ma anche l'ordine di evitare un percorso
scegliendone uno alternativo.
In questi giorni a Bologna (il luogo è tenuto rigorosamente segreto) è
operativo questo team di specialisti in grado di intercettare le
comunicazioni dei contestatori, ma soprattutto di interpretare le loro
intenzioni traducendole dal linguaggio. L'ausilio determinante a questo
lavoro di intelligence arriva, oltre che dalla conoscenza del
linguaggio, da sofisticati apparati radio riceventi e dall'ascolto
delle conversazioni (spesso si tratta di una o due parole chiave) dei
telefonini i cui numeri sono - naturalmente - conosciuti. Il resto lo
fanno alcuni radiolocalizzatori installati su furgoni assolutamente
anonimi (modello, colore e targa vengono cambiati ogni giorno) sulle
strade non distanti a quelle dei cortei...
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ilrestodelcarlino.it/chan/24/14:1008312:/2000/06/12
Il Resto del Carlino del 12 Giu 2000 04:01
Addestrati per intercettare i contestatori
m. t.
La sicurezza per la Conferenza dell'Ocse non è solo quella visibile,
fatta da reparti mobili di polizia e carabinieri in assetto
antiguerriglia. Dietro l'apparato composto da migliaia di uomini pronti
ad intervenire (sono state installate in moltissimi punti della città
decine di microtelecamere grandi come un pennarello), c'è un sistema
raffinatissimo, ma invisibile, fatto da uomini dell'intelligence del
ministero dell'Interno e dei carabinieri.
Di cosa si tratta è presto detto. Quando, alcune settimane fa, si tenne
al Viminale un vertice sul problema dell'Ocse, era presente un team
addestrato ad ascoltare le frequenze delle radio e ad intercettare le
conversazioni dei telefoni mobili. Tra questi uomini, diversi
provenivano dalle questure delle città italiane più "calde" in fatto di
ordine pubblico. In ogni centro importante (come Milano, Padova,
Mestre) ogni gruppetto di autonomi e di contestatori usa un particolare
linguaggio fatto spesso di frasi e termini dietro i quali si nasconde
un messaggio, un avvertimento, ma anche l'ordine di evitare un percorso
scegliendone uno alternativo.
In questi giorni a Bologna (il luogo è tenuto rigorosamente segreto) è
operativo questo team di specialisti in grado di intercettare le
comunicazioni dei contestatori, ma soprattutto di interpretare le loro
intenzioni traducendole dal linguaggio. L'ausilio determinante a questo
lavoro di intelligence arriva, oltre che dalla conoscenza del
linguaggio, da sofisticati apparati radio riceventi e dall'ascolto
delle conversazioni (spesso si tratta di una o due parole chiave) dei
telefonini i cui numeri sono - naturalmente - conosciuti. Il resto lo
fanno alcuni radiolocalizzatori installati su furgoni assolutamente
anonimi (modello, colore e targa vengono cambiati ogni giorno) sulle
strade non distanti a quelle dei cortei...
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
"Il Manifesto", 03 Giugno 2000
Le leggi di guerra
Convenzione sulle Leggi ed i Costumi della Guerra di terra (1899),
appendice 3.1, articolo XXII: Il diritto dei belligeranti di
adottare mezzi di distruzione del nemico non illimitato.
Convenzione sulle Alterazioni Ambientali (1977), appendice 3.4,
articolo
1.1: Ogni parte contraente della Convenzione si
impegna a non intraprendere azioni militari o altre azioni ostili con
tecniche in grado di determinare alterazioni ambientali
estese, protratte nel tempo e che possano avere effetti gravi, come
mezzo
di distruzione, danneggiamento o danno
avverso altre parti contraenti.
Protocollo sulla Protezione delle Vittime di Conflitti Armati
Internazionali (1977), appendice 3.5, articolo XXXV: E' vietato
applicare metodi o tecniche di guerra dirette a creare, o per le quali
siano ipotizzabili, estesi, duraturi e gravi danni
all'ambiente naturale.
Articolo LV.1: Nel corso dei conflitti, deve essere fatta la massima
attenzione per proteggere gli ambienti naturali da danni
estesi, gravi e duraturi nel tempo. Questa protezione include il
divieto
dell'uso di metodi e tecniche di guerra dirette a
determinare, o per le quali si pu ipotizzare, questi danni al
patrimonio
naturale e quindi a pregiudicare la salute o la
sopravvivenza delle popolazioni.
