Jugoinfo
SUL RICONOSCIMENTO DIPLOMATICO DELLA RF DI JUGOSLAVIA
IVAN CUKALOVIC, DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISOR AT YUGOSLAV FOREIGN MINISTRY:
GROUNDLESS REFUTATIONS
BELGRADE, July 18 (Tanjug) Diplomatic and political circles
question the right of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to act as the
successor of the exYugoslavia, in order to exert additional political
pressure and destabilize its position.
The Constitutional Declaration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
of
April 27, 1992, clearly defines the country's standpoint concerning this
issue: "While preserving the continuity of the exYugoslavia related to
the
international law, its political position, and its integrity as a state,
Yugoslavia will ensure strict fulfilment of all international
obligations
binding the exYugoslavia in the past.
The analysis of Yugoslavia's legal status that follows will
provide an answer to the question of its legal position. Most countries
that are members of the international community see Yugoslavia as a
state
that has established continuity to the former Yugoslavia, whereas the
United States, and some Western countries, tend to deny this standpoint
thus refuting a range of other standpoints related to continuity, such
as
the position of Yugoslavia in the U.N., negotiations on the division of
the
property of the former Yugoslavia, and so on.
First we must make a theoretical distinction between the issue
of
succession and the issue of continuity. Succession is an institution
related to changes in territorial sovereignty through which a state that
has gained a certain territory takes over the rights and obligations of
the
former state, i.e. the state to which the previously territory belonged.
Therefore, succession is a legal institution the purpose of
which
is to alleviate the consequences resulting from the break up of a
country,
or the decrease of its territory, and to provide a solution to the
problems
of inheriting debts, contracts, public property, legal obligations
concerning individuals, and so on.
The principle of succession appears in cases of fusion of two
countries into one (e.g. fusion of Syria and Egypt in 1958, and Serbia
and
Montenegro in 1918), or in cases of separation (e.g. of the
AustroHungarian
Empire in 1918, of Norway and Sweden 1905, Pakistan and Bangladesh, USSR
and the Commonwealth of Independent States.)
As opposed to the principle of succession, regulating the
validity
of privileges and obligations of a state that has ceased to exist, the
principle of continuity is legitimate only when a state that is
acknowledged by international law, adheres to all valid regulations and
maintains its membership in all international organizations after
certain
territorial changes.
It is of no relevance whatsoever, to what extent the
territorial
loss reduces the size of the previous state. The emphasis is on the fact
that territorial losses do not affect the identity of a state, and on
the
fact that the core territory is maintained. In the history of
international
relations there were many examples showing that certain states preserved
their integrity and continuity, despite substantial territorial losses.
For
example, Great Britain, Turkey, or France, continued to exist as states,
even after considerable territorial losses. This happened with Russia,
which established the continuity of the USSR. Serbia and Montenegro,
countries that had sacrificed their sovereignty, thus contributing to
the
creation of Yugoslavia in 1918, are a continuation of the exYugoslavia,
the
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and the State of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.
Members of the international community have given both de iure
and
de facto recognition of Yugoslavia's continuity. Explicit de iure
recognition came from the exYugoslav republics, the very ones which most
frequently refute the continuity of Yugoslavia.
Thus, Article 5 of the contract normalizing relations between
Yugoslavia and Croatia, signed on August 23, 1996 in Belgrade, says: "It
is
a historical fact that Serbia and Montenegro existed as independent
states
before the creation of Yugoslavia, therefore, bearing in mind that
Yugoslavia maintains the position of these states, related to
international
law, the Republic of Croatia recognizes the continuity of Yugoslavia."
An identical formulation was used in Article 4 of the contract
regulating YugoslavMacedonian relations, signed in Belgrade on April 8,
1996 (...the Republic of Macedonia recognizes the continuity of FR
Yugoslavia...)
Paragraph 1 of the joint declaration, signed by Presidents
Slobodan Milosevic and Alija Izetbegovic in Paris on October 3, 1996
says:"BosniaHerzegovina accepts the continuity of Yugoslavia."
Officials of some Western countries have also made statements
confirming the continuity of Yugoslavia.
At a debate between European foreign ministers in Brussels on
January 29, 1996 aimed at solving the problem of the formal recognition
of
Yugoslavia, French Foreign Minister Herve de Charette said that France
had
never severed diplomatic relations with Belgrade, and consequently, does
not need to recognize Belgrade. "That is the standpoint of some E.U.
countries, but not the official standpoint of the French government."
In a comment on the decision of the French government to raise
diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia to the highest level, the spokesman
of
the French Foreign Ministry said on February 22, 1996 that "France never
cut off diplomatic relations with Belgrade. France recognizes states,
not
governments."
Upon the normalization of YugoslavBritish relations, Malcolm
Rifkind sent a message to Yugoslav President Zoran Lilic saying: "We
have
decided to raise diplomatic relations with Belgrade to the highest
level...
we will adhere to all valid contracts and treaties signed by Great
Britain
and the exYugoslavia."
Spanish Foreign Minister Carlos Westendorp, after his visit to
Yugoslavia, said on March 16, 1996: "The problem of recognizing
Yugoslavia
is not an issue for Spain, because diplomatic relations between the two
countries were never severed."
The above statements, made by representatives of E.U.
countries,
reflect their views on the recognition of Yugoslavia in an indirect way.
Although there was no explicit mention of continuity, the very fact that
they maintained diplomatic relations, and were willing to adhere to the
contracts signed with the exYugoslavia, is proof of de facto
recognition.
The United States, the biggest opponent of the recognition of
Yugoslavia, recognized Yugoslavia in a similar way.
Namely, the American embassy in Belgrade, in note S42 issued on
May 5, 1998 requested from Yugoslavia the extradition of ethnicAlbanian
Rifat Etej for felonies committed in the USA. This request was based on
the
Extradition Agreement of 1901, signed by the Kingdom of Serbia and the
USA.
Thus, the USA recognized the continuity of Yugoslavia, not only
regarding
the exYugoslavia, but also the Kingdom of Serbia, as the nucleus of all
other subsequent Yugoslav states. This confirms the theory, as well as
the
practice, of international law, according to which territorial loss does
not affect a country's continuity if its nucleus is preserved.
The continuity of Yugoslavia, as we can see, is legally
undeniable. Nevertheless, the following example shows how this matter
can
serve as a means of exerting political pressure on Yugoslavia. In
paragraph
297 of his report, (Summary of Practice of Secretary General as
Depositary
of Multilateral Treaties) the U.N. Secretary General explains the legal
position of the Russian Federation and Yugoslavia in the following way:
"After the secession of some parts of the USSR, which became
independent states, the USSR (as the Russian Federation) continued to
exist
as the presuccessor and all the rights and obligations resulting from
contracts remain valid. The same applies to Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro), which remains the presuccessor, although a part of the
territory of the exYugoslavia has broken away."
The U.N. Secretary General quite appropriately drew a parallel
between the legal position of the Russian Federation and the position of
Yugoslavia. Regretfully, after the intervention of several countries,
which
submitted a letter, the U.N. Legal Advisor submitted a corrigendum (LA
41
TR/220), in which the section referring to Yugoslavia was deleted, while
the one referring to the Russian Federation remained. This shows that
neither the Secretary General, nor his legal advisor are immune to
political pressure.
The majority of countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and
Eastern Europe, as well as Russia, China and India, have passed acts of
either de iure or de facto recognition of Yugoslavia. As far as Latin
America is concerned, Yugoslavia has been recognized by Cuba, Argentina
and
Brazil. The other countries of the region have recognized Yugoslavia
tacitly, by maintaining the level of diplomatic relations, by raising
them
to a higher level, or by issuing statements that were a confirmation of
their willingness to maintain the practice of friendly relations and
cooperation with Yugoslavia.
The legal consequences of continuity are reflected by the fact
that Yugoslavia is a continuation of the exYugoslavia, and that it
maintains its membership in all organizations, while all international
contracts signed by the exYugoslavia remain valid. Therefore, claims
according to which Yugoslavia must appeal for membership in the U.N. are
quite absurd. Such requests are merely a form of political pressure,
with
no foundation in legal theory, or practice.
The U.N. General Assembly, in Resolution 52/215 of December 22,
1997 has determined the budget quotas for all countries in the period of
19982000, including Yugoslavia, which is clear proof of Yugoslavia's
membership in the U.N., and any denial of its status is just an aspect
of
political manipulation.
The problem of succession, i.e. the division of gold and frozen
hard currency reserves abroad, the inheriting of the embassy buildings
will
be solved through negotiations between its successors Yugoslavia, the
state which is the continuation of the exYugoslavia, and the exYugoslav
republics, with cooperation from the Peace Implementation Council, and
Arthur Watts as the mediator.
The Yugoslav Mission in New York sent a message to the
President
of the Security Council on December 13, 1999 informing him of
Yugoslavia's
willingness to continue the negotiations on succession, according to
international laws regulating the problem of succession, and the joint
declaration signed by Presidents Slobodan Milosevic and Alija
Izetbegovic,
signed in Paris on October 3, 1996, as well as the contracts normalizing
relations between Yugoslavia and Croatia, signed in Belgrade on August
23,
1996 and between Yugoslavia and Macedonia, signed on April 8, 1996.
