Jugoinfo
http://www.rferl.org/newsline/3-cee.html
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Janiary 30, 2001
BELARUSIAN PRESIDENT BLASTS OSCE MISSION FOR EXCEEDING
MANDATE...
Alyaksandr Lukashenka said on Belarusian Television on
27 January that the OSCE Advisory and Monitoring Group
in Minsk is overstepping its mandate by creating a
"corps of 14,000-18,000 militants" who, under the
disguise of election observers, may become a threat to
the country's stability. Lukashenka noted that the
OSCE mission's mandate covers only assistance in
improving Belarusian legislation and monitoring of
developments in the country. He said, however, that
Belarus's electoral legislation has already been
improved to meet international standards and will not
be changed until this year's presidential elections.
Lukashenka claimed to have put the OSCE mission's
budget under his control and to have persuaded the
mission to give up its intention to form a legion of
paid "militants." JM
...PLEDGES TO WARD OFF 'YUGOSLAV SCENARIO' IN BELARUS
Lukashenka said he took a "tough stance" on the OSCE
mission following the opposition's and some Western
"observer's" promises to stage a "Yugoslav scenario"
in Belarus during the presidential elections this
fall. "No, there will be no Yugoslavia here. As long
as I am president, this will not happen... I will not
push you [Belarusians] to the barricades, I will go
ahead of you, I will defend my people," Lukashenka
promised, warning the television viewers that Belarus
may be bombed "from above with shells stuffed with
allegedly depleted uranium." JM
---
> The URL for this article is http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bor2.htm
>
> www.tenc.net
> [Emperor's Clothes]
>
> BORODIN FALSELY ARRESTED - WASHINGTON'S EXCUSE A LIE [1-30-2001]
>
> Note from Emperor's Clothes: Below is the relevant text from a Press
> Conference given by one of Pavel Borodin's lawyers, Genrikh Pavlovich
> Padva.
>
> Mr. Borodin was arrested Jan. 17 when he got off the plane at Kennedy
> Airport en route to the Bush Inauguration. He is a diplomat. He had
> been invited to this State event. The excuse that Borodin was avoiding
> questioning in Switzerland and that the U.S. had received a Swiss
> arrest warrant and had no choice but to arrest him is preposterous.
>
> Mr. Borodin requested a diplomatic visa from the U.S. Embassy in
> Moscow. According to the 'Washington Post' (Jan. 19th), this routine
> request produced "urgent" consultations between the United States
> Embassy in Moscow and the State Department. Why "urgent"? Because if
> the Embassy gave Mr. Borodin a diplomatic visa, then the State
> Department would have a harder time justifying Borodin's already
> planned arrest. The Embassy was instructed to stall: neither to issue
> the visa nor to urge him to stay away from the U.S. Mr. Borodin didn't
> want to miss his plane, so he left on a standard passport.
>
> An arrest complaint against Mr. Borodin was filed in New York on Jan.
> 17th - that is, after the 'urgent' discussion between Washington and
> the Embassy in Moscow. In other words, Borodin was setup for arrest.
> The State Department wanted him jailed. Mr. Borodin's New York
> attorney, Alexander Fishkin, commented:
>
> "The arrest warrant is issued on January 10th, he receives an
> invitation to the inauguration on January 13th and a complaint is
> filed in New York for his arrest on January 17th," he said. "It could
> be a coincidence, yes, but it looks too strange to be a coincidence."
> ('NY Times', 1-19-2001)
>
> Mr. Borodin is supposedly wanted by the Swiss authorities only for
> questioning. But Mr. Borodin's lawyers report that the Swiss,
> apparently under U.S. pressure, had previously rejected a Russian
> offer for Mr. Borodin to meet voluntarily with Swiss officials. The
> Swiss insisted on the extraordinary measure of extradition. This is
> called "Making your demand so extreme that the other side has to
> refuse." The US/Swiss claim that the arrest was necessary was
> literally invented.
>
> What is behind Mr. Borodin's arrest? I disagree with his lawyer, Mr.
> Pavda, who suggests that the arrest is aimed at discrediting the
> Yeltsin family. I think it is a provocation intended to intimidate the
> countries of the Former Soviet Union, and in particular to drive a
> wedge between Russia and Belarus, which is led by the independent
> (from Washington) President Alexander Lukashenko. Mr. Lukashenko is a
> current focus of demonization, stemming from Washington and parroted
> by the usual parrots, including some birds on the Left. He is
> authoritarian, he is crazy, and so on. Yes, crazy enough to resist
> Washington's neoliberal economic policies, with the result that
> working people in Belarus are a whole lot better off than in other
> parts of the Former Soviet Union. We need more crazy leaders like him.
>
> Some may wonder why we are devoting space to this relatively minor
> incident. The reason is, it is not a minor incident. It is an arrogant
> message, delivered by the United States Establishment to the
> politicians - and ordinary people - of the Former Soviet Union. The
> message says: We are the rulers; you are the ruled. It says: you are
> incapable of functioning in an honest, democratic fashion; we must
> control you and you must learn humility.
>
> How charming for Washington and Switzerland to offer a guiding hand to
> the backward Soviets! The Senior guide, of course, is Washington,
> which presently guides people directly or through proxies on every
> continent (via the KLA in Kosovo, the Ugandan and Rwandan armies in
> Congo, death squads and the regular Army in Colombia, grisly Islamist
> secessionists whom it sponsors in the Former Soviet Union, as well
> similar types in Algeria, Indonesia, etc.). The Junior guide is
> Switzerland, which usually avoids direct involvement in war; but then,
> to paraphrase Mr. Milton, they also guide who only stand aside, and
> profit.
>
> Pavel Borodin's arrest indicates that new adventures are planned, new
> attacks on the people of the former Soviet Union, now that Washington
> feels it has a reliable government installed in Belgrade. - Jared
> Israel.
>
> (Another article on this subject, 'Borodin Arrest Targets
> Russian-Belarus Union', can be read at
> http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/borodin.htm )
>
> On the Arrest of Pavel Borodin
> >From the Press Conference given by Genrikh Pavlovich Padva
>
> Official Kremlin Int'l News Broadcast
> January 26, 2001, Friday
>
> Moderator: Good day, dear journalists. Our guest today is Genrikh
> Pavlovich Padva who represents Pavel Borodin's interests. Today we
> will talk about the latest events in New York. Please, share your
> opinion with the journalists.
>
> Padva: First of all, I would like to apologize for being late, but I
> came straight from the courtroom, and you can't leave the courtroom
> until the hearings are over.
>
> There is nothing consoling in these events for us and for Pavel
> Pavlovich Borodin. Only one question was considered yesterday or
> rather today, it was night here -- the release of Borodin from under
> custody. Our side raised the question of releasing him on bail and
> guarantees basically from our state, because the guarantees were given
> by the Russian ambassador to the United States of America.
>
> Hearings lasted several hours, but no release was granted and Borodin
> remains in custody. I want you to understand one thing. For some
> reason there have been many media reports saying that the question of
> his extradition is to be considered. This is not so. The question of
> extradition will be considered later when the Swiss side provides all
> the necessary documents. It has 40 days of the date of detention to do
> so.
>
> The arrest that has taken place, just for you to have a clear idea,
> was necessary [supposedly] to secure Borodin's appearance for
> interrogation. It's not the arrest of the accused or even a suspect.
> It's what is called compulsory process.
>
> The arrest that was effected in America is called conditional arrest
> because the final decision is made not immediately, but later. So, the
> question of extradition, I repeat, will be decided when all the
> necessary documents are provided. We will oppose extradition as such
> when this question is considered. We will provide a large amount of
> data and documents to prove that he is not subject to extradition.
>
> What kind of data and documents are these? First of all, these
> documents will confirm our statement that Pavel Pavlovich has never
> been officially summoned anywhere. I mean Switzerland. The Swiss
> lawyer who is working on this with us is one of the leading lawyers in
> Switzerland. He is a professor and the author of a textbook by which
> all Swiss lawyers study criminal justice. He has specially checked out
> and talked with Mr. Deveau to find out whether Pavel Pavlovich had
> been summoned officially, but then failed to show up. No, nothing like
> this happened.
>
> It's all the more strange because they are trying to extradite him --
> this is an exact translation from English as a fugitive, which he is
> not. I'd say he was not a circumspect, what shall we call him, hunter
> -- well, no, a person who thoughtlessly pushed his way under this
> terrible wheel that was set in motion in Switzerland and that is still
> spinning. He did not escape from anywhere and he did not hide from
> anyone. He lived calmly. By the way, he has been abroad before, not in
> America, but in other countries.
>
> We will prove that it's strange when the question of coercive
> extradition is raised if the person never objected to meeting them
> voluntarily in the first place. Moreover, I am sure you know that our
> government told Swiss law-enforcement agencies, through the Russian
> ambassador in Switzerland, that if Switzerland did not insist on
> extradition, our state and our government would guarantee Pavel
> Pavlovich Borodin's voluntary appearance.
>
> However, they rejected this proposal, which, in my view, is a clear
> indication of bias because if they really want him to come to meet
> them, why extradite him by force? Indeed, in this case they will be
> able to meet him in many months at best because this is not such a
> simple procedure and not such a short procedure. If they want just to
> question him, it is easier to do with our government's guarantees. But
> unfortunately, they did not agree to this and insist on his
> extradition.
>
> I think it's some ambitions, of course. Maybe Mr. Deveau bears the
> grudge for something, perhaps, he thinks that he was not treated
> respectfully enough. Maybe, at least I've got the impression that
> these actions were not dictated by the necessity and are connected
> with some ambitions. I think that's all I can say right now. I am
> waiting for your questions and I'll try to answer them.
>
> Q: Today's Izvestia published an interview with Bertrand Bertossa in
> which he said that in addition to money laundering, the participation
> in some criminal group, excuse me, criminal organization, is
> incriminated to him. How can you comment on this statement?
>
> Padva: You know, it's hard to comment on all these statements, because
> we have not seen official charges. They have not presented either to
> Pavel Pavlovich or his lawyers. We only know that they have been
> published more or less officially and they are known to his lawyer who
> has been mentioned to me, lawyer Ponset (sp?) there in France, that is
> in Switzerland.
>
> Let's begin with money laundering. It's hard to comment because money
> laundering is understood as various actions involving property and
> money obtained illegally. But they don't say that -- they don't have
> proof, but they accuse him of having obtained this money illegally.
> They hoped all the time and said that this would be proved in Russia
> and then the transfer of money through Swiss banks would be recognized
> as money laundering.
>
> However, our thorough investigation -- there are 120 volumes in the
> Mabetex case which is connected with Pavel Pavlovich Borodin, but his
> guild has not been proven. Moreover, our investigation came to the
> conclusion that there is no his guilt in these actions, in contractual
> relations with Mabetex. So, it's not quite clear what money, the
> laundering of what money they are talking about.
>
> As to participation in a criminal group I believe they have the
> following in mind. They have found not one but many different
> accounts, a dozen, two dozen, opened in the names of citizens of ru
> and that are being ascribed to Pavel Pavlovich. Since the movement on
> some accounts coincided or were close, since some could have been from
> one and the same sources, this and only this gives them any reason to
> allege that there was some sort of a criminal group that laundered
> this money.
>
> I repeat that there is no data at all that all this money was gained
> by criminal ways not only by Pavel Pavlovich but also all the others.
> Unfortunately, we can comment only on what we know. But we know very
> little so far because, I repeat, no formal charges have been made
> anywhere.
>
> What does a charge of participation in a criminal group mean? As you
> understand, the charge must indicate what sort of a criminal group
> this was, what it engaged in, what crimes were perpetrated by this
> group of persons -- murdered, robbed, engaged in extortion, got bribes
> and so on. This is quite absurd. It is alleged that a group, say, of
> some 20 totally unrelated persons was accepting bribes or conducted
> joint theft. But nothing is known about the real charges. The only
> charge is participation in a criminal group. But this is really
> absurd. How can one defend oneself against such an allegation? It
> appears to us that this is quite a groundless allegation.
>
> I believe this is all that I can say about this.
>
> Q: Ekho Moskvy radio.
>
> Did the defense expect the decision taken by the court, or was it a
> surprise to you?
>
> Padva: It was an expected decision, of course. But the defense did not
> abandon hope that another decision was possible. It also did its best
> to prevent the decision that was taken from happening. But you know
> all the difficulties that we encounter.
>
> What is the situation? As I understand it, although some people are
> trying to say that this is a purely legal problem... formally,
> perhaps, it is a primarily legal problem. But what in reality have we
> come up against? Let us begin with the following. A couple of years
> ago America became the first country to demand greater transparency
> from Switzerland, its banks. America insisted that the fight against
> money laundering should be started. The American Jewish lobby raised
> the question that after the War, after nazism a tremendous amount of
> the money of victims of nazism had sedimented in Swiss banks. All this
> finally forced Switzerland to start doing something and, indeed, Swiss
> banks have become more open and have started demonstrating accounts,
> mostly Russian ones.
>
> You know very well what is now happening in the world. You know about
> the hysteria concerning the so-called Russian Mafia. You know very
> well about the allegations that Russia is not fighting money
> laundering and that for this reason Russia should be discriminated. In
> an election campaign speech Bush said that if elected, he will do
> everything possible not to give financial assistance to Russia because
> corruption and bribing is on such a grand scale there that all money
> winds up in the hands of our high-placed officials. And you know that
> he even named one of them -- a person as prominent as Chernomyrdin.
> This is the atmosphere in which Pavel Pavlovich Borodin was arrested.
>
> All this cannot but affect the solution of his case, his fate. Of
> course, a judge should proceed first and foremost from the law. But I
> am convinced that no matter how a judge proceeds from the law his
> ideology determines his understanding and interpretation of the law.