Appendice 3.6, articolo XIV: L'affamamento dei civili come metodo di
combattimento vietato. E' quindi vietato attaccare,
distruggere, rimuovere o rendere inutilizzabili oggetti indispensabili
per la sopravvivenza dei civili, come riserve alimentari,
aree agricole destinate alla produzione di generi alimentari,
coltivazioni, allevamenti, installazioni delle acque potabili e
irrigazione.
---
IL RAPPORTO DI AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL SUI CRIMINI DELLA NATO:
-> sintesi in italiano:
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/270?&start=256
-> testo completo in inglese (73 pagine formato PDF):
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/kosovo/index.html
http://www.abolishnato.com/abolishnato/warcrimes/warcrimes2.htm
-
Subject: [STOPNATO] AI report - hell is opening for NATO
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:55:16 -0700
From: Peter Bein
STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM
1. Some pages in the newest AI report don't print, turn into blanks
after
scrolling. Same problem at AI site. Anybody knows how to fix it?
2. This is another NATO 'pussy cat' report, in spite of appearances.
- like HRW report about casualties it starts with an assertion of the
legitimacy of NATO 'humanitarian intervention', referring to Rambouillet
as
'peace talks' instead of an international scam designed to bully
Yugoslavia
into submission,
- has a pretence to objective investigations, but forgot that int'l
forensic teams found next to nothing in Kosovo dirt compared to NATO
'promises',
- wants to be taken seriously but ignores that Racak is a 100%
fabrication
- maybe they should demand public release of the final report from Dr
Ranta's forensic team first, if they really want to get to the guts of
the
NATO problem,
- it hangs on to the 400-600 number of casualties (as HRW) despite FRY's
detailed records of much more,
- it makes a disclaimer that only NATO's own statements are used to
prove
the allegations, but does not discuss Observer/Guardian/Politiken
article
on the embassy bombing which quotes high-ranking NATO sources; instead,
it
dwells on CIA 'punishment' of the 'guilty' thus legitimizing yet another
NATO lie in a series that starts to look more boring than puky to my
taste,
- among 9 example cases is bombing 'by accident' of the train on the
bridge
in Grdelica; this case is documented to be a lie of top NATO brass incl.
Clark -- the train WAS THE TARGET as is obvious from analysis of first
and
second AGM-130 films (I will post the website that proves it in
technical
detail, based on analysis of both gun camera films - it will make you
speechless)
3. I am unable to share your enthusiasm, Stormie. You are only proving
to
Maj. Kahrs that anti-natonites can be gullible. If anything, I would
suspect another PsyOps project. No matter how HRW and AI castigate NATO
there is no int'l institution that can get to NATO's throat. But reports
from those NGOs serve to legitimize blatant NATO distortions and lies at
a
low cost, while appearing "objective' to the average public opinion. At
the
time that the hell is opening for NATO it would be a logical thing to
do.
Peter
At 03:10 PM 06/06/00 -0400, Stormie wrote:
>STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM
>
>Dear friends :
>
>I have place a copy of Amnesty International document on the NATO bombing
>on my site on the "NATO War Crimes" page at
>www.abolishnato.com/abolishnato/warcrimes/warcrimes2.htm
>It is in PDF format and is downloadable as a zip file.
>It is 73 pages in length and that is why it is in such a format.
>
>Read it people! It is really a breath of fresh air and as I was reading it
>over I was cheering, applauding and licking my chops over it!!!! I really
>enjoy to the max anything that sticks it to the NATO Alliance!!
>
>I have always known that there is a night and day difference B/T Human
>Rights Watch and Amnesty International. For starters, take a look at their
>coverage of Kosovo events: AI seems truly interested in the welfare of
>Kosovo Serbs and their detention at a muddy, cold gymnasium. HRW reads like
>a Western newspaper, engaging in on anti-Serb demonization after another,
>with the style of the New York Times. I will write about that later on!
>Take a looooooong look at both Human Rights Watch's website and that of
>Amnesty International.
>Do you notice anything?! Hummm. . .
>
>ENJOY!
>
>"Stormie"
>
---
FONTI VARIE SULLE DISTRUZIONI OPERATE DALLA NATO SUL TERRITORIO
DELLA REPUBBLICA FEDERALE DI JUGOSLAVIA:
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/180?&start=176&threaded=1
---
ALTRI LINK SEGNALATI:
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/06/12/fp7s1-csm.shtml
Christian Science Monitor
June 12, 2000
Families of NATO bomb victims demand accounting
On June 2, UN ruled airstrikes were not war crimes. Human rights group
disagrees.