In the message, the Mission described the draft of the
agreement
proposed by Watts, as acceptable, saying that, if the negotiations
continue, an agreement could be reached soon. Unfortunately, despite
this
intervention, there has been no continuation of the negotiations, as
Watts
has failed to schedule them. This is a confirmation of the claims that
those who have committed the act of aggression on Yugoslavia have no
interest whatsoever in solving any of the problems related to this
region,
as they strive to continue the practice of pressure and groundless
accusations against Yugoslavia.
This review of the theory of international law and practice,
focusing on the legal position of Yugoslavia, is an undeniable proof of
the
fact that Yugoslavia is a continuation of the exYugoslavia, because,
regardless of territorial losses, the nucleus of the territory (Serbia
and
Montenegro) remained, which is the decisive factor for the
acknowledgement
of continuity. In any case, similar analyses carried out by other
members
of the international community, show that most countries have recognized
the continuity of Yugoslavia, either by acts of explicit de iure
recognition, or by taking certain actions (such as the ones taken by the
United States of America) that are an example of de facto recognition.
---
Sullo stesso argomento si veda anche:
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/318
- SULLA AUTOPROCLAMATA MISSIONE DIPLOMATICA MONTENEGRINA ALL'ONU
(COMPOSTA DAL SOLO SIGNOR PEROVIC ZELJKO)
- LA RF DI JUGOSLAVIA E' ISOLATA A LIVELLO INTERNAZIONALE - OPPURE NO?
- ALLE NAZIONI UNITE GLI U.S.A IMPONGONO L'ESCLUSIONE DEL RAPPRESENTANTE
DELLA REPUBBLICA FEDERALE DI JUGOSLAVIA (IL MAGGIORE PAESE BALCANICO PER
NUMERO DI ABITANTI) DA UN DIBATTITO SULLA SITUAZIONE NEI BALCANI.
I RAPPRESENTANTI RUSSO E CINESE ESCONO DALL'AULA PER PROTESTA.
---
Due recenti interviste al Ministro degli Esteri della
RF di Jugoslavia Zivadin Jovanovic
* http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/384
YUGOSLAV DAILY SURVEY BELGRADE,18 July 2000 No.3112
INTERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL FOREIGN MINISTER ZIVADIN JOVANOVIC
TO THE QATAR TELEVISION AL-DZAZIRA
* http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/368
Yugoslav Daily Survey 20 July 2000 No.3114
INTERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF THE FR OF YUGOSLAVIA, MR. ZIVADIN JOVANOVIC,
TO "AL ARAB AL YAWM" DAILY
---
IL SITO INTERNET DEL MINISTERO DEGLI ESTERI DELLA RF DI JUGOSLAVIA
http://www1.mfa.gov.yu/
http://www.smip.sv.gov.yu/
http://www.mfa.gov.yu/
---
Institute of International Politics and Economics Belgrade
http://www.diplomacy.bg.ac.yu/
Balkan Journal of International Law
International Law and Kosovo
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/benin/260/
Association for the Study of Foreign Policy Kotor Montenegro
http://www.diplomacy.cg.yu/
---
http://www.diplomacy.cg.yu/doc13.htm
Udruzenje za istrazivanje spoljne politike Kotor
Association for the Study of Foreign Policy Kotor
Konferencija:
SAVREMENA DIPLOMATIJA I CRNA GORA
Kotor, 27. juna 1998.
Prof. Dr Predrag Simic*, Institute of International Politics and
Economics, Belgrade
REGIONAL COOPERATION IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE:
THE ROLE OF FR YUGOSLAVIA
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
IVAN CUKALOVIC, DEPUTY LEGAL ADVISOR AT YUGOSLAV FOREIGN MINISTRY:
GROUNDLESS REFUTATIONS
BELGRADE, July 18 (Tanjug) Diplomatic and political circles
question the right of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to act as the
successor of the exYugoslavia, in order to exert additional political
pressure and destabilize its position.
The Constitutional Declaration of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
of
April 27, 1992, clearly defines the country's standpoint concerning this
issue: "While preserving the continuity of the exYugoslavia related to
the
international law, its political position, and its integrity as a state,
Yugoslavia will ensure strict fulfilment of all international
obligations
binding the exYugoslavia in the past.
The analysis of Yugoslavia's legal status that follows will
provide an answer to the question of its legal position. Most countries
that are members of the international community see Yugoslavia as a
state
that has established continuity to the former Yugoslavia, whereas the
United States, and some Western countries, tend to deny this standpoint
thus refuting a range of other standpoints related to continuity, such
as
the position of Yugoslavia in the U.N., negotiations on the division of
the
property of the former Yugoslavia, and so on.
First we must make a theoretical distinction between the issue
of
succession and the issue of continuity. Succession is an institution
related to changes in territorial sovereignty through which a state that
has gained a certain territory takes over the rights and obligations of
the
former state, i.e. the state to which the previously territory belonged.
Therefore, succession is a legal institution the purpose of
which
is to alleviate the consequences resulting from the break up of a
country,
or the decrease of its territory, and to provide a solution to the
problems
of inheriting debts, contracts, public property, legal obligations
concerning individuals, and so on.
The principle of succession appears in cases of fusion of two
countries into one (e.g. fusion of Syria and Egypt in 1958, and Serbia
and
Montenegro in 1918), or in cases of separation (e.g. of the
AustroHungarian
Empire in 1918, of Norway and Sweden 1905, Pakistan and Bangladesh, USSR
and the Commonwealth of Independent States.)
As opposed to the principle of succession, regulating the
validity
of privileges and obligations of a state that has ceased to exist, the
principle of continuity is legitimate only when a state that is
acknowledged by international law, adheres to all valid regulations and
maintains its membership in all international organizations after
certain
territorial changes.
It is of no relevance whatsoever, to what extent the
territorial
loss reduces the size of the previous state. The emphasis is on the fact
that territorial losses do not affect the identity of a state, and on
the
fact that the core territory is maintained. In the history of
international
relations there were many examples showing that certain states preserved
their integrity and continuity, despite substantial territorial losses.
For
example, Great Britain, Turkey, or France, continued to exist as states,
even after considerable territorial losses. This happened with Russia,
which established the continuity of the USSR. Serbia and Montenegro,
countries that had sacrificed their sovereignty, thus contributing to
the
creation of Yugoslavia in 1918, are a continuation of the exYugoslavia,
the
Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and the State of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes.
Members of the international community have given both de iure
and
de facto recognition of Yugoslavia's continuity. Explicit de iure
recognition came from the exYugoslav republics, the very ones which most
frequently refute the continuity of Yugoslavia.
Thus, Article 5 of the contract normalizing relations between
Yugoslavia and Croatia, signed on August 23, 1996 in Belgrade, says: "It
is
a historical fact that Serbia and Montenegro existed as independent
states
before the creation of Yugoslavia, therefore, bearing in mind that
Yugoslavia maintains the position of these states, related to
international
law, the Republic of Croatia recognizes the continuity of Yugoslavia."
An identical formulation was used in Article 4 of the contract
regulating YugoslavMacedonian relations, signed in Belgrade on April 8,
1996 (...the Republic of Macedonia recognizes the continuity of FR
Yugoslavia...)
Paragraph 1 of the joint declaration, signed by Presidents
Slobodan Milosevic and Alija Izetbegovic in Paris on October 3, 1996
says:"BosniaHerzegovina accepts the continuity of Yugoslavia."
Officials of some Western countries have also made statements
confirming the continuity of Yugoslavia.
At a debate between European foreign ministers in Brussels on
January 29, 1996 aimed at solving the problem of the formal recognition
of
Yugoslavia, French Foreign Minister Herve de Charette said that France
had
never severed diplomatic relations with Belgrade, and consequently, does
not need to recognize Belgrade. "That is the standpoint of some E.U.
countries, but not the official standpoint of the French government."
In a comment on the decision of the French government to raise
diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia to the highest level, the spokesman
of
the French Foreign Ministry said on February 22, 1996 that "France never
cut off diplomatic relations with Belgrade. France recognizes states,
not
governments."
Upon the normalization of YugoslavBritish relations, Malcolm
Rifkind sent a message to Yugoslav President Zoran Lilic saying: "We
have
decided to raise diplomatic relations with Belgrade to the highest
level...
we will adhere to all valid contracts and treaties signed by Great
Britain
and the exYugoslavia."
Spanish Foreign Minister Carlos Westendorp, after his visit to
Yugoslavia, said on March 16, 1996: "The problem of recognizing
Yugoslavia
is not an issue for Spain, because diplomatic relations between the two
countries were never severed."
The above statements, made by representatives of E.U.
countries,
reflect their views on the recognition of Yugoslavia in an indirect way.