> Not directly, perhaps, but indirectly.
>
> We do not know how a judge voted, whether he voted for Bush or not. It
> is possible that he voted for Bush precisely because he said no
> financial help should be given to our corrupt society. This simply
> cannot but play a certain role in the solution of concrete questions,
> concrete cases.
>
> We took all this into account and we knew that we are facing
> substantial difficulties. Availing myself of the presence here of
> representatives of different media outlets I would like to say that it
> really disturbs me that there is a different approach to the fate of
> our citizens who are under investigation abroad and so on. The mass
> media is doing its best to protect Gusinsky and right it is. I fully
> agree with the press. If a person's guilt has not yet been
> established, if it is not yet really known whether or not a person has
> committed a crime, I am convinced that there is no need to keep such a
> person behind bars.
>
> But when we speak about Borodin some media outlets for some reason
> take already a totally different position as if he were not a citizen
> of our country, as if his arrest in these circumstances is not a slap
> in the face for our country. I do not understand this. I would want
> all the media outlets to keep to a single position, the position of
> protecting our citizens. By the way, this is a duty of our state.
> Sometimes I am asked: why is Borodin so defended? Because we should
> protect our citizens. And it is unfortunate that not all are being
> defended. This should be done because this is a constitutional duty of
> our state. It is a duty of our state to defend the interests of our
> citizens if these interests, if the rights of our citizens are
> encroached upon abroad. I believe that all this should be taken into
> account.
>
> As to what has concretely happened, you know everything. I do not know
> what else is there for me to explain to you. There was a court
> hearing. The pleas of the defense were heard out for three hours. This
> appears to be fair. The decision was taken not to release Borodin. But
> I cannot understand this decision. I do not understand why a person
> should be kept under guard when there is full confidence and a full
> guarantee that he will appear in court when summoned and will not
> disappear. There was this proposal to make him wear the electronic
> bracelet. You know, it will transmit information if he moves 100 or
> 150 meters. More than that, our ambassador offered his guarantee. This
> is unique. I do not know about other precedents. Plus a huge bail.
> Frankly, I don't know where this sum of 750,000 came from, apparently
> journalists wanted to raise that much, but the maximum sum that was
> considered was 250,000. However, mass media talked all the time about
> 750,000 for some reason. I think!
> they have been biased.
>
> Q: You say different media give different interpretations but he is
> our fellow citizens and he must be defended. But media say at least
> something, while Vladimir Putin has distanced himself from this. Do
> you follow me? What do you think the President's position?
>
> Padva: You know, I don't think the President is duty bound to make
> statements regarding the arrest of a citizen of his country. The
> President has not made public statements, he has not called a press
> conference and he has not made an official statement. But if the
> Foreign Minister is doing something, I don't think you have any doubts
> that this is being done with the President's consent.
>
> If our state says, through our ambassadors, that there are no reasons
> to keep him in custody and that if need be we can guarantee his
> appearance, this cannot be done without the President's consent. So, I
> don't think that the President has to make statements on each such
> case.
>
> The President is associated with our country. He is our guarantor, and
> I think that if he makes an appeal to some country and that country
> rejects it, it's a slap to all of us, every citizen of our country
> because this is our President, because we elected him, even though
> some may not have voted for him.
>
> This is why I think that the President should be very circumspect in
> making such statements in order not to lose his political face and,
> most importantly, avoid useless moves. I think that if there had been
> clear understanding that the President's statement or appeal would
> solve everything, he would have made it immediately.
>
> Q: You said that Russia provided guarantees of his appearance to
> Switzerland, but Switzerland rejected them. Was it done before
> Borodin's arrest or after?
>
> Padva: I think I made myself quite clear. No official request to
> Borodin or our government or Prosecutor General's Office regarding his
> appearance in Switzerland was ever made before his arrest. So, no one
> could guarantee anything or discuss anything. We gave such guarantees
> after his arrest.
>
> Q: Speaking juridically, does his arrest violate any law, maybe
> American or some other?
>
> Padva: Just formally?
>
> Q: Yes.
>
> Padva: No. Who speaks of a breach of law? Neither we nor our
> government have said that. There is an agreement on extradition
> between Switzerland and America. It obligates them to help each other
> in such cases. If one side requests the arrest of a person and his
> further extradition as provided for in this agreement, they have every
> right to do so and they must do so.
>
> Q: So, this talk of diplomatic passport -- everything is fine there?
>
> Padva: If he had official immunity, then this would be a different
> question. But Pavel Pavlovich does not have official immunity. At the
> same time, arresting a delegate who was basically sent officially on
> behalf of two countries, on behalf of a union of two countries, on the
> border is of course an unprecedented fact. I have never seen anything
> like that before.
>
> Voice: There was no official invitation.
>
> Q: Official? He arrived by regular passport.
>
> Voice: And by fake invitation.
>
> Padva: Wait a minute. Where did you get all this? I am shocked. You
> say this as if you saw all this with your eyes. The invitation was
> absolutely genuine and signed by a member of the presidential
> inauguration committee. I have to tell you that the State Department
> does not officially invite anyone except ambassadors who are
> accredited and live there.
>
> In keeping with the generally-accepted practice in America, such
> invitations are issued by private persons who have direct relation to
> events. I repeat, it was signed.
>
> I also know, although from media reports and not from official
> documents, that he allegedly didn't sign it, although we examined his
> signature. But this is a different question that has not been
> officially investigated or stated. He received an official document
> signed, I repeat, by an official because he was a member of two
> committees. It is more important that he was a member of an
> inauguration committee. Besides, he was a member of the Bush election
> sponsorship committee.
>
> Think of what was in this invitation, what is known to us and what is
> real and not a sham as you want to present it or as you were deceived
> about. It says that Pavel Pavlovich will be met upon arrival, that a
> room was booked for him in such and such place, that he will have a
> personal car, that he will take place in such and such events,
> absolutely official ones -- dinners, official breakfasts -- to which
> people are invited according to a list approved by a presidential
> adviser.
>
> This invitation was brought to the Foreign Ministry by Pavel Pavlovich
> and it did not evoke any doubts. It and his diplomatic passport were
> handed over to the US embassy which did not say that it was a private
> invitation that was invalid. This is why it's totally wrong to say
> that there was no invitation or that it was a false invitation.
>
> If it were a false invitation, perhaps this may be proved one day as a
> result of special investigation, and then the one who sent it will be
> brought to account, but what does Pavel Pavlovich Borodin to do with
> all this?
>
> As for his regular foreign travel passport, delegates who travel
> anywhere do not have to bear diplomatic passports. Diplomatic
> passports are issued only to certain officials. So the fact that he
> left the country and crossed the border by regular passport does not
> make him an unofficial person. Indeed, did he stop being the State
> Secretary of the Union State because of that?
>
> Q: Did he arrive in the US as a private person or as an official?
>
> Padva: What private person? He received an invitation and was sent
> there by the chairman of the Byelorussia-Russia Union, Mr. Lukashenko.
> How can he be a private person after this?
>
> Q: But America does not recognize this union, it hasn't recognized it
> yet, has it? It means nothing to it, do you understand this?
>
> Padva: Well, it does mean something to us. You asked me in what
> capacity he was sent there.
>
> Q: He could have been sent by the Pope, but what difference does it
> make?
>
> Padva: What did you say?
>
> Q: You accuse the States of disrespectful treatment. But on the other
> hand, you say that no law was broken by the arrest.
>
> Padva: That's right, no law was broken because they acted in
> accordance with their obligations under an agreement with Switzerland.
> You have to understand that -- I think I make myself clear enough,
> they were fulfilling their obligations under an agreement with
> Switzerland. In this sense the law was not violated. It was not
> violated because Pavel Pavlovich did not have a formal diplomatic
> immunity. That is why there was no formal violation. I am trying to
> say something else because you do not appear to understand simple
> things. What am I saying is that my experience, and I have been
> working as a defense lawyer for already 50 years, tells me that
> Borodin was officially sent there on an official invitation. This does
> not mean that he had immunity. I repeat, there was no formal violation
> of the law.
>
> But proceeding from my practice, my experience, I do not know of
> instances when an official delegate of such a high rank was detained
> immediately at the border. This is all that I wanted to say. Am I
> clear?
>
> Q: Radio Liberty. You said that there is a different attitude of the
> press to Gusinsky and Borodin...
>
> Padva: I said not of the entire press but of a certain part of it.
>
> Q: Why does this surprise you? Does it not seem to you that these
> persons have a different reputation?
>
> Padva: Because people are detained not on the basis of their
> reputation. And the press should not treat people differently. A
> citizen of Russia should have equal protection until he is found
> guilty and sentenced. Unfortunately, you want Borodin to be found
> guilty and Gusinsky not to be found guilty. As a citizen and a lawyer
> I want both of them to be regarded as equally innocent until their
> guilt is proved.
>
> Q: Your accusations against the press are unfounded. It is the task of
> the press to cover events. This has nothing to do with what we want or
> do not want to do. You are claiming that we are working for one side,
> defending one side.
>
> Padva: I am not speaking about you, I do not know who you are working
> for.
>
> Q: I work for Radio Liberty.
>
> Padva: You are working for somebody just as defense lawyers work for
> somebody. And you are committed to a no lesser extent than lawyers.
> But I would want the press to objectively cover events. As to my
> commitment, it is a natural and official one. I am defending precisely
> Borodin.
>
> As to you, you have no right to defend somebody just because you feel
> like it. You must inform people about objective circumstances. Well,
> objectively, so far neither Borodin or Gusinsky are guilty. And arrest
> equally should not be applied to them, in any case, in the existing
> concrete conditions.
>
> I am prepared jointly with Gusinsky's lawyers to defend his interests
> but I would also want those who rightly and fairly defend Gusinsky to
> give similar treatment to everybody else. Unfortunately, this is not
> what some media outlets are doing. I am not referring to the entire
> press. You know this saying that "Guilty conscience is speaking."
>
> Q: But it is absolutely wrong to blame everything on the press.
>
> Padva: Not on the press but on concrete representatives of the press.
>
> Q: Can you name the person who ... (inaudible) ... from the American
> side?
>
> Padva: Frankly, I do not remember the name.
>
> Q: What is going to happen now?
>
> Padva: Now Pavel Pavlovich is going to remain in prison. Our country,
> the state and mostly lawyers, Swiss, American and Russian lawyers,
> will submit additional data showing that we are right in our opinion
> that he should not be extradited.
>
> Q: And he is going to be kept in prison for so long?
>
> Padva: Yes. How else?
>
> Q: France Presse. Concerning the charge of belonging to a criminal
> group. You mentioned two dozen accounts that got money from a single
> source...
>
> Padva: You are speaking about two dozen accounts while I was speaking
> about two dozen persons.
>
> Q: Two dozen persons with accounts, right? Am I right in understanding
> that money to these accounts came from a single source?
>
> Padva: Wrong.
>
> Q: Can you give us the names of these people? If you can't can you at
> least say if there are any members of the Kremlin administration among
> them? What has happened with these accounts, have they been frozen?
>
> Padva: There is nothing to particularly conceal here since a lot has
> already been written in the press, though not always fairly.
>
> There is no doubt at all that one of Borodin's unofficial accusers is
> a certain Turover. I believe he claimed in one of the newspapers, I
> believe it was Segodnya, that when Borodin realizes that nobody needs
> him, that it is the Yeltsin family that is the target, then,
> supposedly, he will start talking and then there will be full clarity.
> Of course, everything began not with Borodin. Of course, the prime aim
> was to prove Yeltsin's guilt. There were certain circles and you know
> this very well that tried by all sorts of ways to turn our former
> President Yeltsin from a president into a defendant. All sorts of
> methods were used ranging from quite legal ones of the type of
> impeachment to the most illegal ones, attempts to discredit him. And
> one of these attempts were the allegations that he and his immediate
> surrounding, his family in the narrow and broad meanings of the word,
> possessed big dollar accounts in Switzerland. All this was directed
> against Boris Nikolayevich, directly or!
> indirectly.
>
> You mentioned the mass media. One of the first or actually the first
> newspapers to write about this was Corriera della Sera. Strange, but
> this newspaper turned out somehow to be the most informed one. It knew
> absolutely everything and was the first to raise this question in the
> press. And it repeatedly returned to this matter trying to persuade
> the public that all this is true.
>
> When it was established with absolute certainty that Boris
> Nikolayevich Yeltsin did not have and does not have dollar accounts,
> the accent was shifted to the Family. And there were attempts made to
> prove that Tatyana Dyachenko has money and so on. All this also ended
> in nothing. And it was just Pavel Pavlovich Borodin who remained face
> to face with the Swiss law enforcement machine. This is the soil out
> of which this case has grown. And since attempts were made to smear
> the so-called Family and since there were publications by one or two
> persons, I mentioned one of them to you, the Swiss authorities
> declared that Borodin is a member of a criminal group without saying
> what the crime actually was.
>
> You got me wrong that they all had accounts and got money from the
> same source. I did not say this. I said only that in certain
> instances, and please quote me correctly, do not ascribe to me things
> I do not say, well, in some instances the sources crossed one way or
> another. But this does not mean at all that some criminal group of a
> strange origin had existed.
>
> If you thing hard and strain your memory, you will remember that
> accounts may have the same or similar sources. Sometimes somebody
> hands over something to somebody else but this does not mean at all
> that this is a criminal group. For instance, somebody owes money and
> makes a transfer from his account to that of the other person. Does
> this mean that they are criminals? Absolutely not.
>
> So far Switzerland only has isolated bank transactions which they can
> interpret as they like. But nobody knows the truth yet.
>
> Q: Mir Novostei. A question to you as a jurist and not as a defense
> lawyer. A provocative question but my colleagues have also put it.