Alex Todorovic - Special to The Christian Science Monitor
PODGORICA, YUGOSLAVIA
-
http://www.jonathandimbleby.co.uk/TX20000611_Robertson/transcript.html
ITV - interview with NATO's George Robertson
(Broadcast 11th June 2000, ITV)
-
http://commondreams.org/views/061000-103.htm
http://www.progressive.org/webex.htm
Sunday June 11 , 2000
Published on Saturday, June 10, 2000 by The Progressive
War Criminals? Who Us?
by Matthew Rothschild
-
http://www.grdelica-case.org/index.htm
NATO's BAD CONSCIENCE
The authors of these pages dedicate their work to justice, truth and
honesty, to the duties of Rule of Law.
That's what democracy stands for. That's what ICTY stands for. That's
what we thought.
The Grdelica Case
The Dakovica Case
The Izbica Miracle
-
http://www.originalsources.com
Clinton: The First American President to Commit Genocide in Europe
Serbs are being systematically exterminated in Kosovo
By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
May 30, 2000
-
http://www.pravda.ru/archive/days/1999/june/28/14-19-28-06-1999.htm.
"Pravda - Internet" correspondent, Andrei Krushinski,
reflects on the tragedy in Yugoslavia and compares it
with Vietnam and Czechoslovakia which he observed as a
Pravda correspondent in these countries.
TRAGEDY AND FARCE
NATO Aggression in Yugoslavia - through the prism of
Historical Parallels
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Le leggi di guerra
Convenzione sulle Leggi ed i Costumi della Guerra di terra (1899),
appendice 3.1, articolo XXII: Il diritto dei belligeranti di
adottare mezzi di distruzione del nemico non illimitato.
Convenzione sulle Alterazioni Ambientali (1977), appendice 3.4,
articolo
1.1: Ogni parte contraente della Convenzione si
impegna a non intraprendere azioni militari o altre azioni ostili con
tecniche in grado di determinare alterazioni ambientali
estese, protratte nel tempo e che possano avere effetti gravi, come
mezzo
di distruzione, danneggiamento o danno
avverso altre parti contraenti.
Protocollo sulla Protezione delle Vittime di Conflitti Armati
Internazionali (1977), appendice 3.5, articolo XXXV: E' vietato
applicare metodi o tecniche di guerra dirette a creare, o per le quali
siano ipotizzabili, estesi, duraturi e gravi danni
all'ambiente naturale.
Articolo LV.1: Nel corso dei conflitti, deve essere fatta la massima
attenzione per proteggere gli ambienti naturali da danni
estesi, gravi e duraturi nel tempo. Questa protezione include il
divieto
dell'uso di metodi e tecniche di guerra dirette a
determinare, o per le quali si pu ipotizzare, questi danni al
patrimonio
naturale e quindi a pregiudicare la salute o la
sopravvivenza delle popolazioni.
Appendice 3.6, articolo XIV: L'affamamento dei civili come metodo di
combattimento vietato. E' quindi vietato attaccare,
distruggere, rimuovere o rendere inutilizzabili oggetti indispensabili
per la sopravvivenza dei civili, come riserve alimentari,
aree agricole destinate alla produzione di generi alimentari,
coltivazioni, allevamenti, installazioni delle acque potabili e
irrigazione.
---
IL RAPPORTO DI AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL SUI CRIMINI DELLA NATO:
-> sintesi in italiano:
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/270?&start=256
-> testo completo in inglese (73 pagine formato PDF):
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/kosovo/index.html
http://www.abolishnato.com/abolishnato/warcrimes/warcrimes2.htm
-
Subject: [STOPNATO] AI report - hell is opening for NATO
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 23:55:16 -0700
From: Peter Bein
STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM
1. Some pages in the newest AI report don't print, turn into blanks
after
scrolling. Same problem at AI site. Anybody knows how to fix it?