Although there was no explicit mention of continuity, the very fact that
they maintained diplomatic relations, and were willing to adhere to the
contracts signed with the exYugoslavia, is proof of de facto
recognition.
The United States, the biggest opponent of the recognition of
Yugoslavia, recognized Yugoslavia in a similar way.
Namely, the American embassy in Belgrade, in note S42 issued on
May 5, 1998 requested from Yugoslavia the extradition of ethnicAlbanian
Rifat Etej for felonies committed in the USA. This request was based on
the
Extradition Agreement of 1901, signed by the Kingdom of Serbia and the
USA.
Thus, the USA recognized the continuity of Yugoslavia, not only
regarding
the exYugoslavia, but also the Kingdom of Serbia, as the nucleus of all
other subsequent Yugoslav states. This confirms the theory, as well as
the
practice, of international law, according to which territorial loss does
not affect a country's continuity if its nucleus is preserved.
The continuity of Yugoslavia, as we can see, is legally
undeniable. Nevertheless, the following example shows how this matter
can
serve as a means of exerting political pressure on Yugoslavia. In
paragraph
297 of his report, (Summary of Practice of Secretary General as
Depositary
of Multilateral Treaties) the U.N. Secretary General explains the legal
position of the Russian Federation and Yugoslavia in the following way:
"After the secession of some parts of the USSR, which became
independent states, the USSR (as the Russian Federation) continued to
exist
as the presuccessor and all the rights and obligations resulting from
contracts remain valid. The same applies to Yugoslavia (Serbia and
Montenegro), which remains the presuccessor, although a part of the
territory of the exYugoslavia has broken away."
The U.N. Secretary General quite appropriately drew a parallel
between the legal position of the Russian Federation and the position of
Yugoslavia. Regretfully, after the intervention of several countries,
which
submitted a letter, the U.N. Legal Advisor submitted a corrigendum (LA
41
TR/220), in which the section referring to Yugoslavia was deleted, while
the one referring to the Russian Federation remained. This shows that
neither the Secretary General, nor his legal advisor are immune to
political pressure.
The majority of countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and
Eastern Europe, as well as Russia, China and India, have passed acts of
either de iure or de facto recognition of Yugoslavia. As far as Latin
America is concerned, Yugoslavia has been recognized by Cuba, Argentina
and
Brazil. The other countries of the region have recognized Yugoslavia
tacitly, by maintaining the level of diplomatic relations, by raising
them
to a higher level, or by issuing statements that were a confirmation of
their willingness to maintain the practice of friendly relations and
cooperation with Yugoslavia.
The legal consequences of continuity are reflected by the fact
that Yugoslavia is a continuation of the exYugoslavia, and that it
maintains its membership in all organizations, while all international
contracts signed by the exYugoslavia remain valid. Therefore, claims
according to which Yugoslavia must appeal for membership in the U.N. are
quite absurd. Such requests are merely a form of political pressure,
with
no foundation in legal theory, or practice.
The U.N. General Assembly, in Resolution 52/215 of December 22,
1997 has determined the budget quotas for all countries in the period of
19982000, including Yugoslavia, which is clear proof of Yugoslavia's
membership in the U.N., and any denial of its status is just an aspect
of
political manipulation.
The problem of succession, i.e. the division of gold and frozen
hard currency reserves abroad, the inheriting of the embassy buildings
will
be solved through negotiations between its successors Yugoslavia, the
state which is the continuation of the exYugoslavia, and the exYugoslav
republics, with cooperation from the Peace Implementation Council, and
Arthur Watts as the mediator.
The Yugoslav Mission in New York sent a message to the
President
of the Security Council on December 13, 1999 informing him of
Yugoslavia's
willingness to continue the negotiations on succession, according to
international laws regulating the problem of succession, and the joint
declaration signed by Presidents Slobodan Milosevic and Alija
Izetbegovic,
signed in Paris on October 3, 1996, as well as the contracts normalizing
relations between Yugoslavia and Croatia, signed in Belgrade on August
23,
1996 and between Yugoslavia and Macedonia, signed on April 8, 1996.
In the message, the Mission described the draft of the
agreement
proposed by Watts, as acceptable, saying that, if the negotiations
continue, an agreement could be reached soon. Unfortunately, despite
this
intervention, there has been no continuation of the negotiations, as
Watts
has failed to schedule them. This is a confirmation of the claims that
those who have committed the act of aggression on Yugoslavia have no
interest whatsoever in solving any of the problems related to this
region,
as they strive to continue the practice of pressure and groundless
accusations against Yugoslavia.
This review of the theory of international law and practice,
focusing on the legal position of Yugoslavia, is an undeniable proof of
the
fact that Yugoslavia is a continuation of the exYugoslavia, because,
regardless of territorial losses, the nucleus of the territory (Serbia
and
Montenegro) remained, which is the decisive factor for the
acknowledgement
of continuity. In any case, similar analyses carried out by other
members
of the international community, show that most countries have recognized
the continuity of Yugoslavia, either by acts of explicit de iure
recognition, or by taking certain actions (such as the ones taken by the
United States of America) that are an example of de facto recognition.
---
Sullo stesso argomento si veda anche:
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/318
- SULLA AUTOPROCLAMATA MISSIONE DIPLOMATICA MONTENEGRINA ALL'ONU
(COMPOSTA DAL SOLO SIGNOR PEROVIC ZELJKO)
- LA RF DI JUGOSLAVIA E' ISOLATA A LIVELLO INTERNAZIONALE - OPPURE NO?
- ALLE NAZIONI UNITE GLI U.S.A IMPONGONO L'ESCLUSIONE DEL RAPPRESENTANTE
DELLA REPUBBLICA FEDERALE DI JUGOSLAVIA (IL MAGGIORE PAESE BALCANICO PER
NUMERO DI ABITANTI) DA UN DIBATTITO SULLA SITUAZIONE NEI BALCANI.
I RAPPRESENTANTI RUSSO E CINESE ESCONO DALL'AULA PER PROTESTA.
---
Due recenti interviste al Ministro degli Esteri della
RF di Jugoslavia Zivadin Jovanovic
* http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/384
YUGOSLAV DAILY SURVEY BELGRADE,18 July 2000 No.3112
INTERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL FOREIGN MINISTER ZIVADIN JOVANOVIC
TO THE QATAR TELEVISION AL-DZAZIRA
* http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/368
Yugoslav Daily Survey 20 July 2000 No.3114
INTERVIEW OF THE FEDERAL MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF THE FR OF YUGOSLAVIA, MR. ZIVADIN JOVANOVIC,
TO "AL ARAB AL YAWM" DAILY
---
IL SITO INTERNET DEL MINISTERO DEGLI ESTERI DELLA RF DI JUGOSLAVIA
http://www1.mfa.gov.yu/
http://www.smip.sv.gov.yu/
http://www.mfa.gov.yu/
---
Institute of International Politics and Economics Belgrade
http://www.diplomacy.bg.ac.yu/
Balkan Journal of International Law
International Law and Kosovo
http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/benin/260/
Association for the Study of Foreign Policy Kotor Montenegro
http://www.diplomacy.cg.yu/
---
http://www.diplomacy.cg.yu/doc13.htm
Udruzenje za istrazivanje spoljne politike Kotor
Association for the Study of Foreign Policy Kotor
Konferencija:
SAVREMENA DIPLOMATIJA I CRNA GORA
Kotor, 27. juna 1998.
Prof. Dr Predrag Simic*, Institute of International Politics and
Economics, Belgrade
REGIONAL COOPERATION IN SOUTH-EASTERN EUROPE:
THE ROLE OF FR YUGOSLAVIA
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
ZDRAVO DRUZE!
Si sono tenuti ieri 5 agosto 2000 a Pola i funerali del compagno Antun
Kapuralin, comunista jugoslavista e combattente per la liberta'.
Kapuralin partecipo' attivamente ai fatti epici della "Comune di Albona"
durante il biennio rosso (1921-'22) e fu tra i fondatori del Partito
Comunista d'Italia in Istria negli anni Venti. Militante antifascista,
fu incarcerato e sconto' la pena presso Cuneo; tuttavia in anni recenti
la cittadinanza onoraria della citta' gli e' stata negata da una giunta
democristiana.
Nel dopoguerra, dopo aver patito le violenze del fascismo e del nazismo,
la sua terra istriana divenne parte della Repubblica Federativa
Socialista di Jugoslavia, della quale Antun fu instancabile costruttore
insieme a tanti altri comunisti croati ed italiani della regione.
Alcuni anni fa Kapuralin fu intervistato su "Liberazione" dal compianto
Jure Canciani, nel ben diverso clima della Croazia indipendente. Nemmeno
la svolta reazionaria della Croazia ne aveva potuto fiaccare l'impegno e
la lucidita' politica.
Antun si e' spento a Pola per un ictus cerebrale all'eta' di
novantaquattro anni, sorprendendo tutti quelli che lo vedevano attivo e
pieno di energie partecipare sempre alle iniziative degli antifascisti
locali, ed a Trieste agli incontri del PRC e dei reduci partigiani
insieme al figlio Vlado e ad altri esponenti del Partito Socialista
Operaio e della sinistra. A loro ed a noi il compito di proseguire sulla
strada tracciata da Antun.