> When Borodin was arrested and since there are lots of high-placed
> foreigners staying in Russia and who have been involved in various
> scandals, and the FSB and the Foreign Intelligence Service have
> information about this, why did we just arrest them and look at what
> the reaction to this was going to be? Could this be done?
>
> And the second moment. Is it possible that this is some byzantine
> method of our secret services who for some reasons cannot arrest
> Borodin themselves and decided to do this with the help of others? But
> this is hardly the Prosecutor General's Office considering Mr.
> Ustinov's and especially Mr. Kolmogorov's good relations with Mr.
> Borodin. Do you think this is possible?
>
> Padva: I emphatically reject this even as a conjecture.
>
> Q: And what about my first question?
>
> Padva: My knowledge of the situation tells me that our special
> services had nothing to do with this concrete arrest. Although I do
> not regard our special services to be so impeccable and not capable of
> such things.
>
> Sorry, but what was your first question?
>
> Q: What about an arrest of foreign representatives?
>
> Padva: As you probably remember, Mr. Zhirinovsky said this almost
> immediately after this happened. I don't favor such actions. I think
> that if someone acts wrongly, this gives us no right to act wrongly as
> well.
>
> I remember there was a spy mania during the Cold War: you catch our
> spy, we will catch ten your spies. Then they catch 20 our spies in
> response and so on and so forth. Is this a civilized way of building
> relations with other countries? I think there are other ways to
> influence other countries to make them respect ours.
>
> ***
>
> A question from Emperor's Clothes: When has the United States
> government offered any indication that it responds to the "civilized
> way of building relations with other countries"?
>
> ***
>
> If you find Emperor's Clothes useful, we can sure use help.
>
> All our expenses are covered by individual donations. Any donation
> will help with our work.
>
> To make a donation, please mail a check to Emperor's Clothes at P.O.
> Box 610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321.
>
> Or call 617 916-1705 and we will take your credit card information
> over the phone. Thanks very much!
>
> www.tenc.net
> [EMPEROR'S CLOTHES]
>
---
A cura del Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid%c2%91979
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Sito WEB:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Se vuoi sviluppare il tuo business, entra anche tu in
Consulteque.com, la piu grande community on line di
professionisti, dove l'offerta incontra la domanda delle imprese.
E poi potrai leggere le news, discutere con gli altri nel forum,
organizzare con noi i tuoi viaggi e molto altro ...
http://www.ecircle.it/ad1084757/www.consulteque.com
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Janiary 30, 2001
BELARUSIAN PRESIDENT BLASTS OSCE MISSION FOR EXCEEDING
MANDATE...
Alyaksandr Lukashenka said on Belarusian Television on
27 January that the OSCE Advisory and Monitoring Group
in Minsk is overstepping its mandate by creating a
"corps of 14,000-18,000 militants" who, under the
disguise of election observers, may become a threat to
the country's stability. Lukashenka noted that the
OSCE mission's mandate covers only assistance in
improving Belarusian legislation and monitoring of
developments in the country. He said, however, that
Belarus's electoral legislation has already been
improved to meet international standards and will not
be changed until this year's presidential elections.
Lukashenka claimed to have put the OSCE mission's
budget under his control and to have persuaded the
mission to give up its intention to form a legion of
paid "militants." JM
...PLEDGES TO WARD OFF 'YUGOSLAV SCENARIO' IN BELARUS
Lukashenka said he took a "tough stance" on the OSCE
mission following the opposition's and some Western
"observer's" promises to stage a "Yugoslav scenario"
in Belarus during the presidential elections this
fall. "No, there will be no Yugoslavia here. As long
as I am president, this will not happen... I will not
push you [Belarusians] to the barricades, I will go
ahead of you, I will defend my people," Lukashenka
promised, warning the television viewers that Belarus
may be bombed "from above with shells stuffed with
allegedly depleted uranium." JM
---
> The URL for this article is http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bor2.htm
>
> www.tenc.net
> [Emperor's Clothes]
>
> BORODIN FALSELY ARRESTED - WASHINGTON'S EXCUSE A LIE [1-30-2001]
>
> Note from Emperor's Clothes: Below is the relevant text from a Press
> Conference given by one of Pavel Borodin's lawyers, Genrikh Pavlovich
> Padva.
>
> Mr. Borodin was arrested Jan. 17 when he got off the plane at Kennedy
> Airport en route to the Bush Inauguration. He is a diplomat. He had
> been invited to this State event. The excuse that Borodin was avoiding
> questioning in Switzerland and that the U.S. had received a Swiss
> arrest warrant and had no choice but to arrest him is preposterous.
>
> Mr. Borodin requested a diplomatic visa from the U.S. Embassy in
> Moscow. According to the 'Washington Post' (Jan. 19th), this routine
> request produced "urgent" consultations between the United States
> Embassy in Moscow and the State Department. Why "urgent"? Because if
> the Embassy gave Mr. Borodin a diplomatic visa, then the State
> Department would have a harder time justifying Borodin's already
> planned arrest. The Embassy was instructed to stall: neither to issue
> the visa nor to urge him to stay away from the U.S. Mr. Borodin didn't
> want to miss his plane, so he left on a standard passport.
>
> An arrest complaint against Mr. Borodin was filed in New York on Jan.
> 17th - that is, after the 'urgent' discussion between Washington and
> the Embassy in Moscow. In other words, Borodin was setup for arrest.
> The State Department wanted him jailed. Mr. Borodin's New York
> attorney, Alexander Fishkin, commented:
>
> "The arrest warrant is issued on January 10th, he receives an
> invitation to the inauguration on January 13th and a complaint is
> filed in New York for his arrest on January 17th," he said. "It could
> be a coincidence, yes, but it looks too strange to be a coincidence."
> ('NY Times', 1-19-2001)
>
> Mr. Borodin is supposedly wanted by the Swiss authorities only for
> questioning. But Mr. Borodin's lawyers report that the Swiss,
> apparently under U.S. pressure, had previously rejected a Russian
> offer for Mr. Borodin to meet voluntarily with Swiss officials. The
> Swiss insisted on the extraordinary measure of extradition. This is
> called "Making your demand so extreme that the other side has to
> refuse." The US/Swiss claim that the arrest was necessary was
> literally invented.
>
> What is behind Mr. Borodin's arrest? I disagree with his lawyer, Mr.
> Pavda, who suggests that the arrest is aimed at discrediting the
> Yeltsin family. I think it is a provocation intended to intimidate the
> countries of the Former Soviet Union, and in particular to drive a
> wedge between Russia and Belarus, which is led by the independent
> (from Washington) President Alexander Lukashenko. Mr. Lukashenko is a
> current focus of demonization, stemming from Washington and parroted
> by the usual parrots, including some birds on the Left. He is
> authoritarian, he is crazy, and so on. Yes, crazy enough to resist
> Washington's neoliberal economic policies, with the result that
> working people in Belarus are a whole lot better off than in other
> parts of the Former Soviet Union. We need more crazy leaders like him.
>
> Some may wonder why we are devoting space to this relatively minor
> incident. The reason is, it is not a minor incident. It is an arrogant
> message, delivered by the United States Establishment to the
> politicians - and ordinary people - of the Former Soviet Union. The
> message says: We are the rulers; you are the ruled. It says: you are
> incapable of functioning in an honest, democratic fashion; we must
> control you and you must learn humility.
>
> How charming for Washington and Switzerland to offer a guiding hand to
> the backward Soviets! The Senior guide, of course, is Washington,
> which presently guides people directly or through proxies on every
> continent (via the KLA in Kosovo, the Ugandan and Rwandan armies in
> Congo, death squads and the regular Army in Colombia, grisly Islamist
> secessionists whom it sponsors in the Former Soviet Union, as well
> similar types in Algeria, Indonesia, etc.). The Junior guide is
> Switzerland, which usually avoids direct involvement in war; but then,
> to paraphrase Mr. Milton, they also guide who only stand aside, and
> profit.
>
> Pavel Borodin's arrest indicates that new adventures are planned, new
> attacks on the people of the former Soviet Union, now that Washington
> feels it has a reliable government installed in Belgrade. - Jared
> Israel.
>
> (Another article on this subject, 'Borodin Arrest Targets
> Russian-Belarus Union', can be read at
> http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/borodin.htm )
>
> On the Arrest of Pavel Borodin
> >From the Press Conference given by Genrikh Pavlovich Padva
>
> Official Kremlin Int'l News Broadcast
> January 26, 2001, Friday
>
> Moderator: Good day, dear journalists. Our guest today is Genrikh
> Pavlovich Padva who represents Pavel Borodin's interests. Today we
> will talk about the latest events in New York. Please, share your
> opinion with the journalists.
>
> Padva: First of all, I would like to apologize for being late, but I
> came straight from the courtroom, and you can't leave the courtroom
> until the hearings are over.
>
> There is nothing consoling in these events for us and for Pavel
> Pavlovich Borodin. Only one question was considered yesterday or
> rather today, it was night here -- the release of Borodin from under
> custody. Our side raised the question of releasing him on bail and
> guarantees basically from our state, because the guarantees were given
> by the Russian ambassador to the United States of America.
>
> Hearings lasted several hours, but no release was granted and Borodin
> remains in custody. I want you to understand one thing. For some
> reason there have been many media reports saying that the question of
> his extradition is to be considered. This is not so. The question of
> extradition will be considered later when the Swiss side provides all
> the necessary documents. It has 40 days of the date of detention to do
> so.
>
> The arrest that has taken place, just for you to have a clear idea,
> was necessary [supposedly] to secure Borodin's appearance for
> interrogation. It's not the arrest of the accused or even a suspect.
> It's what is called compulsory process.
>
> The arrest that was effected in America is called conditional arrest
> because the final decision is made not immediately, but later. So, the
> question of extradition, I repeat, will be decided when all the
> necessary documents are provided. We will oppose extradition as such
> when this question is considered. We will provide a large amount of
> data and documents to prove that he is not subject to extradition.
>
> What kind of data and documents are these? First of all, these
> documents will confirm our statement that Pavel Pavlovich has never
> been officially summoned anywhere. I mean Switzerland. The Swiss
> lawyer who is working on this with us is one of the leading lawyers in
> Switzerland. He is a professor and the author of a textbook by which
> all Swiss lawyers study criminal justice. He has specially checked out
> and talked with Mr. Deveau to find out whether Pavel Pavlovich had
> been summoned officially, but then failed to show up. No, nothing like
> this happened.
>
> It's all the more strange because they are trying to extradite him --
> this is an exact translation from English as a fugitive, which he is
> not. I'd say he was not a circumspect, what shall we call him, hunter
> -- well, no, a person who thoughtlessly pushed his way under this
> terrible wheel that was set in motion in Switzerland and that is still
> spinning. He did not escape from anywhere and he did not hide from
> anyone. He lived calmly. By the way, he has been abroad before, not in
> America, but in other countries.
>
> We will prove that it's strange when the question of coercive
> extradition is raised if the person never objected to meeting them
> voluntarily in the first place. Moreover, I am sure you know that our
> government told Swiss law-enforcement agencies, through the Russian
> ambassador in Switzerland, that if Switzerland did not insist on
> extradition, our state and our government would guarantee Pavel
> Pavlovich Borodin's voluntary appearance.
>
> However, they rejected this proposal, which, in my view, is a clear
> indication of bias because if they really want him to come to meet
> them, why extradite him by force? Indeed, in this case they will be
> able to meet him in many months at best because this is not such a
> simple procedure and not such a short procedure. If they want just to
> question him, it is easier to do with our government's guarantees. But
> unfortunately, they did not agree to this and insist on his
> extradition.
>
> I think it's some ambitions, of course. Maybe Mr. Deveau bears the
> grudge for something, perhaps, he thinks that he was not treated
> respectfully enough. Maybe, at least I've got the impression that
> these actions were not dictated by the necessity and are connected
> with some ambitions. I think that's all I can say right now. I am
> waiting for your questions and I'll try to answer them.
>
> Q: Today's Izvestia published an interview with Bertrand Bertossa in
> which he said that in addition to money laundering, the participation
> in some criminal group, excuse me, criminal organization, is
> incriminated to him. How can you comment on this statement?
>
> Padva: You know, it's hard to comment on all these statements, because
> we have not seen official charges. They have not presented either to
> Pavel Pavlovich or his lawyers. We only know that they have been
> published more or less officially and they are known to his lawyer who
> has been mentioned to me, lawyer Ponset (sp?) there in France, that is
> in Switzerland.
>
> Let's begin with money laundering. It's hard to comment because money
> laundering is understood as various actions involving property and
> money obtained illegally. But they don't say that -- they don't have
> proof, but they accuse him of having obtained this money illegally.
> They hoped all the time and said that this would be proved in Russia
> and then the transfer of money through Swiss banks would be recognized
> as money laundering.
>
> However, our thorough investigation -- there are 120 volumes in the
> Mabetex case which is connected with Pavel Pavlovich Borodin, but his
> guild has not been proven. Moreover, our investigation came to the
> conclusion that there is no his guilt in these actions, in contractual
> relations with Mabetex. So, it's not quite clear what money, the
> laundering of what money they are talking about.
>
> As to participation in a criminal group I believe they have the
> following in mind. They have found not one but many different
> accounts, a dozen, two dozen, opened in the names of citizens of ru
> and that are being ascribed to Pavel Pavlovich. Since the movement on
> some accounts coincided or were close, since some could have been from
> one and the same sources, this and only this gives them any reason to
> allege that there was some sort of a criminal group that laundered
> this money.
>
> I repeat that there is no data at all that all this money was gained
> by criminal ways not only by Pavel Pavlovich but also all the others.
> Unfortunately, we can comment only on what we know. But we know very
> little so far because, I repeat, no formal charges have been made
> anywhere.