2. This is another NATO 'pussy cat' report, in spite of appearances.
- like HRW report about casualties it starts with an assertion of the
legitimacy of NATO 'humanitarian intervention', referring to Rambouillet
as
'peace talks' instead of an international scam designed to bully
Yugoslavia
into submission,
- has a pretence to objective investigations, but forgot that int'l
forensic teams found next to nothing in Kosovo dirt compared to NATO
'promises',
- wants to be taken seriously but ignores that Racak is a 100%
fabrication
- maybe they should demand public release of the final report from Dr
Ranta's forensic team first, if they really want to get to the guts of
the
NATO problem,
- it hangs on to the 400-600 number of casualties (as HRW) despite FRY's
detailed records of much more,
- it makes a disclaimer that only NATO's own statements are used to
prove
the allegations, but does not discuss Observer/Guardian/Politiken
article
on the embassy bombing which quotes high-ranking NATO sources; instead,
it
dwells on CIA 'punishment' of the 'guilty' thus legitimizing yet another
NATO lie in a series that starts to look more boring than puky to my
taste,
- among 9 example cases is bombing 'by accident' of the train on the
bridge
in Grdelica; this case is documented to be a lie of top NATO brass incl.
Clark -- the train WAS THE TARGET as is obvious from analysis of first
and
second AGM-130 films (I will post the website that proves it in
technical
detail, based on analysis of both gun camera films - it will make you
speechless)
3. I am unable to share your enthusiasm, Stormie. You are only proving
to
Maj. Kahrs that anti-natonites can be gullible. If anything, I would
suspect another PsyOps project. No matter how HRW and AI castigate NATO
there is no int'l institution that can get to NATO's throat. But reports
from those NGOs serve to legitimize blatant NATO distortions and lies at
a
low cost, while appearing "objective' to the average public opinion. At
the
time that the hell is opening for NATO it would be a logical thing to
do.
Peter
At 03:10 PM 06/06/00 -0400, Stormie wrote:
>STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM
>
>Dear friends :
>
>I have place a copy of Amnesty International document on the NATO bombing
>on my site on the "NATO War Crimes" page at
>www.abolishnato.com/abolishnato/warcrimes/warcrimes2.htm
>It is in PDF format and is downloadable as a zip file.
>It is 73 pages in length and that is why it is in such a format.
>
>Read it people! It is really a breath of fresh air and as I was reading it
>over I was cheering, applauding and licking my chops over it!!!! I really
>enjoy to the max anything that sticks it to the NATO Alliance!!
>
>I have always known that there is a night and day difference B/T Human
>Rights Watch and Amnesty International. For starters, take a look at their
>coverage of Kosovo events: AI seems truly interested in the welfare of
>Kosovo Serbs and their detention at a muddy, cold gymnasium. HRW reads like
>a Western newspaper, engaging in on anti-Serb demonization after another,
>with the style of the New York Times. I will write about that later on!
>Take a looooooong look at both Human Rights Watch's website and that of
>Amnesty International.
>Do you notice anything?! Hummm. . .
>
>ENJOY!
>
>"Stormie"
>
---
FONTI VARIE SULLE DISTRUZIONI OPERATE DALLA NATO SUL TERRITORIO
DELLA REPUBBLICA FEDERALE DI JUGOSLAVIA:
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/180?&start=176&threaded=1
---
ALTRI LINK SEGNALATI:
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/06/12/fp7s1-csm.shtml
Christian Science Monitor
June 12, 2000
Families of NATO bomb victims demand accounting
On June 2, UN ruled airstrikes were not war crimes. Human rights group
disagrees.
Alex Todorovic - Special to The Christian Science Monitor
PODGORICA, YUGOSLAVIA
-
http://www.jonathandimbleby.co.uk/TX20000611_Robertson/transcript.html
ITV - interview with NATO's George Robertson
(Broadcast 11th June 2000, ITV)
-
http://commondreams.org/views/061000-103.htm
http://www.progressive.org/webex.htm
Sunday June 11 , 2000
Published on Saturday, June 10, 2000 by The Progressive
War Criminals? Who Us?
by Matthew Rothschild
-
http://www.grdelica-case.org/index.htm
NATO's BAD CONSCIENCE
The authors of these pages dedicate their work to justice, truth and
honesty, to the duties of Rule of Law.
That's what democracy stands for. That's what ICTY stands for. That's
what we thought.
The Grdelica Case
The Dakovica Case
The Izbica Miracle
-
http://www.originalsources.com
Clinton: The First American President to Commit Genocide in Europe
Serbs are being systematically exterminated in Kosovo
By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
May 30, 2000
-
http://www.pravda.ru/archive/days/1999/june/28/14-19-28-06-1999.htm.
"Pravda - Internet" correspondent, Andrei Krushinski,
reflects on the tragedy in Yugoslavia and compares it
with Vietnam and Czechoslovakia which he observed as a
Pravda correspondent in these countries.
TRAGEDY AND FARCE
NATO Aggression in Yugoslavia - through the prism of
Historical Parallels
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