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Si sono tenuti ieri 5 agosto 2000 a Pola i funerali del compagno Antun
Kapuralin, comunista jugoslavista e combattente per la liberta'.
Kapuralin partecipo' attivamente ai fatti epici della "Comune di Albona"
durante il biennio rosso (1921-'22) e fu tra i fondatori del Partito
Comunista d'Italia in Istria negli anni Venti. Militante antifascista,
fu incarcerato e sconto' la pena presso Cuneo; tuttavia in anni recenti
la cittadinanza onoraria della citta' gli e' stata negata da una giunta
democristiana.
Nel dopoguerra, dopo aver patito le violenze del fascismo e del nazismo,
la sua terra istriana divenne parte della Repubblica Federativa
Socialista di Jugoslavia, della quale Antun fu instancabile costruttore
insieme a tanti altri comunisti croati ed italiani della regione.
Alcuni anni fa Kapuralin fu intervistato su "Liberazione" dal compianto
Jure Canciani, nel ben diverso clima della Croazia indipendente. Nemmeno
la svolta reazionaria della Croazia ne aveva potuto fiaccare l'impegno e
la lucidita' politica.
Antun si e' spento a Pola per un ictus cerebrale all'eta' di
novantaquattro anni, sorprendendo tutti quelli che lo vedevano attivo e
pieno di energie partecipare sempre alle iniziative degli antifascisti
locali, ed a Trieste agli incontri del PRC e dei reduci partigiani
insieme al figlio Vlado e ad altri esponenti del Partito Socialista
Operaio e della sinistra. A loro ed a noi il compito di proseguire sulla
strada tracciata da Antun.
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
6 AGOSTO
1990: inizia l'embargo ai danni della popolazione irachena, con
decisione del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'ONU su istigazione
statunitense - dopo che gli USA avevano boicottato ogni possibilita' di
soluzione politico-diplomatica della crisi del Kuwait - e con
l'opposizione di Cuba e dello Yemen.
Il conflitto vero e proprio, noto come "Guerra del Golfo", sara'
scatenato il 17 gennaio 1991. L'embargo proseguira' anche dopo la sua
conclusione con il ritiro delle truppe irachene dal Kuwait. Negli anni
successivi, aerei britannici e statunitensi continueranno a bombardare
sporadicamente di propria iniziativa il territorio iracheno.
---
COMUNICATO STAMPA
Consegnate a Violante 30.211 firme per chiedere che l'Italia si dissoci
unilateralmente dall'embargo all'Iraq.
Venerdì 21 luglio 2000, alle ore 11, una delegazione della Campagna
"Rompere
l'embargo" ha incontrato il Presidente della Camera dei Deputati,
On.Luciano
Violante, al quale ha consegnato l'ultima parte delle oltre 30.000 firme
raccolte sulla petizione popolare che chiede al Parlamento italiano di
rompere unilateralmente l'embargo contro l'Iraq, abrogandone la legge di
attuazione.
La delegazione, composta dai rappresentanti di alcune delle principali
associazioni fra le centinaia che hanno aderito alla Campagna. ("Un
ponte
per…", che l'ha promossa assieme al Comitato Golfo, l'Associazione per
la
pace, il COCIS-coordinamento delle ONG, Mani Tese, il Servizio Civile
Internazionale, la UISP e altre), ha ricordato al presidente Violante la
tragedia del popolo iracheno e l'importanza che un paese come l'Italia
compia un passo coraggioso di dissociazione dal genocidio che ha ucciso
in
dieci anni oltre un milione di civili innocenti, in maggioranza bambini
sotto i cinque anni.
Una richiesta - dicono i promotori della Campagna - che oggi arriva da
una
parte largamente maggioritaria della società civile italiana.
Il Presidente della Camera si è dimostrato molto sensibile alle ragioni
della petizione, e ne ha assicurato che la trasmissionie immediata alla
Commissione Esteri perché venga messa in calendario per la discussione.
Violante ha aggiunto che intende recarsi in Iraq in autunno,
reciprocando la
recente visita in Italia del presidente del Parlamento iracheno Sadoon
Hammadi.
La Campagna "Rompere l'embargo" ha intanto annunciato come prossima
iniziativa la convocazione di una Convenzione Nazionale a Roma per metà
ottobre, che radunerà tutti i firmatari e le associazioni che hanno
sottoscritto la petizione. L'occasione sarà lo scadere dei tre mesi
previsti
nell'ultima risoluzione approvata dalla Camera dei Deputati, che impegna
il
governo ad operare in modo concreto ed esplicito nelle sedi
internazionali
per arrivare alla revoca delle sanzioni contro l'Iraq.
Per contatti e informazioni:
rompere-lembargo@...
---
L'ESASPERAZIONE E L'ORGOGLIO DEGLI IRACHENI
Il Sole 24 Ore di giovedì 29/6:
Uccisi due funzionari della Fao a Baghdad.
Per protestare contro l'embargo Onu verso l'Irak, un uomo armato ha
preso in ostaggio oltre 40 persone negli uffici Fao di
Baghdad, uccidendo due persone e ferendone sette prima di essere
arrestato dalla polizia.
IRAQI AMBASSADOR: PEOPLE OF IRAQ HAVE NOT GIVEN UP
BELGRADE, July 18 (Tanjug) The people of Iraq have not given up,
they are continuing their struggle and will fight until the final
victory,
Iraqi ambassador to Yugoslavia, Sami Sadoun Gatie Al Kinami, said in an
interview to Radio Yugoslavia on the occasion of Iraqi National Day
(July 17).
Speaking about IraqiYugoslav bilateral relations, whose trade has
reached dozens of millions of dollars in the past few years and is
expected
to reach one billion dollars this year, the Iraqi ambassador set out
that
relations between these countries have been traditional and firm for
years
and are based on joint interests.
"We want this exchange to exceed one billion dollars during this
year and in the coming period within the U.N. oil for food program which
enables Iraq to import food and medications to cover its basic
requirements," he said.
---
1999: ANNO-RECORD DEI BOMBARDAMENTI BRITANNICI SULL'IRAQ
http://www.the-times.co.uk (Britai)
The Times (UK)
June 8 2000
BRITAIN
Sharp rise in RAF attacks on Iraq
BY MICHAEL EVANS
RAF bombing of Iraqi air defence sites has increased sharply in the past
18 months, according to the latest figures published by the Ministry of
Defence.
Since mid-December 1998 RAF bombers have dropped 78 tonnes of bombs on
Iraqi military targets; that compares with 2.5 tonnes between April
1991, after the Gulf War, and mid-December 1998.
The MoD's figures show that the average monthly release of bombs has
risen from 0.025 tonnes to five tonnes.
Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Foreign Affairs and
Defence, who acquired the figures from parliamentary answers, said
yesterday: "The number of occasions on which ordnance has been released
together with the total tonnage raises questions about the true purpose
of these operations."
He added: "There is persuasive evidence that there is an attritional
campaign against the Iraqi ground-based air defence systems. This
represents a significant policy shift which has never been explained to
Parliament."
The MoD said yesterday that the reason for the increase was "because
we've been shot at and threatened far more since December 20, 1998, than
in the previous period."
-
STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM
The following article appeared in today's Guardian. It incorrectly
states
that the no-fly zones were "agreed by the UN" after the 1991 Gulf war,
despite the fact that previous articles in the Guardian (e.g.
http://www.ex-parrot.com/casi/discuss/2000/311.html) have stated that
the
no-fly zones have no legal basis.
The following discussion list posting discusses the legality
of the no-fly zones:
http://www.ex-parrot.com/casi/discuss/2000/357.html (also see 352.html).
People might like to write to the Guardian to correct them on this
matter?
(letters@...)
seb
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,329490,00.html
Step-up in bombing of Iraq questioned
Iraq: special report
Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday June 8, 2000
British bomber pilots have dramatically increased their strikes on Iraq
in
the "secret war" against Saddam Hussein, official figures reveal.
An estimated 150 bombs - 78 tonnes of weapons - have been dropped on
southern Iraq by British aircraft since December 1998. This compares
with
2.5 tonnes over the previous six years.
"There is now persuasive evidence that there is an attritional campaign
against the Iraqi ground-based air defence systems that has gone way
beyond the original purpose of the no-fly zones," Menzies Campbell, the
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said yesterday. "This
represents a significant policy shift, which has never been announced or
explained to parliament."
Mr Campbell was given the figures by Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary,
in
response to a series of written parliamentary questions. Mr Hoon
admitted
that on two occasions since December 1998, ordnance unleashed by British
aircraft "appears to have hit unintended targets".
He also disclosed that the British commander in the southern no-fly zone
had asked the government to "attack targets beyond his delegated
authority".
He refused to explain the circumstances but sources suggested yesterday
that permission was sought to hit Iraqi aircraft moving north, away from
the no-fly zone.