>
> What does a charge of participation in a criminal group mean? As you
> understand, the charge must indicate what sort of a criminal group
> this was, what it engaged in, what crimes were perpetrated by this
> group of persons -- murdered, robbed, engaged in extortion, got bribes
> and so on. This is quite absurd. It is alleged that a group, say, of
> some 20 totally unrelated persons was accepting bribes or conducted
> joint theft. But nothing is known about the real charges. The only
> charge is participation in a criminal group. But this is really
> absurd. How can one defend oneself against such an allegation? It
> appears to us that this is quite a groundless allegation.
>
> I believe this is all that I can say about this.
>
> Q: Ekho Moskvy radio.
>
> Did the defense expect the decision taken by the court, or was it a
> surprise to you?
>
> Padva: It was an expected decision, of course. But the defense did not
> abandon hope that another decision was possible. It also did its best
> to prevent the decision that was taken from happening. But you know
> all the difficulties that we encounter.
>
> What is the situation? As I understand it, although some people are
> trying to say that this is a purely legal problem... formally,
> perhaps, it is a primarily legal problem. But what in reality have we
> come up against? Let us begin with the following. A couple of years
> ago America became the first country to demand greater transparency
> from Switzerland, its banks. America insisted that the fight against
> money laundering should be started. The American Jewish lobby raised
> the question that after the War, after nazism a tremendous amount of
> the money of victims of nazism had sedimented in Swiss banks. All this
> finally forced Switzerland to start doing something and, indeed, Swiss
> banks have become more open and have started demonstrating accounts,
> mostly Russian ones.
>
> You know very well what is now happening in the world. You know about
> the hysteria concerning the so-called Russian Mafia. You know very
> well about the allegations that Russia is not fighting money
> laundering and that for this reason Russia should be discriminated. In
> an election campaign speech Bush said that if elected, he will do
> everything possible not to give financial assistance to Russia because
> corruption and bribing is on such a grand scale there that all money
> winds up in the hands of our high-placed officials. And you know that
> he even named one of them -- a person as prominent as Chernomyrdin.
> This is the atmosphere in which Pavel Pavlovich Borodin was arrested.
>
> All this cannot but affect the solution of his case, his fate. Of
> course, a judge should proceed first and foremost from the law. But I
> am convinced that no matter how a judge proceeds from the law his
> ideology determines his understanding and interpretation of the law.
> Not directly, perhaps, but indirectly.
>
> We do not know how a judge voted, whether he voted for Bush or not. It
> is possible that he voted for Bush precisely because he said no
> financial help should be given to our corrupt society. This simply
> cannot but play a certain role in the solution of concrete questions,
> concrete cases.
>
> We took all this into account and we knew that we are facing
> substantial difficulties. Availing myself of the presence here of
> representatives of different media outlets I would like to say that it
> really disturbs me that there is a different approach to the fate of
> our citizens who are under investigation abroad and so on. The mass
> media is doing its best to protect Gusinsky and right it is. I fully
> agree with the press. If a person's guilt has not yet been
> established, if it is not yet really known whether or not a person has
> committed a crime, I am convinced that there is no need to keep such a
> person behind bars.
>
> But when we speak about Borodin some media outlets for some reason
> take already a totally different position as if he were not a citizen
> of our country, as if his arrest in these circumstances is not a slap
> in the face for our country. I do not understand this. I would want
> all the media outlets to keep to a single position, the position of
> protecting our citizens. By the way, this is a duty of our state.
> Sometimes I am asked: why is Borodin so defended? Because we should
> protect our citizens. And it is unfortunate that not all are being
> defended. This should be done because this is a constitutional duty of
> our state. It is a duty of our state to defend the interests of our
> citizens if these interests, if the rights of our citizens are
> encroached upon abroad. I believe that all this should be taken into
> account.
>
> As to what has concretely happened, you know everything. I do not know
> what else is there for me to explain to you. There was a court
> hearing. The pleas of the defense were heard out for three hours. This
> appears to be fair. The decision was taken not to release Borodin. But
> I cannot understand this decision. I do not understand why a person
> should be kept under guard when there is full confidence and a full
> guarantee that he will appear in court when summoned and will not
> disappear. There was this proposal to make him wear the electronic
> bracelet. You know, it will transmit information if he moves 100 or
> 150 meters. More than that, our ambassador offered his guarantee. This
> is unique. I do not know about other precedents. Plus a huge bail.
> Frankly, I don't know where this sum of 750,000 came from, apparently
> journalists wanted to raise that much, but the maximum sum that was
> considered was 250,000. However, mass media talked all the time about
> 750,000 for some reason. I think!
> they have been biased.
>
> Q: You say different media give different interpretations but he is
> our fellow citizens and he must be defended. But media say at least
> something, while Vladimir Putin has distanced himself from this. Do
> you follow me? What do you think the President's position?
>
> Padva: You know, I don't think the President is duty bound to make
> statements regarding the arrest of a citizen of his country. The
> President has not made public statements, he has not called a press
> conference and he has not made an official statement. But if the
> Foreign Minister is doing something, I don't think you have any doubts
> that this is being done with the President's consent.
>
> If our state says, through our ambassadors, that there are no reasons
> to keep him in custody and that if need be we can guarantee his
> appearance, this cannot be done without the President's consent. So, I
> don't think that the President has to make statements on each such
> case.
>
> The President is associated with our country. He is our guarantor, and
> I think that if he makes an appeal to some country and that country
> rejects it, it's a slap to all of us, every citizen of our country
> because this is our President, because we elected him, even though
> some may not have voted for him.
>
> This is why I think that the President should be very circumspect in
> making such statements in order not to lose his political face and,
> most importantly, avoid useless moves. I think that if there had been
> clear understanding that the President's statement or appeal would
> solve everything, he would have made it immediately.
>
> Q: You said that Russia provided guarantees of his appearance to
> Switzerland, but Switzerland rejected them. Was it done before
> Borodin's arrest or after?
>
> Padva: I think I made myself quite clear. No official request to
> Borodin or our government or Prosecutor General's Office regarding his
> appearance in Switzerland was ever made before his arrest. So, no one
> could guarantee anything or discuss anything. We gave such guarantees
> after his arrest.
>
> Q: Speaking juridically, does his arrest violate any law, maybe
> American or some other?
>
> Padva: Just formally?
>
> Q: Yes.
>
> Padva: No. Who speaks of a breach of law? Neither we nor our
> government have said that. There is an agreement on extradition
> between Switzerland and America. It obligates them to help each other
> in such cases. If one side requests the arrest of a person and his
> further extradition as provided for in this agreement, they have every
> right to do so and they must do so.
>
> Q: So, this talk of diplomatic passport -- everything is fine there?
>
> Padva: If he had official immunity, then this would be a different
> question. But Pavel Pavlovich does not have official immunity. At the
> same time, arresting a delegate who was basically sent officially on
> behalf of two countries, on behalf of a union of two countries, on the
> border is of course an unprecedented fact. I have never seen anything
> like that before.
>
> Voice: There was no official invitation.
>
> Q: Official? He arrived by regular passport.
>
> Voice: And by fake invitation.
>
> Padva: Wait a minute. Where did you get all this? I am shocked. You
> say this as if you saw all this with your eyes. The invitation was
> absolutely genuine and signed by a member of the presidential
> inauguration committee. I have to tell you that the State Department
> does not officially invite anyone except ambassadors who are
> accredited and live there.
>
> In keeping with the generally-accepted practice in America, such
> invitations are issued by private persons who have direct relation to
> events. I repeat, it was signed.
>
> I also know, although from media reports and not from official
> documents, that he allegedly didn't sign it, although we examined his
> signature. But this is a different question that has not been
> officially investigated or stated. He received an official document
> signed, I repeat, by an official because he was a member of two
> committees. It is more important that he was a member of an
> inauguration committee. Besides, he was a member of the Bush election
> sponsorship committee.
>
> Think of what was in this invitation, what is known to us and what is
> real and not a sham as you want to present it or as you were deceived
> about. It says that Pavel Pavlovich will be met upon arrival, that a
> room was booked for him in such and such place, that he will have a
> personal car, that he will take place in such and such events,
> absolutely official ones -- dinners, official breakfasts -- to which
> people are invited according to a list approved by a presidential
> adviser.
>
> This invitation was brought to the Foreign Ministry by Pavel Pavlovich
> and it did not evoke any doubts. It and his diplomatic passport were
> handed over to the US embassy which did not say that it was a private
> invitation that was invalid. This is why it's totally wrong to say
> that there was no invitation or that it was a false invitation.
>
> If it were a false invitation, perhaps this may be proved one day as a
> result of special investigation, and then the one who sent it will be
> brought to account, but what does Pavel Pavlovich Borodin to do with
> all this?
>
> As for his regular foreign travel passport, delegates who travel
> anywhere do not have to bear diplomatic passports. Diplomatic
> passports are issued only to certain officials. So the fact that he
> left the country and crossed the border by regular passport does not
> make him an unofficial person. Indeed, did he stop being the State
> Secretary of the Union State because of that?
>
> Q: Did he arrive in the US as a private person or as an official?
>
> Padva: What private person? He received an invitation and was sent
> there by the chairman of the Byelorussia-Russia Union, Mr. Lukashenko.
> How can he be a private person after this?
>
> Q: But America does not recognize this union, it hasn't recognized it
> yet, has it? It means nothing to it, do you understand this?
>
> Padva: Well, it does mean something to us. You asked me in what
> capacity he was sent there.
>
> Q: He could have been sent by the Pope, but what difference does it
> make?
>
> Padva: What did you say?
>
> Q: You accuse the States of disrespectful treatment. But on the other
> hand, you say that no law was broken by the arrest.
>
> Padva: That's right, no law was broken because they acted in
> accordance with their obligations under an agreement with Switzerland.
> You have to understand that -- I think I make myself clear enough,
> they were fulfilling their obligations under an agreement with
> Switzerland. In this sense the law was not violated. It was not
> violated because Pavel Pavlovich did not have a formal diplomatic
> immunity. That is why there was no formal violation. I am trying to
> say something else because you do not appear to understand simple
> things. What am I saying is that my experience, and I have been
> working as a defense lawyer for already 50 years, tells me that
> Borodin was officially sent there on an official invitation. This does
> not mean that he had immunity. I repeat, there was no formal violation
> of the law.
>
> But proceeding from my practice, my experience, I do not know of
> instances when an official delegate of such a high rank was detained
> immediately at the border. This is all that I wanted to say. Am I
> clear?
>
> Q: Radio Liberty. You said that there is a different attitude of the
> press to Gusinsky and Borodin...
>
> Padva: I said not of the entire press but of a certain part of it.
>
> Q: Why does this surprise you? Does it not seem to you that these
> persons have a different reputation?
>
> Padva: Because people are detained not on the basis of their
> reputation. And the press should not treat people differently. A
> citizen of Russia should have equal protection until he is found
> guilty and sentenced. Unfortunately, you want Borodin to be found
> guilty and Gusinsky not to be found guilty. As a citizen and a lawyer
> I want both of them to be regarded as equally innocent until their
> guilt is proved.
>
> Q: Your accusations against the press are unfounded. It is the task of
> the press to cover events. This has nothing to do with what we want or
> do not want to do. You are claiming that we are working for one side,
> defending one side.
>
> Padva: I am not speaking about you, I do not know who you are working
> for.
>
> Q: I work for Radio Liberty.
>
> Padva: You are working for somebody just as defense lawyers work for
> somebody. And you are committed to a no lesser extent than lawyers.
> But I would want the press to objectively cover events. As to my
> commitment, it is a natural and official one. I am defending precisely
> Borodin.
>
> As to you, you have no right to defend somebody just because you feel
> like it. You must inform people about objective circumstances. Well,
> objectively, so far neither Borodin or Gusinsky are guilty. And arrest
> equally should not be applied to them, in any case, in the existing
> concrete conditions.
>
> I am prepared jointly with Gusinsky's lawyers to defend his interests
> but I would also want those who rightly and fairly defend Gusinsky to
> give similar treatment to everybody else. Unfortunately, this is not
> what some media outlets are doing. I am not referring to the entire
> press. You know this saying that "Guilty conscience is speaking."
>
> Q: But it is absolutely wrong to blame everything on the press.
>
> Padva: Not on the press but on concrete representatives of the press.
>
> Q: Can you name the person who ... (inaudible) ... from the American
> side?
>
> Padva: Frankly, I do not remember the name.
>
> Q: What is going to happen now?
>
> Padva: Now Pavel Pavlovich is going to remain in prison. Our country,
> the state and mostly lawyers, Swiss, American and Russian lawyers,
> will submit additional data showing that we are right in our opinion
> that he should not be extradited.
>
> Q: And he is going to be kept in prison for so long?
>
> Padva: Yes. How else?
>
> Q: France Presse. Concerning the charge of belonging to a criminal
> group. You mentioned two dozen accounts that got money from a single
> source...
>
> Padva: You are speaking about two dozen accounts while I was speaking
> about two dozen persons.
>
> Q: Two dozen persons with accounts, right? Am I right in understanding
> that money to these accounts came from a single source?
>
> Padva: Wrong.
>
> Q: Can you give us the names of these people? If you can't can you at
> least say if there are any members of the Kremlin administration among
> them? What has happened with these accounts, have they been frozen?
>
> Padva: There is nothing to particularly conceal here since a lot has
> already been written in the press, though not always fairly.
>
> There is no doubt at all that one of Borodin's unofficial accusers is
> a certain Turover. I believe he claimed in one of the newspapers, I
> believe it was Segodnya, that when Borodin realizes that nobody needs
> him, that it is the Yeltsin family that is the target, then,
> supposedly, he will start talking and then there will be full clarity.