In military action which is rarely reported, Mr Hoon says that while
Iraqi
aircraft violating the no-fly zone accounted for 51% of the "threats" to
British and US war planes, 95% of the targets attacked consisted of
ground-based air defence systems.
Two no-fly zones, policed by British and American planes, were agreed by
the UN after the 1991 Gulf war. They were established to protect the
Shia
minority in southern Iraq and Kurds in the north.
"It's very good training but it is not achieving anything," Andrew
Brookes, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said
yesterday. He described it as a "sterile political mission of people who
can't think of anything better to do".
Mr Hoon said Britain and the US went to "exceptional lengths to ensure
that the right target is hit, including the employment of very strict
target clearance procedures and precision-guided munitions". However, he
acknowledged: "In practice, it is extremely difficult to give estimates
of
civilian casualties despite the painstaking battle damage assessment
that
the coalition routinely carries out".
Britain has 14 Tornado bombers stationed in Kuwait and Bahrain, and four
Jaguars based at Incirlik in Turkey.
---
QUALE STRATEGIA PER IL MOVIMENTO INTERNAZIONALE CONTRO L'EMBARGO?
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, #206
New York, NY 10011
212-633-6646
fax 212-633-2889
iacenter@...
www.iacenter.org
Which way for the anti-sanctions movement
By Brian Becker
It’s no surprise that there is increasing
worldwide opposition to the U.S.-imposed economic
sanctions against Iraq. Five thousand perfectly
blameless infants and children perish each month
in Iraq because they are unable to get clean
drinking water, adequate food and even the most
basic medicines.
There is now a worldwide movement demanding an
end to sanctions. Unfortunately, one sector of
this growing movement has injected a new demand
into its slogans: calling for the continuation of
“military sanctions” against Iraq.
Some of these same groups actually raised the
slogan “sanctions not war” back in 1990.
The International Action Center, which has
campaigned relentlessly for the last 10 years
against sanctions, has issued a powerful statement
explaining the disastrous effects of adopting a
demand that sanctions be reshaped instead of
immediately terminated (on the World Wide Web at
http://www.iacenter.org/delink.htm).
Unless this slogan is repudiated it could
seriously weaken and derail the movement.
“Those who want to stop the Iraqi people’s
suffering must direct their demand at the
aggressors, at the U.S. and Britain whose war
planes bomb Iraq routinely, almost daily, who have
dropped thousands of bombs on Iraq in the last
year,” says Sara Flounders, co-director of the IAC.
The United States and Britain are bombing Iraq.
Iraq has never bombed the cities of the United
States. The progressive movement must ask itself:
Does Iraq have the right to defend itself against
such attacks? Shouldn’t anti-war forces in the
United States call for demilitarizing the Pentagon
instead of demilitarizing the victims of U.S.
aggression?
A tactic in a larger war
Why does the United States maintain the sanctions
and blockade of Iraq?
Is it just a mistaken policy by U.S. political
leaders that needs some “humanitarian” fine-
tuning? Or should sanctions be understood as a
tactic in a larger multi-pronged war to return
Iraq to the status of semi-colonial slavery?
Should the progressive movement oppose sanctions
because that tactic causes undue harm to
civilians? Or should it also reject the
imperialist goals and objectives that are the real
motivation for a destabilization strategy that
includes economic sanctions, routine bombings of
the country, CIA covert operations, plans to
assassinate the Iraqi leadership, creating no-
flight zones over most of the country, and placing
tens of thousands of U.S. troops, warships,
aircraft and advanced missiles on the outer
perimeters of Iraq?
The sanctions against Iraq began 10 years ago, in
August 1990. The Bush administration bullied the
United Nations into imposing economic sanctions as
a prelude to the full-scale 1991 air war against
Iraq.
The sanctions were initially put into place to
help evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait, according to
the propaganda of the Bush administration. Iraq
had invaded Kuwait, an oil-rich territory under
the domination of an U.S.-backed monarchy, in
August 1990, after a protracted and complicated
dispute between the two countries.
The original pretext for the economic sanctions
was a lie. It was purely for public consumption.
If the sanctions were meant only to drive Iraqi
troops from Kuwait then why, nearly a decade after
the last Iraqis left, does the United States
still impose the “most complete embargo of any
country in modern times,” in the words of Samuel
Berger, President Bill Clinton’s national
security adviser?
Two blockades: Iraq and Cuba
The unstated but fairly obvious reason that
Washington carries out the economic blockade of
Iraq is that it wants to destabilize the country,
overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein and
replace it with a pro-U.S. regime. The United
States has tried the same thing against socialist
Cuba.
The political leaderships in Iraq and Cuba are
very different. Cuba’s leadership is communist and
the Iraqi government is anti-communist. But both
governments have one thing in common. Iraq and
Cuba both suffered the impoverishment and
humiliation of colonialism and neo-colonialism
imposed by U.S. and British imperialism.
Both countries had far-reaching revolutions
within a year of each other–1958 and–1959. Both
revolutions immediately came under direct
aggression from the imperialist overlords who had
colonized or enslaved their countries.
The Iraqi Revolution in 1958 prompted Britain to
rush thousands of troops to fortify its hold on
tiny but oil-rich Kuwait. As it had with Hong Kong
in China, British colonialism sliced the key port
area of Kuwait out of Iraq and declared it a
British protectorate. While British troops secured
Kuwait in 1958, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower
dispatched 10,000 U.S. marines to Lebanon the very
next day to shore up Washington’s own interests.
In the case of the Cuban Revolution in 1959,
Eisenhower ordered the CIA to begin planning the
assassination of Fidel Castro. Two years later,
under John F. Kennedy, the U.S. government
organized a mercenary invasion of Cuba by CIA-
trained counter-revolutionaries.
Cuba used socialist economic methods to bring
literacy, full employment and free universal
health care to its people. It was able to free
itself of economic neocolonial enslavement by
integrating into the trading bloc with the Soviet
Union, East Germany and the other socialist
countries.
Although Iraq nationalized its oil industry and
other economic sectors, its revolution never went
beyond the boundaries of capitalist property
rights. But because of its vast oil wealth and the
nationalist development model adopted by the
leadership, Iraq too was able to effect rapid
social and economic progress for the mass of the
population after the 1958 revolution.
Official U.S. policy has been hostile to both
Iraq and Cuba since their revolutions. The
“hostility” was remarkably consistent regardless
of whether a Republican or Democrat occupied the
White House.
The only exception to the policy of unmitigated
hostility was during the Iran-Iraq war between
1980 and 1988. The United States supplied weapons
to Iraq and encouraged Iraq’s initial military
actions against Iran in 1980. But this should be
understood for what it was: a cynical ploy to
weaken and exhaust the 1979 Iranian mass
revolution that had swept out the dynastic rule of
the shah—whose army had served as proxy and
gendarme for the Pentagon and CIA in the Persian
Gulf.
The United States armed Iraq to fight Iran in the
early 1980s—but it also sent arms to Iran, as was
revealed during the 1986 Iran-Contra hearings in
Congress. In the words of former Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger, “We wanted them to kill
each other.”
Once Washington had accomplished its objective of
weakening the Iranian Revolution through the war
between Iran and Iraq, Pentagon war doctrine was
reconfigured to target Iraq as the next “potential
enemy.” Plans and complex war games for a U.S.
war with Iraq were drafted in 1988, immediately
after the close of the Iran-Iraq war and two
years before Iraq fatefully sent its troops
against the Kuwaiti mon archy in August 1990.
(“The Fire This Time,” Ramsey Clark,
Thundersmouth Press, 1992)
Slogans should be consistently anti-imperialist
The U.S. government represents the interests of
Big Oil and the biggest imperialist banks. It
seeks to dominate the Middle East not to bring
“human rights” and “democracy” but to possess and
profit from the fabulous oil wealth
under the soil.
Iraq has 10 percent of the world’s known oil reserves. Combined with
Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and Iran, this region contains the largest share of oil
on the
planet.
Effective sanctions of any type, be they for economic or military
commodities,
require the sanctioning countries to position military forces around
the
targeted country so that ships, trucks and airplanes can be interdicted
and
searched. Thus, calling for the United States or UN to maintain
military
sanctions on Iraq provides a political and even “legal” justification
for the
continued military occupation of the Gulf region by U.S. military
forces.
>From a practical point of view, if the demand for U.S./UN economic sanctions
to be replaced by “military sanctions” were realized, it would still
have a
devastating impact on Iraq’s civilian population. The United States
would
claim that almost anything that the civilian economy imports could
also be
used for military applications.
Referring to these items as “dual use” commodities, the United States
has
already halted or postponed 450 out of every 500 contracts that were
approved
by the UN Sanctions Committee under the much touted Oil-for-Food
program.
Washington will use the category of “military sanctions” as a technical
method
to prevent Iraq from acquiring commodities that are essential for
sustaining
civilian economy and human life. For example, the United States has
banned
pencils for schoolchildren because these pencils contain graphite,
which is
also a lubricant. It has banned batteries, X-ray machines and
ambulances
because they could be used in military conflicts.