> Of course, everything began not with Borodin. Of course, the prime aim
> was to prove Yeltsin's guilt. There were certain circles and you know
> this very well that tried by all sorts of ways to turn our former
> President Yeltsin from a president into a defendant. All sorts of
> methods were used ranging from quite legal ones of the type of
> impeachment to the most illegal ones, attempts to discredit him. And
> one of these attempts were the allegations that he and his immediate
> surrounding, his family in the narrow and broad meanings of the word,
> possessed big dollar accounts in Switzerland. All this was directed
> against Boris Nikolayevich, directly or!
> indirectly.
>
> You mentioned the mass media. One of the first or actually the first
> newspapers to write about this was Corriera della Sera. Strange, but
> this newspaper turned out somehow to be the most informed one. It knew
> absolutely everything and was the first to raise this question in the
> press. And it repeatedly returned to this matter trying to persuade
> the public that all this is true.
>
> When it was established with absolute certainty that Boris
> Nikolayevich Yeltsin did not have and does not have dollar accounts,
> the accent was shifted to the Family. And there were attempts made to
> prove that Tatyana Dyachenko has money and so on. All this also ended
> in nothing. And it was just Pavel Pavlovich Borodin who remained face
> to face with the Swiss law enforcement machine. This is the soil out
> of which this case has grown. And since attempts were made to smear
> the so-called Family and since there were publications by one or two
> persons, I mentioned one of them to you, the Swiss authorities
> declared that Borodin is a member of a criminal group without saying
> what the crime actually was.
>
> You got me wrong that they all had accounts and got money from the
> same source. I did not say this. I said only that in certain
> instances, and please quote me correctly, do not ascribe to me things
> I do not say, well, in some instances the sources crossed one way or
> another. But this does not mean at all that some criminal group of a
> strange origin had existed.
>
> If you thing hard and strain your memory, you will remember that
> accounts may have the same or similar sources. Sometimes somebody
> hands over something to somebody else but this does not mean at all
> that this is a criminal group. For instance, somebody owes money and
> makes a transfer from his account to that of the other person. Does
> this mean that they are criminals? Absolutely not.
>
> So far Switzerland only has isolated bank transactions which they can
> interpret as they like. But nobody knows the truth yet.
>
> Q: Mir Novostei. A question to you as a jurist and not as a defense
> lawyer. A provocative question but my colleagues have also put it.
> When Borodin was arrested and since there are lots of high-placed
> foreigners staying in Russia and who have been involved in various
> scandals, and the FSB and the Foreign Intelligence Service have
> information about this, why did we just arrest them and look at what
> the reaction to this was going to be? Could this be done?
>
> And the second moment. Is it possible that this is some byzantine
> method of our secret services who for some reasons cannot arrest
> Borodin themselves and decided to do this with the help of others? But
> this is hardly the Prosecutor General's Office considering Mr.
> Ustinov's and especially Mr. Kolmogorov's good relations with Mr.
> Borodin. Do you think this is possible?
>
> Padva: I emphatically reject this even as a conjecture.
>
> Q: And what about my first question?
>
> Padva: My knowledge of the situation tells me that our special
> services had nothing to do with this concrete arrest. Although I do
> not regard our special services to be so impeccable and not capable of
> such things.
>
> Sorry, but what was your first question?
>
> Q: What about an arrest of foreign representatives?
>
> Padva: As you probably remember, Mr. Zhirinovsky said this almost
> immediately after this happened. I don't favor such actions. I think
> that if someone acts wrongly, this gives us no right to act wrongly as
> well.
>
> I remember there was a spy mania during the Cold War: you catch our
> spy, we will catch ten your spies. Then they catch 20 our spies in
> response and so on and so forth. Is this a civilized way of building
> relations with other countries? I think there are other ways to
> influence other countries to make them respect ours.
>
> ***
>
> A question from Emperor's Clothes: When has the United States
> government offered any indication that it responds to the "civilized
> way of building relations with other countries"?
>
> ***
>
> If you find Emperor's Clothes useful, we can sure use help.
>
> All our expenses are covered by individual donations. Any donation
> will help with our work.
>
> To make a donation, please mail a check to Emperor's Clothes at P.O.
> Box 610-321, Newton, MA 02461-0321.
>
> Or call 617 916-1705 and we will take your credit card information
> over the phone. Thanks very much!
>
> www.tenc.net
> [EMPEROR'S CLOTHES]
>
---
A cura del Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid%c2%91979
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Sito WEB:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Se vuoi sviluppare il tuo business, entra anche tu in
Consulteque.com, la piu grande community on line di
professionisti, dove l'offerta incontra la domanda delle imprese.
E poi potrai leggere le news, discutere con gli altri nel forum,
organizzare con noi i tuoi viaggi e molto altro ...
http://www.ecircle.it/ad1084757/www.consulteque.com
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
[Note: Below is a joint statement by Michel Chossudovsky, Jared
Israel and Nico Varkevisser. The text that follows this statement
is by Jared Israel].
On the Arrest of Pavel Borodin
Last Wednesday (January 17th) Pavel Borodin, Secretary of the
Russian-Belarus Union, was arrested following his arrival by plane
in New York City. Mr. Borodin was in the U.S. on official State
business. He was an invited guest at President Bush's Inauguration
ceremonies. The official justification for arresting this Russian
diplomat is that the Swiss wanted to question him about alleged
kickbacks. But the real reason for his arrest, and his subsequent
imprisonment without bail, is that Mr. Borodin is Secretary of the
Russian-Belarus Union. There is ample evidence that Washington
fostered the breakup of the Soviet Union and has tried to undermine
political and economic links between the former Soviet Republics.
Just as Washington financed the Afghan terrorists during the 1980s
(this was done with the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, to the tune of
over $6 billion), U.S. foreign policy, open and covert, has been
behind several of the civil wars within the former Soviet Union
including the war in Chechnya. The outrageous incarceration without
bail of Mr. Borodin, when he had been invited to America by George.
W. Bush, is an obvious ploy to disable one of the key figures in
the Russian-Belarus Union and to pressure others in Russia and
Belarus to follow political and economic policies that are to
Washington's liking.
- Jared Israel, Michel Chossudovsky and Nico Varkevisser
Bush Gov't Attacks Russian-Belarus Union
by Jared Israel [1-23-2001]
Newspaper accounts of the arrest of Russian diplomat Pavel Borodin at
Kennedy Airport last Wednesday focus on charges of corruption. They
barely refer to the real issues - Washington's desire to a) punish Mr.
Borodin for encouraging close ties between Russia and a Belarus led by
the independent (of Washington) President Alexander Lukashenko and to b)
embarrass and destabilize Russia. The idea is, if the Russian government
does not distance itself from Borodin, the Western media can smear it as
corrupt. If they do desert Mr. Borodin, or if his arrest is downplayed,
this may discourage others from taking actions independent of
Washington. This is American diplomacy: about as subtle as an axe.
But the American media doesn't deal with these real purposes of the
arrest of Mr. Borodin. Instead the media either does not cover the story
at all, or talks about corruption. This is a wonderful thing. Pres. Bush
told Barbara Walters the other day ("20/20", Jan. 19th) that the world
needs to "raid out corruption", and I agree. But why try to start this
difficult "Raiding" process thousands of miles away? Wouldn't it make
sense to pioneer "corruption raiding" right at home? In the Barbara
Walters interview, didn't our new President say, in no uncertain terms,
that people in uncivilized countries need to "build a democracy under
our--under our image"? By "raiding corruption" right here, in the US of
A, wouldn't we be showing these backward types how it is done?
For example, just before leaving office in 1992, Mr. Bush's own father
granted the Barrick Gold Company (in Canada) the rights to a U.S. gold
mine worth $10,000,000,000 (billion). Barrick's cost: $10,000
(thousand).
"So can you guess what happened next? Right: George I then
joined Barrick's board of directors, where he pocketed big
money for the next seven years. And he didn't mind singing for
his supper either; Barrick frequently dispatched the
ex-president to meet with the bloodthirsty dictators who were
his "old friends," like Indonesia's Suharto and Zaire's Mobutu
Sese Seko, to rig up juicy backdoor deals for his corporate
masters.
"Perhaps not incidentally, Barrick poured $148,000 into George
II's campaign this year. And Daddy's dirty work as a bagman
and fixer for other corporate interests has also served l'il
Georgie well. For example, George I went to bat for the Mirage
Casino corporation when they wanted to muscle in on some
Argentina territory; this year, Mirage kicked back $449,000 to
GOP coffers. Daddy G also did some highly remunerative flack
work for Chevron Oil with his old friends in Kuwait; in
return, Chevron pumped $657,000 into the Republican tank in
2000." ('The St. Petersburg Times,' December 12, 2000)
Nevertheless Senior Bush was not arrested at the airport.
Three Things About the Arrest of Pavel Borodin
First , Mr. Borodin is a diplomat. Is the U.S. State Department familiar
with this term?
dip·lo·mat [díppl[(schwa)] màt ] (plural dip·lo·mats) noun
1. government representative abroad: a member or employee of a
government who represents his or her country in dealings with
other nations
2. tactful person: somebody who is tactful and good at dealing
with people
Arresting Mr. Borodin (after inviting him to the Inauguration, no less)
is not diplomatic and may be seen as a provocation by Russia and
Belarus. For starters it violates diplomatic procedure, arguably
international law as well. This is irrelevant of whether or not Mr.
Borodin was carrying his diplomatic credentials when arrested. This
arrest denies diplomacy and affirms the Law of the Bully. Did we need
more affirmations?
Second, it is beyond credibility that Borodin's invitation to the Ball
and his subsequent arrest were not coordinated actions. Mr. Fishkin,
Borodin's lawyer, commented:
'"The arrest warrant is issued on January 10th, he receives an
invitation to the inauguration on January 13th and a complaint
is filed in New York for his arrest on January 17th'" ('NY
Times', 1-19-2001)
Mr. Fishkin remarked to the 'NY Times' reporter that this appears to be
a setup. It does indeed.
Third, Mr. Borodin is the Secretary of the Russian-Belarus Union. The
Clinton administration has made clear its fury at Belarus, which has had
the temerity to resist neoliberal policies. Moreover, its government has
not bowed down to the usual Fifth Column "civil society" groups run by
Madeline Albright out of well-furnished offices at the National
Endowment for Democracy (sic!). The U.S. finds this both authoritarian
and anti-democratic.
The arrest of Borodin is the most sensational attack the U.S. has made
on the Russian-Belarus Union. It demonstrates the continuity of U.S.
foreign policy from Clinton to Bush. Having installed its puppet regime
in Yugoslavia, the U.S. Establishment is now escalating the attack on
the states of the former Soviet Union. Coming shortly after the death of
Laurent Kabila, President of the Congo, under circumstances that
strongly suggest U.S. involvement, this indicates a general escalation
of U.S. interventionism around the world.
In case the Russian and Belarus leaders failed to get the message
delivered via Borodin's arrest - that is to say, that they were being
publicly insulted by a bully, with the implicit dare: "Whatcha gonna do
about that, wimp?!" - in case they failed to get the message, George W.
was interviewed Friday by Barbara Walters on the ABC TV show '20/20'.
Junior Bush's apparent assignment was to rub Russia's face in the dirt.
I say 'apparent assignment' because he himself did not seem to be sure
about that or anything else in the interview but fortunately for the
diplomacy of the Free World, Walters was privy to the Humiliate-Russia
plan, so she helped him out. Held him up, one might say.
The exchange went as follows:
"WALTERS: How will your foreign policy be different from Bill
Clinton's?
"President-elect BUSH: We're going to make it clearer to
people that our nation is not going to be a--a nation of
nation builders. We'll be humble in our approach. We can't
have troops going into nations and say that we're going help
you. We're going to--we're going to--you're going to build a
democracy under our--under our image. But if you expect
capital to come into your country, you must make reforms. You
must make--raid out corruption. You must...
"WALTERS: Russia. You're talking about Russia?
"President-elect BUSH: Well, I'm talking about a lot of
countries.
"WALTERS: Do you consider Russia a friend or a threat?
"President-elect BUSH: I don't know yet. I hope--I hope Russia
is a friend. "
Note that when Walters cues Junior Bush, saying "Russia. You're talking
about Russia?" (which means "RUSSIA! YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RUSSIA!
DAMMIT!!") George doesn't get it. So Walters prompts him further: "Do
you consider Russia a friend or a threat?"
Note also that Junior Bush, in the very process of attempting to
humiliate Russia (by having a corrupt, incoherent American deliver a
stern warning against...corruption!) sticks in the incongruous line,
"We'll be humble in our approach." Amazing coming from a fellow whose
handlers have just busted at the airport a Russian diplomat whom they
lured to said fellow's Inauguration.
This profession of humility reminds one of Mr. Bush's oft repeated
phrase, "I am going to be president of all the people, not just those
who voted for me." Apparently they teach Junior Bush these phrases, and
he repeats them, amiably enough, though as often happens with phrases
learned by rote, not necessarily at the correct times or with exactly
the right wording.
Junior Bush's inability to get things straight when he speaks in public
is apparently going to be sold to us during the next, painful, four
years as Charming Stupidity; thus is virtue fashioned from necessity.
The same sort of feat was performed with Slick Willie, whose tendency to
rub on any available leg, and to lie, was sold to us as Puppy Dog
Cuteness.
Stupidity is superior in many ways to Doggieness. For one thing, it
elicits the sympathy of reporters throughout the Western media, who are
forced to write nonsensical stupidity which insults their intelligence
or else lose their jobs. For another, it provides an excuse for almost
any occasion. When in doubt, more and more folks in the Bush entourage
will tell us, "Like, you know, I mean, like, I dunno." To be stupid is
the ultimate stonewall.
Team of Fools
Consider the case of Vincent Zenga, whom you may refer to as Vincent the
Dumb. Vincent was an official member of Junior Bush's Inauguration Team.
(Everything with Junior is a Team, for reasons that ought to be
apparent…) It was he who supposedly invited Pavel Borodin to the
Inaugural "candlelight dinner". That is, Vincent Zenga is supposedly the
reason Pavel Borodin got off that plane at Kennedy airport and thus
could be nabbed by our corruption-fighters.
Mr. Zenga is described in the 'NY Times' as:
"a lawyer from West Palm Beach, Fla., who has contributed
sizable sums to the Republican National Committee and to Mr.
Bush's 1998 campaign for governor. "
Have you noticed that everything with the Bush family involves lots of
money? Is this corruption-fighting thing some kind of psychological
projection?
Zenga denied any complicity in the arrest of Mr. Borodin. "Mr. Zenga
said the invitation was sent by someone in the Moscow office of one of
his companies, Star Capital, " said the 'Times.' (1-19)
In a 'Washington Post' interview, Vincent the Dumb took the line that
Borodin had been invited "inadvertently".
Huh? How do you invite someone 'inadvertently'? Here's the 'Washington
Post' again:
"Zenga said he was mystified about how a letter went out over
his signature inviting Borodin to several exclusive events and
promising not only tickets, but also 'a car with driver' and a
hotel room. The Jan. 13 letter, which advised Borodin to bring
his own black-tie formal clothing, included tickets to a
candlelight dinner for 2,000 attended by Bush last night, and
promised tickets to an inaugural ball Saturday night.
'I have no idea how it happened' said Zenga of the invitation.
'We were surprised at it too.' "
Then, rather incongruously, Vincent added: "We [were un]aware of his
legal problems." ('Washington Post', January 19, 2001)
If Borodin was invited by mistake, whatever that means, what is the
relevance of Zenga having been ''unaware '' of Borodin's "legal
problems"? Is Vincent trying to tell us that, had he known of the legal
difficulties of this man whom he neither knew nor invited to the Ball,
he would not have invited him? Did somebody at CIA screw up and give
this guy two contradictory cover stories? Or is he just trying to
emulate his Master?
Just by the by, how can everybody in an American company that does
business in Russia be unaware of Borodin's "legal problems"? Those
problems have been discussed at least 308 times on Western TV and
newspapers over the past year. (I counted) And if you add the very
important word "Belarus" to the search, you still find 119 stories. This
does not include news reports or commentaries in the Russian language
media.
How does a highly successful man with a telecommunications company in
Russia manage to unwittingly invite a well-known Russian leader to the
Inaugural ball without knowing he has been accused of corruption?
Here is a bit more information.
"A State Department official said Borodin entered the country
on a multiple-entry, combined tourist and business visa issued
in 1998 for a three-year period. He had applied for a
diplomatic visa in Moscow on Tuesday night, prompting the U.S.
Embassy there to send an urgent request for guidance to the
State Department. But there was not enough time to respond
before his departure, and so Borodin used his personal
passport and left his diplomatic passport behind, the State
Department official said. "('Washington Post', January 19,
2001)
Why did the U.S. Embassy have to send "an urgent request for guidance"
to the State Department? Obviously because they read the newspapers and
therefore knew there was a Swiss warrant out for Borodin's arrest and
wanted to know what they were supposed to do: give him a diplomatic visa
which would rule out arresting him at Kennedy Airport or not give him a
visa and risk an international incident.
Nowadays urgent requests can be delivered and answered almost
instantaneously. So the outgoing State Department officials certainly
had time to consult with Bush's handlers. (Of course that's a bit of a
moot point since it was of course Bush's handlers who arranged to send
Borodin the invitation luring him to the U.S. in the first place. But
then, they did that unwittingly. Right?)
Clearly if these exalted beings wished to avoid an insulting provocation
(and an apparent violation of international law - the arrest of a
diplomat invited to a State function, no less) they could have issued
Borodin a standard, diplomatic visa. Or they could have refused while
warning him that there was a warrant out for his arrest. That they did
neither suggests they were hoping Borodin would use his non-diplomatic
visa (they knew he had one because the U.S. Embassy had issued it to
him.)
Liars often talk too much. Note that the 'New York Times' reports that
"Officials in Washington said the United States was tipped off by
someone in Russia that Mr. Borodin was on a plane to New York." Given
that the Embassy had sent "an urgent request for guidance", why the
baloney about being "tipped off by someone" that Borodin was coming?
Note also that the Federal Judge in Brooklyn ordered Borodin held for a
week without bail. Why, if the United States were not trying to insult
and provoke Russia, did US officials insist the man be thrown in jail at
all ?
"In Brooklyn, one of Mr. Borodin's lawyers, Raymond A.
Levites, asked Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky of the United States
District Court to allow Mr. Borodin to stay at the residence
of the Russian consul general while his legal problems were
sorted out. He said the Russian ambassador to the United
States, Yuri V. Ushakov, had offered to ensure that Mr.
Borodin made his court appearances. " (NY Times, Jan. 19,
2001)
Turning down this more than reasonable request is not only an insult to
the Russian Ambassador (implying his word is no better than that of, let
us say, an American President); it is also a further insult to Russia
and Belarus. Note that as of this writing (Tuesday AM, wee hours) Mr.
Borodin remains in jail, though as of Saturday, Mr. Bush became our
leader.
Our leader? As my long-dead Yiddish grandma would have said, "Oy vey is
mir." That literally translates, "Oh woe is me." But it means something
like, "What a world."
Recently some factually challenged fan of the US-sponsored regime in
Belgrade wrote a piece arguing that Baby Bush is going to give the world
a whole new enlightened foreign policy. Sure he will. And I can get you
this great deal on a really nice Bridge in Brooklyn.
Junior Bush may not be able to string two words together in coherent
fashion but his handlers know how to get the job done. The world is
their gold mine. - JI
***
If you find emperors-clothes.com useful, we can sure use your help...
All our expenses are covered by individual donations. Any donation will
help with our work. To use our secure server, please click here or go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/howyour.htm.
Or you can mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton,
MA 02461-0321.
Or call 617 916-1705. Thanks very much.
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
---
A cura del Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid%c2%91979
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Sito WEB:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Consulteque.com e' il sito internet dove l'offerta dei
professionisti incontra la domanda delle imprese!
Seleziona on line i professionisti piu qualificati per
svolgere un'attivita di consulenza per la tua azienda.
Entra anche tu in consulteque.com e risparmia il tuo tempo.
http://www.ecircle.it/ad1083358/www.consulteque.com
[Emperor's Clothes]
[Note: Below is a joint statement by Michel Chossudovsky, Jared
Israel and Nico Varkevisser. The text that follows this statement
is by Jared Israel].
On the Arrest of Pavel Borodin
Last Wednesday (January 17th) Pavel Borodin, Secretary of the
Russian-Belarus Union, was arrested following his arrival by plane
in New York City. Mr. Borodin was in the U.S. on official State
business. He was an invited guest at President Bush's Inauguration
ceremonies. The official justification for arresting this Russian
diplomat is that the Swiss wanted to question him about alleged
kickbacks. But the real reason for his arrest, and his subsequent
imprisonment without bail, is that Mr. Borodin is Secretary of the
Russian-Belarus Union. There is ample evidence that Washington
fostered the breakup of the Soviet Union and has tried to undermine
political and economic links between the former Soviet Republics.
Just as Washington financed the Afghan terrorists during the 1980s
(this was done with the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, to the tune of
over $6 billion), U.S. foreign policy, open and covert, has been
behind several of the civil wars within the former Soviet Union
including the war in Chechnya. The outrageous incarceration without
bail of Mr. Borodin, when he had been invited to America by George.
W. Bush, is an obvious ploy to disable one of the key figures in
the Russian-Belarus Union and to pressure others in Russia and
Belarus to follow political and economic policies that are to
Washington's liking.
- Jared Israel, Michel Chossudovsky and Nico Varkevisser
Bush Gov't Attacks Russian-Belarus Union
by Jared Israel [1-23-2001]
Newspaper accounts of the arrest of Russian diplomat Pavel Borodin at
Kennedy Airport last Wednesday focus on charges of corruption. They
barely refer to the real issues - Washington's desire to a) punish Mr.
Borodin for encouraging close ties between Russia and a Belarus led by
the independent (of Washington) President Alexander Lukashenko and to b)
embarrass and destabilize Russia. The idea is, if the Russian government
does not distance itself from Borodin, the Western media can smear it as
corrupt. If they do desert Mr. Borodin, or if his arrest is downplayed,
this may discourage others from taking actions independent of
Washington. This is American diplomacy: about as subtle as an axe.
But the American media doesn't deal with these real purposes of the
arrest of Mr. Borodin. Instead the media either does not cover the story
at all, or talks about corruption. This is a wonderful thing. Pres. Bush
told Barbara Walters the other day ("20/20", Jan. 19th) that the world
needs to "raid out corruption", and I agree. But why try to start this
difficult "Raiding" process thousands of miles away? Wouldn't it make
sense to pioneer "corruption raiding" right at home? In the Barbara
Walters interview, didn't our new President say, in no uncertain terms,
that people in uncivilized countries need to "build a democracy under
our--under our image"? By "raiding corruption" right here, in the US of
A, wouldn't we be showing these backward types how it is done?
For example, just before leaving office in 1992, Mr. Bush's own father
granted the Barrick Gold Company (in Canada) the rights to a U.S. gold
mine worth $10,000,000,000 (billion). Barrick's cost: $10,000
(thousand).
"So can you guess what happened next? Right: George I then
joined Barrick's board of directors, where he pocketed big
money for the next seven years. And he didn't mind singing for
his supper either; Barrick frequently dispatched the
ex-president to meet with the bloodthirsty dictators who were
his "old friends," like Indonesia's Suharto and Zaire's Mobutu
Sese Seko, to rig up juicy backdoor deals for his corporate
masters.
"Perhaps not incidentally, Barrick poured $148,000 into George
II's campaign this year. And Daddy's dirty work as a bagman
and fixer for other corporate interests has also served l'il
Georgie well. For example, George I went to bat for the Mirage
Casino corporation when they wanted to muscle in on some
Argentina territory; this year, Mirage kicked back $449,000 to
GOP coffers. Daddy G also did some highly remunerative flack
work for Chevron Oil with his old friends in Kuwait; in
return, Chevron pumped $657,000 into the Republican tank in
2000." ('The St. Petersburg Times,' December 12, 2000)
Nevertheless Senior Bush was not arrested at the airport.
Three Things About the Arrest of Pavel Borodin
First , Mr. Borodin is a diplomat. Is the U.S. State Department familiar
with this term?
dip·lo·mat [díppl[(schwa)] màt ] (plural dip·lo·mats) noun
1. government representative abroad: a member or employee of a
government who represents his or her country in dealings with
other nations
2. tactful person: somebody who is tactful and good at dealing
with people
Arresting Mr. Borodin (after inviting him to the Inauguration, no less)
is not diplomatic and may be seen as a provocation by Russia and
Belarus. For starters it violates diplomatic procedure, arguably
international law as well. This is irrelevant of whether or not Mr.
Borodin was carrying his diplomatic credentials when arrested. This
arrest denies diplomacy and affirms the Law of the Bully. Did we need
more affirmations?
Second, it is beyond credibility that Borodin's invitation to the Ball
and his subsequent arrest were not coordinated actions. Mr. Fishkin,
Borodin's lawyer, commented:
'"The arrest warrant is issued on January 10th, he receives an
invitation to the inauguration on January 13th and a complaint
is filed in New York for his arrest on January 17th'" ('NY
Times', 1-19-2001)
Mr. Fishkin remarked to the 'NY Times' reporter that this appears to be
a setup. It does indeed.
Third, Mr. Borodin is the Secretary of the Russian-Belarus Union. The
Clinton administration has made clear its fury at Belarus, which has had
the temerity to resist neoliberal policies. Moreover, its government has
not bowed down to the usual Fifth Column "civil society" groups run by
Madeline Albright out of well-furnished offices at the National
Endowment for Democracy (sic!). The U.S. finds this both authoritarian
and anti-democratic.
The arrest of Borodin is the most sensational attack the U.S. has made
on the Russian-Belarus Union. It demonstrates the continuity of U.S.
foreign policy from Clinton to Bush. Having installed its puppet regime
in Yugoslavia, the U.S. Establishment is now escalating the attack on
the states of the former Soviet Union. Coming shortly after the death of
Laurent Kabila, President of the Congo, under circumstances that
strongly suggest U.S. involvement, this indicates a general escalation
of U.S. interventionism around the world.
In case the Russian and Belarus leaders failed to get the message
delivered via Borodin's arrest - that is to say, that they were being
publicly insulted by a bully, with the implicit dare: "Whatcha gonna do
about that, wimp?!" - in case they failed to get the message, George W.
was interviewed Friday by Barbara Walters on the ABC TV show '20/20'.
Junior Bush's apparent assignment was to rub Russia's face in the dirt.
I say 'apparent assignment' because he himself did not seem to be sure
about that or anything else in the interview but fortunately for the
diplomacy of the Free World, Walters was privy to the Humiliate-Russia
plan, so she helped him out. Held him up, one might say.
The exchange went as follows:
"WALTERS: How will your foreign policy be different from Bill
Clinton's?
"President-elect BUSH: We're going to make it clearer to
people that our nation is not going to be a--a nation of
nation builders. We'll be humble in our approach. We can't
have troops going into nations and say that we're going help
you. We're going to--we're going to--you're going to build a
democracy under our--under our image. But if you expect
capital to come into your country, you must make reforms. You
must make--raid out corruption. You must...
"WALTERS: Russia. You're talking about Russia?