Iraq is now barred from importing adequate supplies of chlorine to
purify its
water. Why chlorine? It could be used as a component in a chemical
weapon.
Computers too have potential military uses. So importing computers has
been
prohibited for 10 years.
It can only miseducate the broad public about the
real issues in the Middle East if the progressive
movement supports the imperialist powers in
demanding the demilitarization of Iraq. The
movement cannot be consistently progressive
without thoroughly exposing the true dynamics of
imperialist military and political strategy that
tries to re-colonize the Arab people.
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@...
web: www.iacenter.org
CHECK OUT THE NEW SITE www.mumia2000.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
---
VERSO NUOVI MASSICCI BOMBARDAMENTI SULL'IRAQ?
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGIXHWTKGBC.html
Aug 3, 2000 - 11:37 AM
Officer: U.S. Suspects Iraq Has Resumed Arms Program
By Hamza Hendawi
Associated Press Writer
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - The United States suspects that Iraq has taken
advantage of the absence of U.N. arms inspectors to rebuild its arsenal
of mass-destruction weapons, a senior U.S. officer said Thursday...
Subject: [iac-disc.] ACTION ALERT! - Stop the U.S. from Bombing
Iraq in Aug.!
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:42:48 -0400
From: "Ramsey Kysia" <mbakery@...>
To: Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo.
***please distribute widely***
ACTION ALERT – Stop the U.S. from bombing Iraq in August 2000!
1. Background
2. Mailing Address
3. Sample Letter
BACKGROUND:
On Aug. 6th ‘90, the UN imposed broad, economic
sanctions on Iraq for invading Kuwait. Sanctions were
re-imposed on April 3rd 1991, after the Gulf War, to
force Iraq to destroy its “weapons of mass destruction.”
However, the Gulf War bombings of Iraq’s civilian
infrastructure & the ongoing sanctions blockade have
instead resulted in widespread poverty & skyrocketing
childhood mortality. The UN estimates that between
500,000 & 720,000 children have died because of the
sanctions. According to UNICEF, a child dies every
10 minutes in Iraq due to sanctions.
In Dec. ‘98, a series of confrontations between
UNSCOM weapons inspectors & the Iraqi government
resulted in “Desert Fox,” a U.S. bombing campaign
that killed 10,000 people according to Pentagon
estimates. One month after the bombings, the
Washington Post & the Boston Globe both reported
that Iraq’s main objection to the weapons inspectors,
namely that they U.S. spies, was in fact true. The
ensuing scandal over U.S. infiltration of UNSCOM led
to a year-long deadlock at the UN. In Dec. ‘99, the
Security Council passed (with France, Russia & China
abstaining) Resolution 1284, creating UNMOVIC, a
new inspection team. This team will be ready to begin
new inspections next month.
Since “Desert Fox,” the U.S. has continued regular
bombings of Iraq on the average of 3-4 times a week:
the longest running U.S. air war since Vietnam.
However, both Richard Butler, former head of UNSCOM,
and Scott Ritter, former chief weapons inspector, have
predicted that Iraq’s refusal to allow UNMOVIC into the
country next month will likely create a new crisis that
could result in an intensified U.S. bombing campaign
against Iraq – with thousands of casualties. Says Scott
Ritter, “The new commission, UNMOVIC, will not be
allowed into Iraq in August, three months away from the
election. You have got a Vice-President, Al Gore,
trailing behind in the polls and what better way to appear
tough and switch attention away to a so-called foreign
threat. The UN Security Council did not vote on Desert
Fox and we can expect the same thing to happen again.”
We MUST not let this happen again. Please take a few
minutes to write Sandy Berger, the U.S. National
Security Advisor & Clinton’s principle foreign policy
strategist, & demand that the U.S. stop killing civilians
in Iraq and end sanctions & bombings against Iraq –
rather than increase them.
For more information on a possible August bombing, please visit:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-06/sanction230600.shtml
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-06/saddam230600.shtml
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-06/usarms280600.shtml
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j071000.html
For more information on the Iraq crisis, please visit:
http://www.iraqaction.org
(...)
*** Iraq Action Coalition Discussion Forum ***
http://iraqaction.org/discussion.html
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
1990: inizia l'embargo ai danni della popolazione irachena, con
decisione del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'ONU su istigazione
statunitense - dopo che gli USA avevano boicottato ogni possibilita' di
soluzione politico-diplomatica della crisi del Kuwait - e con
l'opposizione di Cuba e dello Yemen.
Il conflitto vero e proprio, noto come "Guerra del Golfo", sara'
scatenato il 17 gennaio 1991. L'embargo proseguira' anche dopo la sua
conclusione con il ritiro delle truppe irachene dal Kuwait. Negli anni
successivi, aerei britannici e statunitensi continueranno a bombardare
sporadicamente di propria iniziativa il territorio iracheno.
---
COMUNICATO STAMPA
Consegnate a Violante 30.211 firme per chiedere che l'Italia si dissoci
unilateralmente dall'embargo all'Iraq.
Venerdì 21 luglio 2000, alle ore 11, una delegazione della Campagna
"Rompere
l'embargo" ha incontrato il Presidente della Camera dei Deputati,
On.Luciano
Violante, al quale ha consegnato l'ultima parte delle oltre 30.000 firme
raccolte sulla petizione popolare che chiede al Parlamento italiano di
rompere unilateralmente l'embargo contro l'Iraq, abrogandone la legge di
attuazione.
La delegazione, composta dai rappresentanti di alcune delle principali
associazioni fra le centinaia che hanno aderito alla Campagna. ("Un
ponte
per…", che l'ha promossa assieme al Comitato Golfo, l'Associazione per
la
pace, il COCIS-coordinamento delle ONG, Mani Tese, il Servizio Civile
Internazionale, la UISP e altre), ha ricordato al presidente Violante la
tragedia del popolo iracheno e l'importanza che un paese come l'Italia
compia un passo coraggioso di dissociazione dal genocidio che ha ucciso
in
dieci anni oltre un milione di civili innocenti, in maggioranza bambini
sotto i cinque anni.
Una richiesta - dicono i promotori della Campagna - che oggi arriva da
una
parte largamente maggioritaria della società civile italiana.
Il Presidente della Camera si è dimostrato molto sensibile alle ragioni
della petizione, e ne ha assicurato che la trasmissionie immediata alla
Commissione Esteri perché venga messa in calendario per la discussione.
Violante ha aggiunto che intende recarsi in Iraq in autunno,
reciprocando la
recente visita in Italia del presidente del Parlamento iracheno Sadoon
Hammadi.
La Campagna "Rompere l'embargo" ha intanto annunciato come prossima
iniziativa la convocazione di una Convenzione Nazionale a Roma per metà
ottobre, che radunerà tutti i firmatari e le associazioni che hanno
sottoscritto la petizione. L'occasione sarà lo scadere dei tre mesi
previsti
nell'ultima risoluzione approvata dalla Camera dei Deputati, che impegna
il
governo ad operare in modo concreto ed esplicito nelle sedi
internazionali
per arrivare alla revoca delle sanzioni contro l'Iraq.
Per contatti e informazioni:
rompere-lembargo@...
---
L'ESASPERAZIONE E L'ORGOGLIO DEGLI IRACHENI
Il Sole 24 Ore di giovedì 29/6:
Uccisi due funzionari della Fao a Baghdad.
Per protestare contro l'embargo Onu verso l'Irak, un uomo armato ha
preso in ostaggio oltre 40 persone negli uffici Fao di
Baghdad, uccidendo due persone e ferendone sette prima di essere
arrestato dalla polizia.
IRAQI AMBASSADOR: PEOPLE OF IRAQ HAVE NOT GIVEN UP
BELGRADE, July 18 (Tanjug) The people of Iraq have not given up,
they are continuing their struggle and will fight until the final
victory,
Iraqi ambassador to Yugoslavia, Sami Sadoun Gatie Al Kinami, said in an
interview to Radio Yugoslavia on the occasion of Iraqi National Day
(July 17).
Speaking about IraqiYugoslav bilateral relations, whose trade has
reached dozens of millions of dollars in the past few years and is
expected
to reach one billion dollars this year, the Iraqi ambassador set out
that
relations between these countries have been traditional and firm for
years
and are based on joint interests.
"We want this exchange to exceed one billion dollars during this
year and in the coming period within the U.N. oil for food program which
enables Iraq to import food and medications to cover its basic
requirements," he said.
---
1999: ANNO-RECORD DEI BOMBARDAMENTI BRITANNICI SULL'IRAQ
http://www.the-times.co.uk (Britai)
The Times (UK)
June 8 2000
BRITAIN
Sharp rise in RAF attacks on Iraq
BY MICHAEL EVANS
RAF bombing of Iraqi air defence sites has increased sharply in the past
18 months, according to the latest figures published by the Ministry of
Defence.
Since mid-December 1998 RAF bombers have dropped 78 tonnes of bombs on
Iraqi military targets; that compares with 2.5 tonnes between April
1991, after the Gulf War, and mid-December 1998.