"President-elect BUSH: Well, I'm talking about a lot of
countries.
"WALTERS: Do you consider Russia a friend or a threat?
"President-elect BUSH: I don't know yet. I hope--I hope Russia
is a friend. "
Note that when Walters cues Junior Bush, saying "Russia. You're talking
about Russia?" (which means "RUSSIA! YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RUSSIA!
DAMMIT!!") George doesn't get it. So Walters prompts him further: "Do
you consider Russia a friend or a threat?"
Note also that Junior Bush, in the very process of attempting to
humiliate Russia (by having a corrupt, incoherent American deliver a
stern warning against...corruption!) sticks in the incongruous line,
"We'll be humble in our approach." Amazing coming from a fellow whose
handlers have just busted at the airport a Russian diplomat whom they
lured to said fellow's Inauguration.
This profession of humility reminds one of Mr. Bush's oft repeated
phrase, "I am going to be president of all the people, not just those
who voted for me." Apparently they teach Junior Bush these phrases, and
he repeats them, amiably enough, though as often happens with phrases
learned by rote, not necessarily at the correct times or with exactly
the right wording.
Junior Bush's inability to get things straight when he speaks in public
is apparently going to be sold to us during the next, painful, four
years as Charming Stupidity; thus is virtue fashioned from necessity.
The same sort of feat was performed with Slick Willie, whose tendency to
rub on any available leg, and to lie, was sold to us as Puppy Dog
Cuteness.
Stupidity is superior in many ways to Doggieness. For one thing, it
elicits the sympathy of reporters throughout the Western media, who are
forced to write nonsensical stupidity which insults their intelligence
or else lose their jobs. For another, it provides an excuse for almost
any occasion. When in doubt, more and more folks in the Bush entourage
will tell us, "Like, you know, I mean, like, I dunno." To be stupid is
the ultimate stonewall.
Team of Fools
Consider the case of Vincent Zenga, whom you may refer to as Vincent the
Dumb. Vincent was an official member of Junior Bush's Inauguration Team.
(Everything with Junior is a Team, for reasons that ought to be
apparent…) It was he who supposedly invited Pavel Borodin to the
Inaugural "candlelight dinner". That is, Vincent Zenga is supposedly the
reason Pavel Borodin got off that plane at Kennedy airport and thus
could be nabbed by our corruption-fighters.
Mr. Zenga is described in the 'NY Times' as:
"a lawyer from West Palm Beach, Fla., who has contributed
sizable sums to the Republican National Committee and to Mr.
Bush's 1998 campaign for governor. "
Have you noticed that everything with the Bush family involves lots of
money? Is this corruption-fighting thing some kind of psychological
projection?
Zenga denied any complicity in the arrest of Mr. Borodin. "Mr. Zenga
said the invitation was sent by someone in the Moscow office of one of
his companies, Star Capital, " said the 'Times.' (1-19)
In a 'Washington Post' interview, Vincent the Dumb took the line that
Borodin had been invited "inadvertently".
Huh? How do you invite someone 'inadvertently'? Here's the 'Washington
Post' again:
"Zenga said he was mystified about how a letter went out over
his signature inviting Borodin to several exclusive events and
promising not only tickets, but also 'a car with driver' and a
hotel room. The Jan. 13 letter, which advised Borodin to bring
his own black-tie formal clothing, included tickets to a
candlelight dinner for 2,000 attended by Bush last night, and
promised tickets to an inaugural ball Saturday night.
'I have no idea how it happened' said Zenga of the invitation.
'We were surprised at it too.' "
Then, rather incongruously, Vincent added: "We [were un]aware of his
legal problems." ('Washington Post', January 19, 2001)
If Borodin was invited by mistake, whatever that means, what is the
relevance of Zenga having been ''unaware '' of Borodin's "legal
problems"? Is Vincent trying to tell us that, had he known of the legal
difficulties of this man whom he neither knew nor invited to the Ball,
he would not have invited him? Did somebody at CIA screw up and give
this guy two contradictory cover stories? Or is he just trying to
emulate his Master?
Just by the by, how can everybody in an American company that does
business in Russia be unaware of Borodin's "legal problems"? Those
problems have been discussed at least 308 times on Western TV and
newspapers over the past year. (I counted) And if you add the very
important word "Belarus" to the search, you still find 119 stories. This
does not include news reports or commentaries in the Russian language
media.
How does a highly successful man with a telecommunications company in
Russia manage to unwittingly invite a well-known Russian leader to the
Inaugural ball without knowing he has been accused of corruption?
Here is a bit more information.
"A State Department official said Borodin entered the country
on a multiple-entry, combined tourist and business visa issued
in 1998 for a three-year period. He had applied for a
diplomatic visa in Moscow on Tuesday night, prompting the U.S.
Embassy there to send an urgent request for guidance to the
State Department. But there was not enough time to respond
before his departure, and so Borodin used his personal
passport and left his diplomatic passport behind, the State
Department official said. "('Washington Post', January 19,
2001)
Why did the U.S. Embassy have to send "an urgent request for guidance"
to the State Department? Obviously because they read the newspapers and
therefore knew there was a Swiss warrant out for Borodin's arrest and
wanted to know what they were supposed to do: give him a diplomatic visa
which would rule out arresting him at Kennedy Airport or not give him a
visa and risk an international incident.
Nowadays urgent requests can be delivered and answered almost
instantaneously. So the outgoing State Department officials certainly
had time to consult with Bush's handlers. (Of course that's a bit of a
moot point since it was of course Bush's handlers who arranged to send
Borodin the invitation luring him to the U.S. in the first place. But
then, they did that unwittingly. Right?)
Clearly if these exalted beings wished to avoid an insulting provocation
(and an apparent violation of international law - the arrest of a
diplomat invited to a State function, no less) they could have issued
Borodin a standard, diplomatic visa. Or they could have refused while
warning him that there was a warrant out for his arrest. That they did
neither suggests they were hoping Borodin would use his non-diplomatic
visa (they knew he had one because the U.S. Embassy had issued it to
him.)
Liars often talk too much. Note that the 'New York Times' reports that
"Officials in Washington said the United States was tipped off by
someone in Russia that Mr. Borodin was on a plane to New York." Given
that the Embassy had sent "an urgent request for guidance", why the
baloney about being "tipped off by someone" that Borodin was coming?
Note also that the Federal Judge in Brooklyn ordered Borodin held for a
week without bail. Why, if the United States were not trying to insult
and provoke Russia, did US officials insist the man be thrown in jail at
all ?
"In Brooklyn, one of Mr. Borodin's lawyers, Raymond A.
Levites, asked Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky of the United States
District Court to allow Mr. Borodin to stay at the residence
of the Russian consul general while his legal problems were
sorted out. He said the Russian ambassador to the United
States, Yuri V. Ushakov, had offered to ensure that Mr.
Borodin made his court appearances. " (NY Times, Jan. 19,
2001)
Turning down this more than reasonable request is not only an insult to
the Russian Ambassador (implying his word is no better than that of, let
us say, an American President); it is also a further insult to Russia
and Belarus. Note that as of this writing (Tuesday AM, wee hours) Mr.
Borodin remains in jail, though as of Saturday, Mr. Bush became our
leader.
Our leader? As my long-dead Yiddish grandma would have said, "Oy vey is
mir." That literally translates, "Oh woe is me." But it means something
like, "What a world."
Recently some factually challenged fan of the US-sponsored regime in
Belgrade wrote a piece arguing that Baby Bush is going to give the world
a whole new enlightened foreign policy. Sure he will. And I can get you
this great deal on a really nice Bridge in Brooklyn.
Junior Bush may not be able to string two words together in coherent
fashion but his handlers know how to get the job done. The world is
their gold mine. - JI
***
If you find emperors-clothes.com useful, we can sure use your help...
All our expenses are covered by individual donations. Any donation will
help with our work. To use our secure server, please click here or go to
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/howyour.htm.
Or you can mail a check to Emperor's Clothes, P.O. Box 610-321, Newton,
MA 02461-0321.
Or call 617 916-1705. Thanks very much.
www.tenc.net
[Emperor's Clothes]
---
A cura del Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid%c2%91979
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Sito WEB:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Consulteque.com e' il sito internet dove l'offerta dei
professionisti incontra la domanda delle imprese!
Seleziona on line i professionisti piu qualificati per
svolgere un'attivita di consulenza per la tua azienda.
Entra anche tu in consulteque.com e risparmia il tuo tempo.
http://www.ecircle.it/ad1083358/www.consulteque.com
The Ottawa Citizen
January 30, 2001
Argument & Observation, Page A19
TRIBUNAL ON TRIAL, by. James Bissett
Carla Del Ponte, the Chief Prosecutor of The International Criminal
Tribunal
for Yugoslavia [ICTY] was in Belgrade on Tuesday of this week demanding
that
President Kostunica hand over Slobodan Milosovic so that he might stand
trial before her Tribunal in The Hague. NATO countries and the western
media
have been vocal in insisting that Milosovic be surrendered to the court.
It
will be difficult for the new democratic authorities in Yugoslavia to
refuse
to do so. Economic and financial help to rebuild what the NATO bombing
has
destroyed will undoubtedly be conditional on cooperation with the
Tribunal.
Moreover, there are many Serbs in addition to his political enemies who
would be happy to see the end of the man many believe responsible for
the
disasters that has overtaken Yugoslavia since 1990.
Nevertheless, it would appear that the President Kostunica has serious
misgivings about the independence and impartiality of the Hague
Tribunal. He
is not alone in this. From its inception there has been doubts about the
legitimacy of the Tribunal. It was not established by treaty or by the
General Assembly of the United Nations as would normally be required for
such a court. The Security Council alone established the Tribunal and
only
after heavy lobbying by the government of the United States. Whatever
the
legitimacy of the Tribunal, there is strong evidence to believe the
Tribunal
was established more to satisfy political goals than to bring war
criminals
to justice.
Certainly the performance of the Tribunal so far has displayed more of
the
characteristics of a medieval Star Chamber than an independent judicial
body. A number of those who have been secretly indicted by the Tribunal
have
been kidnapped by armed thugs and transported against their will to The
Hague to wait in detention for months or years for trial without benefit
of
bail. They are then required to face unknown and often hidden accusers
before a Tribunal that acts as both prosecutor and judge. There is no
jury.
If the prisoner confesses while in custody, the confession is presumed
to be
voluntary. The trial may even be held in secret.
The Tribunal had a firm policy not to reveal the names of those on its
indictment list. Yet Louise Arbour, the former Chief Prosecutor violated
this policy when she publicly announced the indictment of Milosovic
during
the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. There seems little doubt the
announcement
was timed to bolster sagging public support for the bombing. After all,
who
would dare oppose the bombing of a country whose leader had been
indicted as
a war criminal? That Louise Arbour would violate the Tribunal's policy
is
not surprising. Her appointment to the Tribunal was conditional upon
receiving the approval of Madeline Albright.
It is also significant that the indictment against Milosovic did not
include crimes he might have committed during the Bosnian conflict but
was
confined to allegations about crimes in Kosovo. It would not do to have
the
man Madeline Albright hailed as, " a man of peace,"at the time of the
Dayton
Accords, indicted for crimes in Bosnia after he had played such a
pivotal
role in bringing about an end to the bloodshed there
. At the center of the indictment against Milosovic was the infamous
"Racic
Massacre,"alleging that Serbian security forces had murdered in cold
blood
forty-five Kosovo Albanian civilians. Madeline Albright has described
the
"Racac Massacre" as the galvanizing event leading to the air war against
Yugoslavia. However, the final report published last week by the Finnish
forensic experts who examined the bodies of the alleged victims confirms
what many suspected at the time- that there was no evidence to show the
bodies discovered in the shallow trench by United States general William
Walker were executed at close range. It seems the victims were armed
members
of the KLA who were killed in the fighting that had taken place in the
hills
above Racac the day before. Their bodies had been placed in the trench
to
simulate a massacre. This would suggest that at least some of the
evidence
against Milosovic presented by the United States to the Tribunal to
support
his indictment has been fabricated.
Article sixteen of the statute setting up the Tribunal stipulates that
the
Prosecutor," shall not receive instruction from any government or any
other
source." Yet the record of close cooperation between the Tribunal and
the
government of the United States suggests this article has not been
respected
by the Tribunal. Moreover although it is the United Nations that was to
finance the Tribunal it is in fact United States money that has enabled
the
Tribunal to carry out its operations, thus compromising any claim of
independence by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has also been remarkably selective about who it has
indicted.
Almost all those so far indicted have been Serbs. To my knowledge no
Muslims
have yet been brought before the Tribunal. The notorious Naser Oric has
not
been indicted. He was the leader of the Muslim paramilitary forces in
Srebrenica who used this UN safe haven as a base to raid neighboring
Serbian
villages and butcher all of the elderly inhabitants who were unable to
flee.
Oric has openly boasted to journalists of these atrocities and they are
well
documented but nothing has been done. Oric is managing a bistro in Tuzla
numbering among his customer's UN peacekeepers.
Another individual well known to the Tribunal is Agim Ceku, an Albanian
from
Kosovo, who led the Croatian forces that in September, 1993 overran
Serbian
villages in the Medak pocket being protected by Canadian peace keepers.
After a firefight, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
retook
the villages only to find that dreadful atrocities had been committed
against Serbian civilians. Two years later Agim Ceku led Croatian forces
in
the infamous "Operation Storm," that "cleansed" Croatia of its entire
Serbian population. The Tribunal has not indicted Agim Ceku. On the
contrary, NATO has rewarded him by appointing him commander of the
Albanian
security forces in Kosovo.