The MoD's figures show that the average monthly release of bombs has
risen from 0.025 tonnes to five tonnes.
Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Foreign Affairs and
Defence, who acquired the figures from parliamentary answers, said
yesterday: "The number of occasions on which ordnance has been released
together with the total tonnage raises questions about the true purpose
of these operations."
He added: "There is persuasive evidence that there is an attritional
campaign against the Iraqi ground-based air defence systems. This
represents a significant policy shift which has never been explained to
Parliament."
The MoD said yesterday that the reason for the increase was "because
we've been shot at and threatened far more since December 20, 1998, than
in the previous period."
-
STOP NATO: ¡NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM
The following article appeared in today's Guardian. It incorrectly
states
that the no-fly zones were "agreed by the UN" after the 1991 Gulf war,
despite the fact that previous articles in the Guardian (e.g.
http://www.ex-parrot.com/casi/discuss/2000/311.html) have stated that
the
no-fly zones have no legal basis.
The following discussion list posting discusses the legality
of the no-fly zones:
http://www.ex-parrot.com/casi/discuss/2000/357.html (also see 352.html).
People might like to write to the Guardian to correct them on this
matter?
(letters@...)
seb
http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,329490,00.html
Step-up in bombing of Iraq questioned
Iraq: special report
Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday June 8, 2000
British bomber pilots have dramatically increased their strikes on Iraq
in
the "secret war" against Saddam Hussein, official figures reveal.
An estimated 150 bombs - 78 tonnes of weapons - have been dropped on
southern Iraq by British aircraft since December 1998. This compares
with
2.5 tonnes over the previous six years.
"There is now persuasive evidence that there is an attritional campaign
against the Iraqi ground-based air defence systems that has gone way
beyond the original purpose of the no-fly zones," Menzies Campbell, the
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said yesterday. "This
represents a significant policy shift, which has never been announced or
explained to parliament."
Mr Campbell was given the figures by Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary,
in
response to a series of written parliamentary questions. Mr Hoon
admitted
that on two occasions since December 1998, ordnance unleashed by British
aircraft "appears to have hit unintended targets".
He also disclosed that the British commander in the southern no-fly zone
had asked the government to "attack targets beyond his delegated
authority".
He refused to explain the circumstances but sources suggested yesterday
that permission was sought to hit Iraqi aircraft moving north, away from
the no-fly zone.
In military action which is rarely reported, Mr Hoon says that while
Iraqi
aircraft violating the no-fly zone accounted for 51% of the "threats" to
British and US war planes, 95% of the targets attacked consisted of
ground-based air defence systems.
Two no-fly zones, policed by British and American planes, were agreed by
the UN after the 1991 Gulf war. They were established to protect the
Shia
minority in southern Iraq and Kurds in the north.
"It's very good training but it is not achieving anything," Andrew
Brookes, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said
yesterday. He described it as a "sterile political mission of people who
can't think of anything better to do".
Mr Hoon said Britain and the US went to "exceptional lengths to ensure
that the right target is hit, including the employment of very strict
target clearance procedures and precision-guided munitions". However, he
acknowledged: "In practice, it is extremely difficult to give estimates
of
civilian casualties despite the painstaking battle damage assessment
that
the coalition routinely carries out".
Britain has 14 Tornado bombers stationed in Kuwait and Bahrain, and four
Jaguars based at Incirlik in Turkey.
---
QUALE STRATEGIA PER IL MOVIMENTO INTERNAZIONALE CONTRO L'EMBARGO?
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, #206
New York, NY 10011
212-633-6646
fax 212-633-2889
iacenter@...
www.iacenter.org
Which way for the anti-sanctions movement
By Brian Becker
It’s no surprise that there is increasing
worldwide opposition to the U.S.-imposed economic
sanctions against Iraq. Five thousand perfectly
blameless infants and children perish each month
in Iraq because they are unable to get clean
drinking water, adequate food and even the most
basic medicines.
There is now a worldwide movement demanding an
end to sanctions. Unfortunately, one sector of
this growing movement has injected a new demand
into its slogans: calling for the continuation of
“military sanctions” against Iraq.
Some of these same groups actually raised the
slogan “sanctions not war” back in 1990.
The International Action Center, which has
campaigned relentlessly for the last 10 years
against sanctions, has issued a powerful statement
explaining the disastrous effects of adopting a
demand that sanctions be reshaped instead of
immediately terminated (on the World Wide Web at
http://www.iacenter.org/delink.htm).
Unless this slogan is repudiated it could
seriously weaken and derail the movement.
“Those who want to stop the Iraqi people’s
suffering must direct their demand at the
aggressors, at the U.S. and Britain whose war
planes bomb Iraq routinely, almost daily, who have
dropped thousands of bombs on Iraq in the last
year,” says Sara Flounders, co-director of the IAC.
The United States and Britain are bombing Iraq.
Iraq has never bombed the cities of the United
States. The progressive movement must ask itself:
Does Iraq have the right to defend itself against
such attacks? Shouldn’t anti-war forces in the
United States call for demilitarizing the Pentagon
instead of demilitarizing the victims of U.S.
aggression?
A tactic in a larger war
Why does the United States maintain the sanctions
and blockade of Iraq?
Is it just a mistaken policy by U.S. political
leaders that needs some “humanitarian” fine-
tuning? Or should sanctions be understood as a
tactic in a larger multi-pronged war to return
Iraq to the status of semi-colonial slavery?
Should the progressive movement oppose sanctions
because that tactic causes undue harm to
civilians? Or should it also reject the
imperialist goals and objectives that are the real
motivation for a destabilization strategy that
includes economic sanctions, routine bombings of
the country, CIA covert operations, plans to
assassinate the Iraqi leadership, creating no-
flight zones over most of the country, and placing
tens of thousands of U.S. troops, warships,
aircraft and advanced missiles on the outer
perimeters of Iraq?
The sanctions against Iraq began 10 years ago, in
August 1990. The Bush administration bullied the
United Nations into imposing economic sanctions as
a prelude to the full-scale 1991 air war against
Iraq.
The sanctions were initially put into place to
help evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait, according to
the propaganda of the Bush administration. Iraq
had invaded Kuwait, an oil-rich territory under
the domination of an U.S.-backed monarchy, in
August 1990, after a protracted and complicated
dispute between the two countries.
The original pretext for the economic sanctions
was a lie. It was purely for public consumption.
If the sanctions were meant only to drive Iraqi
troops from Kuwait then why, nearly a decade after
the last Iraqis left, does the United States
still impose the “most complete embargo of any
country in modern times,” in the words of Samuel
Berger, President Bill Clinton’s national
security adviser?
Two blockades: Iraq and Cuba
The unstated but fairly obvious reason that
Washington carries out the economic blockade of
Iraq is that it wants to destabilize the country,
overthrow the government of Saddam Hussein and
replace it with a pro-U.S. regime. The United
States has tried the same thing against socialist
Cuba.
The political leaderships in Iraq and Cuba are
very different. Cuba’s leadership is communist and
the Iraqi government is anti-communist. But both
governments have one thing in common. Iraq and
Cuba both suffered the impoverishment and
humiliation of colonialism and neo-colonialism
imposed by U.S. and British imperialism.
Both countries had far-reaching revolutions
within a year of each other–1958 and–1959. Both
revolutions immediately came under direct
aggression from the imperialist overlords who had
colonized or enslaved their countries.
The Iraqi Revolution in 1958 prompted Britain to
rush thousands of troops to fortify its hold on
tiny but oil-rich Kuwait. As it had with Hong Kong
in China, British colonialism sliced the key port
area of Kuwait out of Iraq and declared it a
British protectorate. While British troops secured
Kuwait in 1958, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower
dispatched 10,000 U.S. marines to Lebanon the very
next day to shore up Washington’s own interests.
In the case of the Cuban Revolution in 1959,
Eisenhower ordered the CIA to begin planning the
assassination of Fidel Castro. Two years later,
under John F. Kennedy, the U.S. government
organized a mercenary invasion of Cuba by CIA-
trained counter-revolutionaries.
Cuba used socialist economic methods to bring
literacy, full employment and free universal
health care to its people. It was able to free
itself of economic neocolonial enslavement by
integrating into the trading bloc with the Soviet
Union, East Germany and the other socialist
countries.
Although Iraq nationalized its oil industry and
other economic sectors, its revolution never went
beyond the boundaries of capitalist property
rights. But because of its vast oil wealth and the
nationalist development model adopted by the
leadership, Iraq too was able to effect rapid
social and economic progress for the mass of the
population after the 1958 revolution.
Official U.S. policy has been hostile to both
Iraq and Cuba since their revolutions. The
“hostility” was remarkably consistent regardless
of whether a Republican or Democrat occupied the
White House.
The only exception to the policy of unmitigated
hostility was during the Iran-Iraq war between
1980 and 1988. The United States supplied weapons
to Iraq and encouraged Iraq’s initial military
actions against Iran in 1980. But this should be
understood for what it was: a cynical ploy to
weaken and exhaust the 1979 Iranian mass
revolution that had swept out the dynastic rule of
the shah—whose army had served as proxy and
gendarme for the Pentagon and CIA in the Persian
Gulf.
The United States armed Iraq to fight Iran in the
early 1980s—but it also sent arms to Iran, as was
revealed during the 1986 Iran-Contra hearings in
Congress. In the words of former Secretary of
State Henry Kissinger, “We wanted them to kill
each other.”
Once Washington had accomplished its objective of
weakening the Iranian Revolution through the war
between Iran and Iraq, Pentagon war doctrine was
reconfigured to target Iraq as the next “potential
enemy.” Plans and complex war games for a U.S.
war with Iraq were drafted in 1988, immediately
after the close of the Iran-Iraq war and two
years before Iraq fatefully sent its troops
against the Kuwaiti mon archy in August 1990.
(“The Fire This Time,” Ramsey Clark,
Thundersmouth Press, 1992)
Slogans should be consistently anti-imperialist
The U.S. government represents the interests of
Big Oil and the biggest imperialist banks. It
seeks to dominate the Middle East not to bring
“human rights” and “democracy” but to possess and
profit from the fabulous oil wealth
under the soil.
Iraq has 10 percent of the world’s known oil reserves. Combined with
Saudi
Arabia, Kuwait and Iran, this region contains the largest share of oil
on the
planet.
Effective sanctions of any type, be they for economic or military
commodities,
require the sanctioning countries to position military forces around
the
targeted country so that ships, trucks and airplanes can be interdicted
and
searched. Thus, calling for the United States or UN to maintain
military
sanctions on Iraq provides a political and even “legal” justification
for the
continued military occupation of the Gulf region by U.S. military
forces.
>From a practical point of view, if the demand for U.S./UN economic sanctions
to be replaced by “military sanctions” were realized, it would still
have a
devastating impact on Iraq’s civilian population. The United States
would
claim that almost anything that the civilian economy imports could
also be
used for military applications.
Referring to these items as “dual use” commodities, the United States
has
already halted or postponed 450 out of every 500 contracts that were
approved
by the UN Sanctions Committee under the much touted Oil-for-Food
program.
Washington will use the category of “military sanctions” as a technical
method
to prevent Iraq from acquiring commodities that are essential for
sustaining
civilian economy and human life. For example, the United States has
banned
pencils for schoolchildren because these pencils contain graphite,
which is
also a lubricant. It has banned batteries, X-ray machines and
ambulances
because they could be used in military conflicts.
Iraq is now barred from importing adequate supplies of chlorine to
purify its
water. Why chlorine? It could be used as a component in a chemical
weapon.
Computers too have potential military uses. So importing computers has
been
prohibited for 10 years.
It can only miseducate the broad public about the
real issues in the Middle East if the progressive
movement supports the imperialist powers in
demanding the demilitarization of Iraq. The
movement cannot be consistently progressive
without thoroughly exposing the true dynamics of
imperialist military and political strategy that
tries to re-colonize the Arab people.
International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@...
web: www.iacenter.org
CHECK OUT THE NEW SITE www.mumia2000.org
phone: 212 633-6646
fax: 212 633-2889
---
VERSO NUOVI MASSICCI BOMBARDAMENTI SULL'IRAQ?
http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGIXHWTKGBC.html
Aug 3, 2000 - 11:37 AM
Officer: U.S. Suspects Iraq Has Resumed Arms Program
By Hamza Hendawi
Associated Press Writer
CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - The United States suspects that Iraq has taken
advantage of the absence of U.N. arms inspectors to rebuild its arsenal
of mass-destruction weapons, a senior U.S. officer said Thursday...
Subject: [iac-disc.] ACTION ALERT! - Stop the U.S. from Bombing
Iraq in Aug.!
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:42:48 -0400
From: "Ramsey Kysia" <mbakery@...>
To: Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo.
***please distribute widely***
ACTION ALERT – Stop the U.S. from bombing Iraq in August 2000!
1. Background
2. Mailing Address
3. Sample Letter
BACKGROUND:
On Aug. 6th ‘90, the UN imposed broad, economic
sanctions on Iraq for invading Kuwait. Sanctions were
re-imposed on April 3rd 1991, after the Gulf War, to
force Iraq to destroy its “weapons of mass destruction.”
However, the Gulf War bombings of Iraq’s civilian
infrastructure & the ongoing sanctions blockade have
instead resulted in widespread poverty & skyrocketing
childhood mortality. The UN estimates that between
500,000 & 720,000 children have died because of the
sanctions. According to UNICEF, a child dies every
10 minutes in Iraq due to sanctions.
In Dec. ‘98, a series of confrontations between
UNSCOM weapons inspectors & the Iraqi government
resulted in “Desert Fox,” a U.S. bombing campaign
that killed 10,000 people according to Pentagon
estimates. One month after the bombings, the
Washington Post & the Boston Globe both reported
that Iraq’s main objection to the weapons inspectors,
namely that they U.S. spies, was in fact true. The
ensuing scandal over U.S. infiltration of UNSCOM led
to a year-long deadlock at the UN. In Dec. ‘99, the
Security Council passed (with France, Russia & China
abstaining) Resolution 1284, creating UNMOVIC, a
new inspection team. This team will be ready to begin
new inspections next month.
Since “Desert Fox,” the U.S. has continued regular
bombings of Iraq on the average of 3-4 times a week:
the longest running U.S. air war since Vietnam.
However, both Richard Butler, former head of UNSCOM,
and Scott Ritter, former chief weapons inspector, have
predicted that Iraq’s refusal to allow UNMOVIC into the
country next month will likely create a new crisis that
could result in an intensified U.S. bombing campaign
against Iraq – with thousands of casualties. Says Scott
Ritter, “The new commission, UNMOVIC, will not be
allowed into Iraq in August, three months away from the
election. You have got a Vice-President, Al Gore,
trailing behind in the polls and what better way to appear
tough and switch attention away to a so-called foreign
threat. The UN Security Council did not vote on Desert
Fox and we can expect the same thing to happen again.”
We MUST not let this happen again. Please take a few
minutes to write Sandy Berger, the U.S. National
Security Advisor & Clinton’s principle foreign policy
strategist, & demand that the U.S. stop killing civilians
in Iraq and end sanctions & bombings against Iraq –
rather than increase them.
For more information on a possible August bombing, please visit:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-06/sanction230600.shtml
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-06/saddam230600.shtml
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/World/Middle_East/2000-06/usarms280600.shtml
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j071000.html
For more information on the Iraq crisis, please visit:
http://www.iraqaction.org
(...)
*** Iraq Action Coalition Discussion Forum ***
http://iraqaction.org/discussion.html
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
NOMI E COGNOMI DEGLI HACKERS DI "ANTIWAR.COM"
Sull'episodio si veda anche:
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/354
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j080400.html
Behind the Headlines
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com
August 4, 2000
BOSNIAN CYBERTHUGS HACK ANTIWAR.COM
It was a quiet Sunday, the morning of July 30th, when I logged onto
Antiwar.com and got the
following error message: URL NOT FOUND ON THIS SERVER. Huh? What's up
with that? (...)
SPEAK YOUR MIND
Now that they have been so ignominiously busted, it will be extremely
interesting to see how these cretins react. And you can get a reaction
out of them – by emailing or phoning and telling them directly just what
you think of their unethical and illegal methods of political struggle.
Nedim Dzaferovic (phone) +387 71 264 080 (fax) +387 71 650 211 – e-mail:
nedim@...
Samir Mekic (phone) + 387 71 230 287 (fax) + 387 71 656 280 – e-mail:
Mekic@... (or you can try: mekic@...).
Nihad Borovina (phone) + 387 71 230 285 (fax) + 387 71 656 280 – e-mail:
nihad@...
I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. . . .
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Sull'episodio si veda anche:
http://www.egroups.com/message/crj-mailinglist/354
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/pf/p-j080400.html
Behind the Headlines
by Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com
August 4, 2000
BOSNIAN CYBERTHUGS HACK ANTIWAR.COM
It was a quiet Sunday, the morning of July 30th, when I logged onto
Antiwar.com and got the
following error message: URL NOT FOUND ON THIS SERVER. Huh? What's up
with that? (...)
SPEAK YOUR MIND
Now that they have been so ignominiously busted, it will be extremely
interesting to see how these cretins react. And you can get a reaction
out of them – by emailing or phoning and telling them directly just what
you think of their unethical and illegal methods of political struggle.
Nedim Dzaferovic (phone) +387 71 264 080 (fax) +387 71 650 211 – e-mail:
nedim@...
Samir Mekic (phone) + 387 71 230 287 (fax) + 387 71 656 280 – e-mail:
Mekic@... (or you can try: mekic@...).
Nihad Borovina (phone) + 387 71 230 285 (fax) + 387 71 656 280 – e-mail:
nihad@...
I'm sure they'd love to hear from you. . . .
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