The most serious charge against the War Crimes Tribunal has been its
adamant
refusal to indict NATO leaders for violating international law and the
United Nations Charter by waging aggressive war against a sovereign
state
without UN approval. Repeated demands by eminent lawyers from around the
world have been in vain. The Tribunal has refused to accept that the
bombing
of civilian targets, the employment of weapons containing depleted
uranium
and the use of cluster bombs was a crime.
There is no question that former Yugoslav President Milosovic should
face
trial. Nevertheless it is unfortunate that should he go to The Hague it
will
be seen as an endorsement of a Tribunal that represents everything an
independent international court should not be. It has been a Tribunal
dominated and paid for by its political masters. It has been a Tribunal
that
by any standard of measurement has been a travesty of justice. It has
been a
Tribunal that has sacrificed basic principals of law and due process to
act
as a willing tool for the achievement of US political goals and as an
apologist for NATO's political blunders in the Balkans. Let us hope that
the
new International Criminal Court that may soon come into existence can
do
better.
---
A cura del Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid%c2%91979
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Sito WEB:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Consulteque.com e' il sito internet dove l'offerta dei
professionisti incontra la domanda delle imprese!
Seleziona on line i professionisti piu qualificati per
svolgere un'attivita di consulenza per la tua azienda.
Entra anche tu in consulteque.com e risparmia il tuo tempo.
http://www.ecircle.it/ad1083358/www.consulteque.com
January 30, 2001
Argument & Observation, Page A19
TRIBUNAL ON TRIAL, by. James Bissett
Carla Del Ponte, the Chief Prosecutor of The International Criminal
Tribunal
for Yugoslavia [ICTY] was in Belgrade on Tuesday of this week demanding
that
President Kostunica hand over Slobodan Milosovic so that he might stand
trial before her Tribunal in The Hague. NATO countries and the western
media
have been vocal in insisting that Milosovic be surrendered to the court.
It
will be difficult for the new democratic authorities in Yugoslavia to
refuse
to do so. Economic and financial help to rebuild what the NATO bombing
has
destroyed will undoubtedly be conditional on cooperation with the
Tribunal.
Moreover, there are many Serbs in addition to his political enemies who
would be happy to see the end of the man many believe responsible for
the
disasters that has overtaken Yugoslavia since 1990.
Nevertheless, it would appear that the President Kostunica has serious
misgivings about the independence and impartiality of the Hague
Tribunal. He
is not alone in this. From its inception there has been doubts about the
legitimacy of the Tribunal. It was not established by treaty or by the
General Assembly of the United Nations as would normally be required for
such a court. The Security Council alone established the Tribunal and
only
after heavy lobbying by the government of the United States. Whatever
the
legitimacy of the Tribunal, there is strong evidence to believe the
Tribunal
was established more to satisfy political goals than to bring war
criminals
to justice.
Certainly the performance of the Tribunal so far has displayed more of
the
characteristics of a medieval Star Chamber than an independent judicial
body. A number of those who have been secretly indicted by the Tribunal
have
been kidnapped by armed thugs and transported against their will to The
Hague to wait in detention for months or years for trial without benefit
of
bail. They are then required to face unknown and often hidden accusers
before a Tribunal that acts as both prosecutor and judge. There is no
jury.
If the prisoner confesses while in custody, the confession is presumed
to be
voluntary. The trial may even be held in secret.
The Tribunal had a firm policy not to reveal the names of those on its
indictment list. Yet Louise Arbour, the former Chief Prosecutor violated
this policy when she publicly announced the indictment of Milosovic
during
the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. There seems little doubt the
announcement
was timed to bolster sagging public support for the bombing. After all,
who
would dare oppose the bombing of a country whose leader had been
indicted as
a war criminal? That Louise Arbour would violate the Tribunal's policy
is
not surprising. Her appointment to the Tribunal was conditional upon
receiving the approval of Madeline Albright.
It is also significant that the indictment against Milosovic did not
include crimes he might have committed during the Bosnian conflict but
was
confined to allegations about crimes in Kosovo. It would not do to have
the
man Madeline Albright hailed as, " a man of peace,"at the time of the
Dayton
Accords, indicted for crimes in Bosnia after he had played such a
pivotal
role in bringing about an end to the bloodshed there
. At the center of the indictment against Milosovic was the infamous
"Racic
Massacre,"alleging that Serbian security forces had murdered in cold
blood
forty-five Kosovo Albanian civilians. Madeline Albright has described
the
"Racac Massacre" as the galvanizing event leading to the air war against
Yugoslavia. However, the final report published last week by the Finnish
forensic experts who examined the bodies of the alleged victims confirms
what many suspected at the time- that there was no evidence to show the
bodies discovered in the shallow trench by United States general William
Walker were executed at close range. It seems the victims were armed
members
of the KLA who were killed in the fighting that had taken place in the
hills
above Racac the day before. Their bodies had been placed in the trench
to
simulate a massacre. This would suggest that at least some of the
evidence
against Milosovic presented by the United States to the Tribunal to
support
his indictment has been fabricated.
Article sixteen of the statute setting up the Tribunal stipulates that
the
Prosecutor," shall not receive instruction from any government or any
other
source." Yet the record of close cooperation between the Tribunal and
the
government of the United States suggests this article has not been
respected
by the Tribunal. Moreover although it is the United Nations that was to
finance the Tribunal it is in fact United States money that has enabled
the
Tribunal to carry out its operations, thus compromising any claim of
independence by the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has also been remarkably selective about who it has
indicted.
Almost all those so far indicted have been Serbs. To my knowledge no
Muslims
have yet been brought before the Tribunal. The notorious Naser Oric has
not
been indicted. He was the leader of the Muslim paramilitary forces in
Srebrenica who used this UN safe haven as a base to raid neighboring
Serbian
villages and butcher all of the elderly inhabitants who were unable to
flee.
Oric has openly boasted to journalists of these atrocities and they are
well
documented but nothing has been done. Oric is managing a bistro in Tuzla
numbering among his customer's UN peacekeepers.
Another individual well known to the Tribunal is Agim Ceku, an Albanian
from
Kosovo, who led the Croatian forces that in September, 1993 overran
Serbian
villages in the Medak pocket being protected by Canadian peace keepers.
After a firefight, the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry
retook
the villages only to find that dreadful atrocities had been committed
against Serbian civilians. Two years later Agim Ceku led Croatian forces
in
the infamous "Operation Storm," that "cleansed" Croatia of its entire
Serbian population. The Tribunal has not indicted Agim Ceku. On the
contrary, NATO has rewarded him by appointing him commander of the
Albanian
security forces in Kosovo.
The most serious charge against the War Crimes Tribunal has been its
adamant
refusal to indict NATO leaders for violating international law and the
United Nations Charter by waging aggressive war against a sovereign
state
without UN approval. Repeated demands by eminent lawyers from around the
world have been in vain. The Tribunal has refused to accept that the
bombing
of civilian targets, the employment of weapons containing depleted
uranium
and the use of cluster bombs was a crime.
There is no question that former Yugoslav President Milosovic should
face
trial. Nevertheless it is unfortunate that should he go to The Hague it
will
be seen as an endorsement of a Tribunal that represents everything an
independent international court should not be. It has been a Tribunal
dominated and paid for by its political masters. It has been a Tribunal
that
by any standard of measurement has been a travesty of justice. It has
been a
Tribunal that has sacrificed basic principals of law and due process to
act
as a willing tool for the achievement of US political goals and as an
apologist for NATO's political blunders in the Balkans. Let us hope that
the
new International Criminal Court that may soon come into existence can
do
better.
---
A cura del Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid%c2%91979
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Sito WEB:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Consulteque.com e' il sito internet dove l'offerta dei
professionisti incontra la domanda delle imprese!
Seleziona on line i professionisti piu qualificati per
svolgere un'attivita di consulenza per la tua azienda.
Entra anche tu in consulteque.com e risparmia il tuo tempo.
http://www.ecircle.it/ad1083358/www.consulteque.com
OTPOR "GHANDIANI" (COME PANNELLA) - ORGANIZZA LA CIA
Poiche' la nostra "sinistra" e la nostra "societa' civile" non ce lo
dicevano, siamo dovuti andare in India per sapere che sono state
"organizzazioni nongovernative statunitensi" ad addestrare la formazione
anticomunista jugoslava "Otpor" alla "rivoluzione democratica" dello
scorso ottobre, tramite corsi accelerati di "rivolta nonviolenta":
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/310101/detFOR09.asp
Hindustan Times
January 31, 2001
US NGO behind Gandhian revolt in Serbia
PTI
(Washington)
A UNITED States NGO trained non-violent volunteers for
the mass movement that overthrew Serb dictator
Slobodan Milosevic. The disclosure the US is also
accomplished in imparting non-violent training in the
overthrow of dictators is in an article in Peacewatch,
a publication of the Washington-based US Institute of
Peace.
The youth movement Otpor (Resistance), was a critical
participant in the October 5 revolt. Srdja Popovic, a
leader of Serbia's grassroots movement, said three
months of peaceful street demonstrations in Belgrade
against Milosevic in 1996-97, led by the political
opposition and the youth movement, marked the
beginning of the opposition’s non-violent strategy,
signalling to Milosevic and to his supporters that the
people no longer feared him.
Their disciplined defiance generated increasing
support among the populace. Over the last two years,
Popovic said, the opposition honed its understanding
and use of non-violent action, most recently with the
help of a retired US Army Colonel Robert Helvey, who
provided intensive training in non-violent principles
and strategy in March and April 1999.
The International Republican Institute, an NGO based
in Washington, which had been working to develop
political parties in Serbia, hired Helvey to do the
training. Helvey says he bases his training on the
concepts of Gene Sharp, author of Politics Of
Non-Violent Action, a three-volume opus on the
subject. The second volume lists 198 complete examples
of non-violent direct action techniques.
In his training, Helvey covers the source of power in
a society, their strengths and weaknesses, then has
participants define their own objectives and develop a
strategic plan for reaching them. The training also
covers how to put an opponent in a situation where he
has no choice but to lose.
After the training, Otpor created a manual of
non-violent resistance techniques based on Sharp's
books and trained some 70,000 activists who, through a
variety of non-violent methods and actions, paved the
way for and helped to lead the October 5 revolt.
---
A cura del Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid%c2%91979
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Sito WEB:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Se vuoi sviluppare il tuo business, entra anche tu in
Consulteque.com, la piu grande community on line di
professionisti, dove l'offerta incontra la domanda delle imprese.
E poi potrai leggere le news, discutere con gli altri nel forum,
organizzare con noi i tuoi viaggi e molto altro ...
http://www.ecircle.it/ad1084757/www.consulteque.com
Poiche' la nostra "sinistra" e la nostra "societa' civile" non ce lo
dicevano, siamo dovuti andare in India per sapere che sono state
"organizzazioni nongovernative statunitensi" ad addestrare la formazione
anticomunista jugoslava "Otpor" alla "rivoluzione democratica" dello
scorso ottobre, tramite corsi accelerati di "rivolta nonviolenta":
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/310101/detFOR09.asp
Hindustan Times
January 31, 2001
US NGO behind Gandhian revolt in Serbia
PTI
(Washington)
A UNITED States NGO trained non-violent volunteers for
the mass movement that overthrew Serb dictator
Slobodan Milosevic. The disclosure the US is also
accomplished in imparting non-violent training in the
overthrow of dictators is in an article in Peacewatch,
a publication of the Washington-based US Institute of
Peace.
The youth movement Otpor (Resistance), was a critical
participant in the October 5 revolt. Srdja Popovic, a
leader of Serbia's grassroots movement, said three
months of peaceful street demonstrations in Belgrade
against Milosevic in 1996-97, led by the political
opposition and the youth movement, marked the
beginning of the opposition’s non-violent strategy,
signalling to Milosevic and to his supporters that the
people no longer feared him.
Their disciplined defiance generated increasing
support among the populace. Over the last two years,
Popovic said, the opposition honed its understanding
and use of non-violent action, most recently with the
help of a retired US Army Colonel Robert Helvey, who
provided intensive training in non-violent principles
and strategy in March and April 1999.
The International Republican Institute, an NGO based
in Washington, which had been working to develop
political parties in Serbia, hired Helvey to do the
training. Helvey says he bases his training on the
concepts of Gene Sharp, author of Politics Of
Non-Violent Action, a three-volume opus on the
subject. The second volume lists 198 complete examples
of non-violent direct action techniques.
In his training, Helvey covers the source of power in
a society, their strengths and weaknesses, then has
participants define their own objectives and develop a
strategic plan for reaching them. The training also
covers how to put an opponent in a situation where he
has no choice but to lose.
After the training, Otpor created a manual of
non-violent resistance techniques based on Sharp's
books and trained some 70,000 activists who, through a
variety of non-violent methods and actions, paved the
way for and helped to lead the October 5 revolt.
---
A cura del Coordinamento Nazionale "La Jugoslavia Vivra'".
I documenti distribuiti non rispecchiano necessariamente le
opinioni delle realta' che compongono il Coordinamento, ma
vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al
solo scopo di segnalazione e commento ("for fair use only").
Archivio:
> http://www.ecircle.it/an_ecircle/articles?ecircleid%c2%91979
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/messages
Sito WEB:
> http://digilander.iol.it/lajugoslaviavivra
Per iscriversi al bollettino: <jugoinfo-subscribe@...>
Per cancellarsi: <jugoinfo-unsubscribe@...>
Per inviare materiali e commenti: <jugocoord@...>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Se vuoi sviluppare il tuo business, entra anche tu in
Consulteque.com, la piu grande community on line di
professionisti, dove l'offerta incontra la domanda delle imprese.
E poi potrai leggere le news, discutere con gli altri nel forum,
organizzare con noi i tuoi viaggi e molto altro ...
http://www.ecircle.it/ad1084757/www.consulteque.com
